Approaching an individual methotrexate regimen in leptomeningeal carcinomatosis

M. Huber,Mirjam Nolting,S. Bauer,S. Leistner,U. Schmitz,S. Seyfert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2005.04.015

2005-09-15

Journal of Neurological Sciences

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Natural climate solutions provide robust carbon mitigation capacity under future climate change scenarios

David C Marvin,Benjamin M Sleeter,D Richard Cameron,Erik Nelson,Andrew J Plantinga

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43118-6

2023-11-03

Abstract:Natural climate solutions (NCS) are recognized as an important tool for governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and remove atmospheric carbon dioxide. Using California as a globally relevant reference, we evaluate the magnitude of biological climate mitigation potential from NCS starting in 2020 under four climate change scenarios. By mid-century NCS implementation leads to a large increase in net carbon stored, flipping the state from a net source to a net sink in two scenarios. Forest and conservation land management strategies make up 85% of all NCS emissions reductions by 2050, with agricultural strategies accounting for the remaining 15%. The most severe climate change impacts on ecosystem carbon materialize in the latter half of the century with three scenarios resulting in California ecosystems becoming a net source of carbon emissions under a baseline trajectory. However, NCS provide a strong attenuating effect, reducing land carbon emissions 41-54% by 2100 with total costs of deployment of 752-777 million USD annually through 2050. Rapid implementation of a portfolio of NCS interventions provides long-term investment in protecting ecosystem carbon in the face of climate change driven disturbances. This open-source, spatially-explicit framework can help evaluate risks to NCS carbon storage stability, implementation costs, and overall mitigation potential for NCS at jurisdictional scales.
The global potential for increased storage of carbon on land

Wayne S Walker,Seth R Gorelik,Susan C Cook-Patton,Alessandro Baccini,Mary K Farina,Kylen K Solvik,Peter W Ellis,Jon Sanderman,Richard A Houghton,Sara M Leavitt,Christopher R Schwalm,Bronson W Griscom

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111312119

2022-06-07

Abstract:Constraining the climate crisis requires urgent action to reduce anthropogenic emissions while simultaneously removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Improved information about the maximum magnitude and spatial distribution of opportunities for additional land-based removals of CO2 is needed to guide on-the-ground decision-making about where to implement climate change mitigation strategies. Here, we present a globally consistent spatial dataset (approximately 500-m resolution) of current, potential, and unrealized potential carbon storage in woody plant biomass and soil organic matter. We also provide a framework for prioritizing actions related to the restoration, management, and maintenance of woody carbon stocks and associated soils. By comparing current to potential carbon storage, while excluding areas critical to food production and human habitation, we find 287 petagrams (PgC) of unrealized potential storage opportunity, of which 78% (224 PgC) is in biomass and 22% (63 PgC) is in soil. Improved management of existing forests may offer nearly three-fourths (206 PgC) of the total unrealized potential, with the majority (71%) concentrated in tropical ecosystems. However, climate change is a source of considerable uncertainty. While additional research is needed to understand the impact of natural disturbances and biophysical feedbacks, we project that the potential for additional carbon storage in woody biomass will increase (+17%) by 2050 despite projected decreases (−12%) in the tropics. Our results establish an absolute reference point and conceptual framework for national and jurisdictional prioritization of locations and actions to increase land-based carbon storage.
Climate mitigation potential of natural climate solutions and clean energy on The Nature Conservancy properties in California, USA

