Thread by @mattadamw

Today is #BiodiversityDay at #COP27.

So what do birds, butterflies, and badgers have to do with climate change?

So here's a 🧵 ↓ full of🦉 🦋 🦡 🌳

Around 18% of global emissions come from agriculture, forestry, and land use.

ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-…

@OurWorldInData

The majority of deforestation is driven by farming, meaning we can't separate nature from farming ourworldindata.org/deforestation

But it's not just forests. Peatlands - wet soils (that are sometimes beneath forests) are critical too. In fact they hold more carbon than the world's forests.

climatecatalyst.org/peatlands

@climatecatalyst

And in a healthy condition all of these habitats absorb carbon, rather than releasing it. It's only when they're damaged or destroyed that they make big climate contributions.

Farming that works with nature ("agro-ecology") can also help farmers cope w/climate impacts

In the UK, a small-ish % of emissions come from the land (forests overall absorb carbon, but UK peatlands are damaged and emitting a bit more, along with farmed fields, leading to an overall (net) release of emissions to the atmosphere). theccc.org.uk/publication/si…

The UK Govt has ambitions to restore nature - esp. peat and trees - and to reward farmers for cutting carbon and producing food more sustainably.

gov.uk/government/pub…

gov.uk/government/pub…

According to a new @wwf report greenhouse gas emissions that ended up in the atmosphere would have been 2x over last 10 years without nature absorbing them

wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_…

Restoring nature provides vital *protection against* climate impacts, at a discount.

Mangroves can help prevent flooding and storm surges, saving lives and homes. They are 2-5x cheaper than engineered flood and sea defences.

gca.org/wp-content/upl…

This adaptation to climate impacts is one of the most important roles of nature in the UK too: rspb.org.uk/globalassets/d…

But a new report suggests countries are betting too much on how much they'll be able to rely on nature (often to avoid cutting emissions from other sectors) as a way to meet emissions goals.

landgap.org

In total they'd need:
- 633 million hectares for reforestation - could be good, could be bad. Could involve taking land out of producing food.
- 551 million hectares restoring natural habitats.

Combined total - 1.2 billion, is the same as all current global cropland.

There's also debate over offsetting rules - some are worried that assuming that removals of carbon by nature are permanent. Climate change impacts like wildfires mean this isn't a safe bet any more. #Article6

At #COP27 many observers, and countries, are asking for the final text to refer to the December UN biodiversity summit.

But some countries are pushing back saying this isn't the done thing. Seems more like convention rather than genuine rationale.

Experts hearing some countries don't want any risk of buck being passed outside this process to other processes.

But if this climate COP refers to the nature one, will give strong signal of need for that one to succeed.

Might also help with getting world leaders there and adding stardust of political gravitas & momentum.

To achieve net zero, the meeting in December needs to be a success and set out ambitious 2030 deal for restoring nature.

China, host of the December nature meeting, could help if it threw weight behind such a reference.