🚨Climate pathways to 1.5°C increasingly depend on land-intensive carbon dioxide removal (#CDR) like forestation and BECCS.
But new research shows these climate solutions could place major pressure on #biodiversity if deployed without safeguards.
Details🧵1/11
But new research shows these climate solutions could place major pressure on #biodiversity if deployed without safeguards.
Details🧵1/11
2/ Using five integrated assessment models, the study examines where large-scale CDR is projected to occur & and how often it overlaps with biodiversity hotspots and climate refugia, the places most critical for species survival.
3/ The analysis focuses on a moderate but realistic deployment level of 6 GtCO₂ per year:
• 3 GtCO₂/yr from forestation
• 3 GtCO₂/yr from BECCS
Even at this level, land pressures are already significant.
• 3 GtCO₂/yr from forestation
• 3 GtCO₂/yr from BECCS
Even at this level, land pressures are already significant.
4/ In scenarios aligned with 1.5°C, models allocate up to 13% of global areas of high biodiversity importance to land-intensive CDR such as forestation and bioenergy crops.
5/ Around 11% of remaining climate refugia - areas resilient to peak warming - overlap with forestation, while ~4% overlap with BECCS in 1.5°C pathways. These are ecosystems species depend on as the climate changes.
6/ Crucially, the risk isn’t CDR per se, but how and where it is deployed.
Avoided warming from forestation and BECCS could reduce warming-related climate refugia loss by up to ~25%, but this gain is offset when refugia are directly converted for CDR deployment.
Avoided warming from forestation and BECCS could reduce warming-related climate refugia loss by up to ~25%, but this gain is offset when refugia are directly converted for CDR deployment.
7/ The burden is also uneven.
The models allocate up to 15% of biodiversity-relevant land in low and middle-income countries (despite their lower historical emissions, raising equity & governance concerns) to forest-based CDR, compared to just 7% in wealthy countries.
The models allocate up to 15% of biodiversity-relevant land in low and middle-income countries (despite their lower historical emissions, raising equity & governance concerns) to forest-based CDR, compared to just 7% in wealthy countries.
8/ What if biodiversity were fully protected?
The authors test this, and find that over 50% (median) of land allocated for forestation and BECCS would be unavailable by 2050 if current biodiversity hotspots were excluded.
The authors test this, and find that over 50% (median) of land allocated for forestation and BECCS would be unavailable by 2050 if current biodiversity hotspots were excluded.
9/ Crucially, these land constraints emerge as early as 2030, meaning conflicts between climate mitigation and biodiversity protection are not a future risk, they’re imminent.
10/ However, the paper also identifies pathways for synergy:
Prioritising degraded lands, avoiding intact ecosystems, diversifying CDR portfolios, and embedding biodiversity constraints directly into climate models.
Prioritising degraded lands, avoiding intact ecosystems, diversifying CDR portfolios, and embedding biodiversity constraints directly into climate models.
🗓️For more details, read the study entitled "Biodiversity implications of land-intensive carbon dioxide removal" here:
🧵11/11 #CDR #Biodiversity #BECCS #Reforestationnature.com/articles/s4155…
🧵11/11 #CDR #Biodiversity #BECCS #Reforestationnature.com/articles/s4155…
"unroll" @threadreaderapp
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