Kristen N. Wilson,Daniel W. Salzer,Michelle C. Passero

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311195

IF: 3.7

2024-10-22

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Natural climate solutions (NCS) and transitioning to clean energy can reduce greenhouse gases and contribute to mitigating climate change. Private landowners with large holdings, such as conservation organizations like The Nature Conservancy, have set ambitious goals to reduce net emissions and increase sequestration on their lands by implementing NCS. We assessed the potential carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) reduction from feasible NCS, specifically implementing new restoration and agricultural management activities, and transitions to clean energy on The Nature Conservancy, California chapter's fee-owned and conservation easement properties. We compared the total CO2e reduction from potential new NCS activities to the impact from ongoing NCS activities, the chapter's 2030 goal, and the state's reduction goal for natural and working lands to understand how the organization can contribute to climate mitigation. We found that implementing NCS on 37 fee-owned properties (63,175 MTCO2e year –1) and clean energy on 10 fee-owned properties (488 MTCO2e year –1) combined would not reach the chapter's 2030 goal (72,000 MTCO 2 e year –1), and there can be tradeoffs between maximizing CO2e reduction and protecting conservation values. However, ongoing changes to forest management on a single conservation easement property, where another non-profit harvests timber and sells carbon credits, currently contributes 147,749 MTCO2e year –1, more than two times the 2030 goal and representing 7.4% of the state's annual goal. Our results suggest that The Nature Conservancy, California chapter would need to implement NCS on some of the conservation easements or consider future land protection deals with carbon rich ecosystems or high impact NCS to reach their CO2e reduction goal.

multidisciplinary sciences
National mitigation potential from natural climate solutions in the tropics

Bronson W. Griscom,Jonah Busch,Susan C. Cook-Patton,Peter W. Ellis,Jason Funk,Sara M. Leavitt,Guy Lomax,Will R. Turner,Melissa Chapman,Jens Engelmann,Noel P. Gurwick,Emily Landis,Deborah Lawrence,Yadvinder Malhi,Lisa Schindler Murray,Diego Navarrete,Stephanie Roe,Sabrina Scull,Pete Smith,Charlotte Streck,Wayne S. Walker,Thomas Worthington

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0126

2020-01-27

Abstract:Better land stewardship is needed to achieve the Paris Agreement's temperature goal, particularly in the tropics, where greenhouse gas emissions from the destruction of ecosystems are largest, and where the potential for additional land carbon storage is greatest. As countries enhance their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Agreement, confusion persists about the potential contribution of better land stewardship to meeting the Agreement's goal to hold global warming below 2°C. We assess cost-effective tropical country-level potential of natural climate solutions (NCS)—protection, improved management and restoration of ecosystems—to deliver climate mitigation linked with sustainable development goals (SDGs). We identify groups of countries with distinctive NCS portfolios, and we explore factors (governance, financial capacity) influencing the feasibility of unlocking national NCS potential. Cost-effective tropical NCS offers globally significant climate mitigation in the coming decades (6.56 Pg CO 2 e yr −1 at less than 100 US$ per Mg CO 2 e). In half of the tropical countries, cost-effective NCS could mitigate over half of national emissions. In more than a quarter of tropical countries, cost-effective NCS potential is greater than national emissions. We identify countries where, with international financing and political will, NCS can cost-effectively deliver the majority of enhanced NDCs while transforming national economies and contributing to SDGs. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions’.
Model-based scenarios for achieving net negative emissions in the food system

Maya Almaraz,Benjamin Z. Houlton,Michael Clark,Iris Holzer,Yanqiu Zhou,Laura Rasmussen,Emily Moberg,Erin Manaigo,Benjamin S. Halpern,Courtney Scarborough,Xin Gen Lei,Melissa Ho,Edward Allison,Lindiwe Sibanda,Andrew Salter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000181

