Thread by @Peters_Glen

'Net' emissions are a slippery slope, but we already deal with net emissions. It is not so scary...

In most Annex I countries LULUCF emissions are a net-sink. The sink is mainly forest regrowth & recovery.

Net emissions have been here since 1990, at least...

1/

In the EU, most of the sink is increased uptake in existing forests, there is a small part of afforestation (dark green). There are also emission sources, such as from grasslands & new settlements.

Maintaining the sink over time (with climate impacts) could be hard.

2/

The EU27 now includes the land sink (LULUCF) in its climate targets.

Perhaps this is good? It forces the EU to maintain & expand its sink.

Perhaps this is bad? The EU can now have 'net-zero' emissions in 2050 (though, studies suggest this is mainly agricultural)

3/

If some countries include their sink (LULUCF) they are already nearly net-zero GHG emissions. This is Sweden...

[Sweden, as far as I know, is not planning to use the sink in this way]

4/

Globally, net land-use change emissions are the balance of a very big source (deforestation) & sinks (mainly reforestation).

There is a huge sink potentially globally, by stopping deforestation & enhancing sinks.

This is a net concept...

5/

While I know & understand many really dislike 'net', it is here to stay. Being more explicit on 'net' gives a better opportunity to discuss land-use change (deforestation & afforestation), enhancing sinks, etc.

6/

Most don't like 'net' as they think it is a license to burn fossil fuels. That is the 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐞 of 'net'. It also relates to use of large-scale carbon dioxide removal in scenarios, industries use of 'offsets', etc. These are different issues.

/end