New Nature paper: Yearly emissions from global wood consumption likely to avg 3.5-4.2 billion tons of CO2e for next three decades. Equals 10% of annual CO2 emissions. = deforestation from ag. But mostly ignored by science & policy. Consump to grow 54%. nature.com/articles/s4158…
Emissions depend on different scenarios of wood supply and use for energy. Emissions mostly ignored because many LCAs and sci. papers incorrectly net effects of new harvests against growing forests elsewhere. They would grow anyway so does not reduce effect of new harvests.
See also summary blog. Bad news: emissions will grow to 5 Gt by 2050 without mitigation. Good news: more efficient harvesting & production + less use of wood for energy would allow forests to grow more and hold down climate change. wri.org/insights/wood-…
New model with more detail than prior model. It also credits forest regrowth and lasting wood in furniture, roots etc. Climate "cost" is the greater warming for many, many decades. Applies diff. discount rates to assign costs to this added warming, but result similar.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
WRI has a paper out today comparing GHG cost of pork and dairy across countries. Costs include the lost carbon storage on ag land used. Land use costs are dominant, so one lesson: Reducing the amount of land used really matters! wri.org/publication/co…
Another lesson: Both pork emissions and dairy emissions across developed agricultural countries are pretty similar. Only 9% difference in emissions across pork of 8 of 11 countries analyzed. So getting big reductions in the future requires innovations. wri.org/publication/co…
Another lesson: What matters most is how much of the world’s productive land your pork or dairy uses. Much less, where the feed comes from. In a world with fixed land and expanding food demand, keeping down your ag footprint keeps down global footprint. wri.org/publication/co…