2023-09-07

PLOS Climate

Abstract:Most climate mitigation scenarios point to a combination of GHG emission reductions and CO 2 removal for avoiding the most dangerous climate change impacts this century. The global food system is responsible for ~1/3 of GHG emissions and thus plays an important role in reaching emission targets. Consumers, technology innovation, industry, and agricultural practices offer various degrees of opportunity to reduce emissions and remove CO 2 . However, a question remains as to whether food system transformation can achieve net negative emissions (i.e., where GHG sinks exceed sources sector wide) and what the capacity of the different levers may be. We use a global food system model to explore the influence of consumer choice, climate-smart agro-industrial technologies, and food waste reductions for achieving net negative emissions for the year 2050. We analyze an array of scenarios under the conditions of full yield gap closures and caloric demands in a world with 10 billion people. Our results reveal a high-end capacity of 33 gigatonnes of net negative emissions per annum via complete food system transformation, which assumes full global deployment of behavioral-, management- and technology-based interventions. The most promising technologies for achieving net negative emissions include hydrogen-powered fertilizer production, livestock feeds, organic and inorganic soil amendments, agroforestry, and sustainable seafood harvesting practices. On the consumer side, adopting flexitarian diets cannot achieve full decarbonization of the food system but has the potential to increase the magnitude of net negative emissions when combined with technology scale-up. GHG reductions ascribed to a mixture of technology deployment and dietary shifts emerge for many different countries, with areas of high ruminant production and non-intensive agricultural systems showing the greatest per capita benefits. This analysis highlights potential for future food systems to achieve net negative emissions using multifaceted "cradle-to-grave" and "land-to-sea" emission reduction strategies that embrace emerging climate-smart agro-industrial technologies.
Biophysical and Economic Constraints on China’s Natural Climate Solutions

Nan Lu,Hanqin Tian,Bojie Fu,Huiqian Yu,Shilong Piao,Shiyin Chen,Ya Li,Xiaoyong Li,Mengyu Wang,Zidong Li,Lu Zhang,Philippe Ciais,Pete Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01432-3

IF: 30.7

2022-01-01

Nature Climate Change

Abstract:Natural climate solutions (NCS) are strategies for climate mitigation in the land sector that increase carbon storage or avoid GHG emissions. Here we estimate China’s historic NCS mitigation at 0.6 (0.5–0.7) PgCO2e yr−1 (95% CI) during 2000–2020 (8% of fossil CO2 emissions in the contemporary period). Through new NCS activities, the future maximum potential for NCS is projected at 0.6 (0.3–1.0) PgCO2e yr−1 (6% of fossil CO2 emissions) during 2020–2030 and 1.0 (0.6–1.4) PgCO2e yr−1 during 2020–2060. Of the future NCS potentials, 26–31%, 62–65% and 90–91% can be achieved at mitigation costs of US$10, US$50 and US$100 (MgCO2e)−1, respectively. Thus, NCS can contribute substantially to China’s Nationally Determined Contributions over the next 10 to 40 years but require a national strategy to reach climate goals and ensure co-benefits for people and nature. Managing natural systems to mitigation climate change is a key strategy for limiting warming. In China, such natural climate solutions could offset 6% of CO2 emissions during 2020–2030, contributing to mitigation goals but highlighting the importance of emissions reductions.
A generalizable framework for enhanced natural climate solutions

Lucas C. R. Silva,Mary C. Wood,Bart R. Johnson,Michael R. Coughlan,Heather Brinton,Krista McGuire,Scott D. Bridgham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05472-8

IF: 4.993

2022-06-19

Plant and Soil

Abstract:The natural removal of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from the atmosphere through land conservation, restoration, and management is receiving increasing attention as a scalable approach for climate change mitigation. However, different land-use sectors compete for resources and incentives within and across geopolitical regions, resulting in divergent goals and inefficient prioritization of CO 2 removal efforts. Thus, a unifying framework is needed to accelerate basic research and coordinated interventions to accelerate climate change mitigation.

plant sciences,soil science,agronomy
Fast action on short-lived climate pollutants and nature-based solutions to help countries meet carbon neutrality goals

Xiaopu SUN,Pu WANG,Tad FERRIS,Hui LIN,Gabrielle DREYFUS,Bai-He GU,Durwood ZAELKE,Yi WANG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2022.06.003

