|
|
|
|
|
|
by dspoka
1405 days ago
|
|
|
My main qualm with the parent comment was this in particular, "Number one, is that forests work as long term carbon storage and sinks." Even with the surrounding context it sounded like this strategy will just "work". The example you give with mangroves is a great one which does in fact work. Pragmatically and historically most of the attempts however, have not due to mismanagement and other unseen complications. Seeing the further comments I see the point the parent was making is more around first principles of Forrests as carbon sinks not about its implementations. |
|
|
You need to cite this if you are going to keep making that statement. I'm not arguing that markets are well implemented, that common practice is well defined or even very useful, or that we're even prioritizing for the right outcomes, but the notion that forests don't sequester carbon over significant time horizons is 100% false. Global forests represent the most significant, straightforward opportunity for removing carbon from the atmosphere, no debate. Yes we need to do better at managing them from a climate change perspective (good fire, biodiversity, water), but there is simply no better option right now for doing any kind of meaningful drawdown of carbon from the atmosphere than forests.