Thread by @Peters_Glen

Come on Tweeps, surely afforestation is a Negative Emission Technology (NET)?

This pole really surprised me, 50% think afforestation is not a NET. Wow. I mean WOW. When did this happen?

1/

Many said they use process, or mechanism, or similar, & prefer Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). This is really coming down to what is a "technology".

Others basically said it is a question of efficacy. Does it work? If not, it is not a NET. I didn't think of that issue.

3/

I could go through numerous articles where afforestation is a NET. IPCC says afforestation is a NET depending on report, more commonly CDR.

Here is one article, just as an example
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…

CDR is a much better term, but afforestation is still a NET... (IMHO)

4/

This discussion started because the title of the paper on the Low Energy Demand (LED) scenario. I have read this paper many times, but never noticed the title. I fell off my chair.

To me, this is wrong. LED does not use CCS, hence no BECCS. It has loads of afforestation.

5/

Deep in the methods, one finds this. Huh? Just define it out? The only mention of afforestation in the article. Forest expansion is mentioned in the main text.

Now I know why so many misunderstand LED & think it has no CDR, despite the fact it has loads!

6/

LED uses quite a bit of land for afforestation, something like 2 India's in terms of area. It is not small.

It also uses quite some bioenergy (just not with CCS), another point of confusion.

S1, another favourite, uses more land than all the others!

7/

I get the impression many downplay the importance of afforestation in scenarios. If you want 1.5C, then you need to engage with CDR, like it or not.

Afforestation is the easiest way to get some CDR, if done correctly, it has multiple co-benefits!

8/

Or is there some political agenda, that CDR is just bad, no matter how it comes about? Or do people want to split nice CDR from bad CDR, like CDR versus SRM (good and bad geoengineering)?

End rant!

9/9