IF: 4.746

2022-08-01

Advances in Climate Change Research

Abstract:Scientific studies show that fast actions to reduce near-term warming are essential to slowing self-reinforcing climate feedbacks and avoiding irreversible tipping points. Yet cutting CO2 emissions only marginally impacts near-term warming. This study identifies two of the most effective mitigation strategies to limit near-term warming beyond CO2 mitigation, namely reducing short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) and promoting targeted nature-based solutions (NbS), and comprehensively reviews the latest scientific progress in these fields. Studies show that quickly reducing SLCP emissions, particularly hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), methane, and black carbon, from all relevant sectors can avoid up to 0.6 °C of warming by 2050. Additionally, promoting targeted NbS that protect and enhance natural carbon sinks, including in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands, can avoid emissions of 23.8 Gt of CO2e per year in 2030, without jeopardizing food security and biodiversity. Based on the scientific evidence, we provided a series of policy recommendations on SLCPs and NbS, including: 1) implementing the Kigali Amendment to reduce HFC emissions; 2) deploying cost-effective, sector-based measures to reduce methane and black carbon emissions; and 3) implementing targeted NbS to protect and enhance existing carbon sinks and shifting away from forest-burning bioenergy. These fast-acting strategies on SLCPs and NbS will play a key role in securing the most avoided warming in the near-term and help countries meet their mid-century carbon neutrality goals. Finally, we proposed future research topics, including: improving measurement and monitoring systems and techniques for SLCP emissions; developing and improving assessments of marginal abatement costs for SLCP mitigation in different sectors; better quantifying the avoided warming potential from protecting different types of natural carbon sinks by 2030, 2050, and over longer periods; and identifying whether there are any biomass types for energy sources that are consistent with the United Nations Environment Assembly's 2022 resolution adopting a definition of NbS. Further research in these areas could help address barriers to adoption and assist countries with better integrating the most effective SLCP and NbS strategies into their climate policies.

environmental sciences,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
The potential of nature-based solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from US agriculture

Thomas L. Daniels

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-022-00120-y

2022-08-04

Socio-Ecological Practice Research

Abstract:Climate change is the main environmental challenge of the twenty-first century. The United States is the world’s second-largest producer of annual greenhouse gases (GHGs), and agriculture contributes about 10% of the USA’s emissions. This study evaluates the literature and potential of nature-based solutions to reduce GHG emissions from US agriculture, which has been characterized as “industrial agriculture.” The US experience has global relevance. Nature-based solutions in US agriculture include: (1) changing the crops and livestock that farmers produce; (2) changing how farmers grow food by using regenerative or climate-smart agriculture practices, such as soil and water conservation and improved manure and fertilizer management to build up soil carbon and enhance productivity; (3) changing where food is grown; (4) enabling the sale of carbon offset credits from farmland owners to GHG emitters; and (5) enabling the sale of development rights by farmland owners to “preserve” farmland for agricultural uses and avoid the conversion of farmland to residential and commercial development. The potential reductions in GHG emissions from nature-based solutions appear to be 40–50%. So, nature-based solutions will not eliminate all GHGs from US agriculture. But the reduction in methane and nitrous oxide are especially important. The global challenge is how to profitably produce more food to feed a growing population while sustainably reducing GHGs and improving soil carbon health within a changing climate.
The spatiotemporal domains of natural climate solutions research and strategies for implementation in the Pacific Northwest, USA

Oriana E. Chafe,Adrian P. Broz,Eric S. Levenson,Michael D. Farinacci,Riley O. Anderson,Lucas C. R. Silva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2024.1273632

2024-02-14

Frontiers in Climate

Abstract:Natural climate solutions have been proposed as a way to mitigate climate change by removing CO 2 and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and increasing carbon storage in ecosystems. The adoption of such practices is required at large spatial and temporal scales, which means that local implementation across different land use and conservation sectors must be coordinated at landscape and regional levels. Here, we describe the spatiotemporal domains of research in the field of climate solutions and, as a first approximation, we use the Pacific Northwest (PNW) of the United States as a model system to evaluate the potential for coordinated implementations. By combining estimates of soil organic carbon stocks and CO 2 fluxes with projected changes in climate, we show how land use may be prioritized to improve carbon drawdown and permanence across multiple sectors at local to regional scales. Our consideration of geographical context acknowledges some of the ecological and social challenges of climate change mitigation efforts for the implementation of scalable solutions.
Counterfactual scenarios reveal historical impact of cropland management on soil organic carbon stocks in the United States

Stephen M. Ogle,F. Jay Breidt,Stephen Del Grosso,Ram Gurung,Ernie Marx,Shannon Spencer,Stephen Williams,Dale Manning

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41307-x

IF: 4.6

2023-09-06

Scientific Reports

Abstract:Natural climate solutions provide opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the United States is among a growing number of countries promoting storage of carbon in agricultural soils as part of the climate solution. Historical patterns of soil organic carbon (SOC) stock changes provide context about mitigation potential. Therefore, our objective was to quantify the influence of climate-smart soil practices on SOC stock changes in the top 30 cm of mineral soils for croplands in the United States using the DayCent Ecosystem Model. We estimated that SOC stocks increased annually in US croplands from 1995 to 2015, with the largest increase in 1996 of 16.6 Mt C (95% confidence interval ranging from 6.1 to 28.2 Mt CO 2 eq.) and the lowest increase in 2015 of 10.6 Mt C (95% confidence interval ranging from − 1.8 to 22.2 Mt C). Most climate-smart soil practices contributed to increases in SOC stocks except for winter cover crops, which had a negligible impact due to a relatively small area with cover crop adoption. Our study suggests that there is potential for enhancing C sinks in cropland soils of the United States although some of the potential has been realized due to past adoption of climate-smart soil practices.

multidisciplinary sciences
A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States

Duncan C. McKinley,Michael G. Ryan,Richard A. Birdsey,Christian P. Giardina,Mark E. Harmon,Linda S. Heath,Richard A. Houghton,Robert B. Jackson,James F. Morrison,Brian C. Murray,Diane E. Pataki,Kenneth E. Skog

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/10-0697.1

IF: 6.105

2011-09-01

Ecological Applications

Abstract:Using forests to mitigate climate change has gained much interest in science and policy discussions. We examine the evidence for carbon benefits, environmental and monetary costs, risks and trade-offs for a variety of activities in three general strategies: (1) land use change to increase forest area (afforestation) and avoid deforestation; (2) carbon management in existing forests; and (3) the use of wood as biomass energy, in place of other building materials, or in wood products for carbon storage. We found that many strategies can increase forest sector carbon mitigation above the current 162-256 Tg C/yr, and that many strategies have co-benefits such as biodiversity, water, and economic opportunities. Each strategy also has trade-offs, risks, and uncertainties including possible leakage, permanence, disturbances, and climate change effects. Because approximately 60% of the carbon lost through deforestation and harvesting from 1700 to 1935 has not yet been recovered and because some strategies store carbon in forest products or use biomass energy, the biological potential for forest sector carbon mitigation is large. Several studies suggest that using these strategies could offset as much as 10-20% of current U.S. fossil fuel emissions. To obtain such large offsets in the United States would require a combination of afforesting up to one-third of cropland or pastureland, using the equivalent of about one-half of the gross annual forest growth for biomass energy, or implementing more intensive management to increase forest growth on one-third of forestland. Such large offsets would require substantial trade-offs, such as lower agricultural production and non-carbon ecosystem services from forests. The effectiveness of activities could be diluted by negative leakage effects and increasing disturbance regimes. Because forest carbon loss contributes to increasing climate risk and because climate change may impede regeneration following disturbance, avoiding deforestation and promoting regeneration after disturbance should receive high priority as policy considerations. Policies to encourage programs or projects that influence forest carbon sequestration and offset fossil fuel emissions should also consider major items such as leakage, the cyclical nature of forest growth and regrowth, and the extensive demand for and movement of forest products globally, and other greenhouse gas effects, such as methane and nitrous oxide emissions, and recognize other environmental benefits of forests, such as biodiversity, nutrient management, and watershed protection. Activities that contribute to helping forests adapt to the effects of climate change, and which also complement forest carbon storage strategies, would be prudent.

environmental sciences,ecology
Greenhouse gas mitigation on croplands: clarifying the debate on knowns, unknowns and risks to move forward with effective management interventions

Emily E. Oldfield Jocelyn M. Lavallee Jennifer Blesh Mark A. Bradford Micah Cameron-Harp M. Francesca Cotrufo Alison J. Eagle Lisa Eash Rebecca J. Even Sara E. Kuebbing Eric A. Kort Tyler J. Lark Catharina Latka Yang Lin Megan B. Machmuller Brendan O'Neill Anna M. Raffeld Taniya RoyChowdhury Joseph Rudek Jonathan Sanderman Christine D. Sprunger Theodore P. Toombs Nazli Uludere Aragon Marti Vidal Dominic Woolf Tamara J. Zelikova Doria R. Gordon a Environmental Defense Fund,Néw York,NY,USAb School for Environment and Sustainability,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor,MI,USAc The Forest School,Yale School of the Environment & Yale Center for Natural Carbon Capture,Yale University,New Haven,CT,USAd Department of Agricultural Economics,Kansas State University,Manhattan,KS,USAe Department of Soil and Crop Sciences,Colorado State University,Fort Collins,CO,USAf Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor,MI,USAg Nelson Institute Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment,University of WI-Madison,Madison,WI,USAh Environmental Markets Lab (emLab),University of California,Santa Barbara,CA,USAi High Meadows Environmental Institute,Princeton University,Princeton,NJ,USAj Department of Soil,Water,and Ecosystem Sciences,University of Florida,Gainesville,FL,USAk Woodwell Climate Research Center,Falmouth,MA,USAl W.K. Kellogg Biological Station,Department of Plant,Soil,and Microbial Sciences,and Plant Resilience Institute,Michigan State University,East Lansing,MI,USAm Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group (NTSG),University of Montana,Missoula,MT,USAn Plant Production Systems Group,Wageningen University and Research,Wageningen,Netherlandso School of Integrative Plant Sciences,Cornell University,Ithaca,NY,USAp Department of Biology,University of Florida,Gainesville,FL,USA

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2024.2365896

2024-06-25

Carbon Management

Abstract:The opportunity of agricultural management practices to sequester soil organic carbon (SOC) is recognized as an important strategy for mitigating climate change. However, there is low confidence when it comes to understanding the magnitude of the climate benefit we can expect from SOC sequestration or how best to achieve it. Several issues are often confounded when it comes to the mitigation potential of SOC sequestration and greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions from agriculture, creating confusion and making it difficult to clearly identify the knowns, unknowns and risks to implementing policy and practice recommendations. Here, we identify and explain four major areas of uncertainty: (1) the expected changes in soil carbon or GHG emissions resulting from agricultural management practice changes; (2) the extent to which social, environmental and economic factors constrain mitigation potential; (3) the ability to execute reliable measurement, monitoring, reporting and verification (MMRV) frameworks; and (4) the perception of risk associated with different ways of promoting practice adoption (e.g., voluntary carbon markets fueled by the private sector, pay-for-practice programs funded by public investment). We aim to pinpoint knowledge gaps and areas of disagreement to help right-size expectations and guide effective investment in GHG removals and reductions from agriculture.

environmental sciences,environmental studies
The role of soil carbon in natural climate solutions

D. A. Bossio,S. C. Cook-Patton,P. W. Ellis,J. Fargione,J. Sanderman,P. Smith,S. Wood,R. J. Zomer,M. von Unger,I. M. Emmer,B. W. Griscom

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0491-z

IF: 27.6

2020-03-16

Nature Sustainability

Abstract:<p>Nature Sustainability, Published online: 16 March 2020; <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0491-z">doi:10.1038/s41893-020-0491-z</a></p>Diverse strategies are needed to mitigate climate change. This study finds that storing carbon in soils represents 25% of land-based potential, of which 60% must come from rebuilding depleted carbon stores.

environmental sciences,environmental studies,green & sustainable science & technology
Protect, manage and then restore lands for climate mitigation

Susan C. Cook-Patton,C. Ronnie Drever,Bronson W. Griscom,Kelley Hamrick,Hamilton Hardman,Timm Kroeger,Pablo Pacheco,Shyla Raghav,Martha Stevenson,Chris Webb,Samantha Yeo,Peter W. Ellis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01198-0

IF: 30.7

2021-11-18

Nature Climate Change

Abstract:Limited time and resources remain to constrain the climate crisis. Natural climate solutions represent promising options to protect, manage and restore natural lands for additional climate mitigation, but they differ in (1) the magnitude and (2) immediacy of mitigation potential, as well as (3) cost-effectiveness and (4) the co-benefits they offer. Counter to an emerging preference for restoration, we use these four criteria to propose a general rule of thumb to protect, manage and then restore lands, but also show how these criteria explain alternative prioritization and portfolio schemes. This hierarchy offers a decision-making framework for public and private sector actors to optimize the effectiveness of natural climate solutions in an environment in which resources are constrained, and time is short.

environmental sciences,environmental studies,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
How large is the mitigation potential of natural climate solutions in China?

Daju Wang,Yuanqiao Li,Jiangzhou Xia,Changxin Liu,Han Chen,Fei Teng,Bin He,Weiyu Shi,Zhangcai Qin,Wenping Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acaa47

IF: 6.7

2023-01-01

Environmental Research Letters

Abstract:China is facing a huge challenge in achieving its carbon neutrality goal by 2060 given that it is currently one of the world's largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters and has set a very short timeline for going from peak emissions to carbon neutrality. Natural climate solutions (NCS) that protect, manage, and restore ecosystems have shown substantial potential for increasing carbon sinks or reducing GHG emissions to offset fossil fuel CO2 emissions. This study quantified the mitigation potential of 18 NCS pathways in China at 0.67-1.65 Gigatonne of CO2 equivalent (Gt CO(2)e) yr(-1) averaged from 2020 to 2060, which is even larger than the size of the current national terrestrial carbon sink. Compared with a previous global estimate, our results show a lower mitigation potential in forest ecosystems but a much greater potential for cropland ecosystems in China. From 2020 to 2060, all 18 pathways combined can provide cost-effective mitigation compared to the global social cost of CO2 emission and carbon prices, and 98.6% and 83.3% mitigation potential are cost-effective, respectively. This study further showed that immediate action provides the greatest mitigation. Our estimates highlight the important role of NCS in achieving the national carbon neutrality goal because of their large mitigation potential and cost-effectiveness.
Large climate mitigation potential from adding trees to agricultural lands

Melissa Chapman,Wayne S. Walker,Susan C. Cook‐Patton,Peter W. Ellis,Mary Farina,Bronson W. Griscom,Alessandro Baccini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15121

IF: 11.6

2020-06-02

Global Change Biology

Abstract:<p>While improved management of agricultural landscapes is promoted as a promising natural climate solution, available estimates of the mitigation potential are based on coarse assessments of both agricultural extent and aboveground carbon density. Here we combine 30‐meter resolution global maps of aboveground woody carbon, tree cover, and cropland extent, as well as a 1‐km resolution map of global pasture land, to estimate the current and potential carbon storage of trees in nonforested portions of agricultural lands. We find that global crop lands currently store 3.07 Pg of carbon (C) in aboveground woody biomass (i.e., trees) and pasture lands account for an additional 3.86 Pg C across a combined 3.76 billion ha. We then estimate the climate mitigation potential of multiple scenarios of integration and avoided loss of trees in crop and pasture lands based on region‐specific biomass distributions. We evaluate our findings in the context of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and find that the majority of potential carbon storage from integration and avoided loss of trees in crop and pasture lands is in countries that do not identify agroforestry as a climate mitigation technique.</p>

environmental sciences,biodiversity conservation,ecology
The principles of natural climate solutions

Peter Woods Ellis,Aaron Marr Page,Stephen Wood,Joseph Fargione,Yuta J. Masuda,Vanessa Carrasco Denney,Campbell Moore,Timm Kroeger,Bronson Griscom,Jonathan Sanderman,Tyson Atleo,Rane Cortez,Sara Leavitt,Susan C. Cook-Patton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-44425-2

IF: 16.6

2024-01-25

Nature Communications

Abstract:Natural climate solutions can mitigate climate change in the near-term, during a climate-critical window. Yet, persistent misunderstandings about what constitutes a natural climate solution generate unnecessary confusion and controversy, thereby delaying critical mitigation action. Based on a review of scientific literature and best practices, we distill five foundational principles of natural climate solutions (nature-based, sustainable, climate-additional, measurable, and equitable) and fifteen operational principles for practical implementation. By adhering to these principles, practitioners can activate effective and durable natural climate solutions, enabling the rapid and wide-scale adoption necessary to meaningfully contribute to climate change mitigation.

multidisciplinary sciences
A Strong Mitigation Scenario Maintains Climate Neutrality of Northern Peatlands

Chunjing Qiu,Philippe Ciais,Dan Zhu,Bertrand Guenet,Jinfeng Chang,Nitin Chaudhary,Thomas Kleinen,XinYu Li,Jurek Muller,Yi Xi,Wenxin Zhang,Ashley Ballantyne,Simon C. Brewer,Victor Brovkin,Dan J. Charman,Adrian Gustafson,Angela Gallego-Sala,Thomas Gasser,Joseph Holden,Fortunat Joos,Min Jung Kwon,Ronny Lauerwald,Paul A. Miller,Shushi Peng,Susan Page,Benjamin Smith,Benjamin D. Stocker,A. Britta K. Sannel,Elodie Salmon,Guy Schurgers,Narasinha J. Shurpali,David Warlind,Sebastian Westermann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.12.008

IF: 14.944

2022-01-01

One Earth

Abstract:Northern peatlands store 300–600 Pg C, of which approximately half are underlain by permafrost. Climate warming and, in some regions, soil drying from enhanced evaporation are progressively threatening this large carbon stock. Here, we assess future CO2 and CH4 fluxes from northern peatlands using five land surface models that explicitly include representation of peatland processes. Under Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) 2.6, northern peatlands are projected to remain a net sink of CO2 and climate neutral for the next three centuries. A shift to a net CO2 source and a substantial increase in CH4 emissions are projected under RCP8.5, which could exacerbate global warming by 0.21°C (range, 0.09–0.49°C) by the year 2300. The true warming impact of peatlands might be higher owing to processes not simulated by the models and direct anthropogenic disturbance. Our study highlights the importance of understanding how future warming might trigger high carbon losses from northern peatlands.
Creating Strategic Reserves to Protect Forest Carbon and Reduce Biodiversity Losses in the United States

Beverly E. Law,William R. Moomaw,Tara W. Hudiburg,William H. Schlesinger,John D. Sterman,George M. Woodwell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050721

IF: 3.905

2022-05-12

Land

Abstract:This paper provides a review and comparison of strategies to increase forest carbon, and reduce species losses for climate change mitigation and adaptation in the United States. It compares forest management strategies and actions that are taking place or being proposed to reduce wildfire risk and to increase carbon storage with recent research findings. International agreements state that safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystems is fundamental to climate resilience with respect to climate change impacts on them, and their roles in adaptation and mitigation. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on impacts, mitigation, and adaptation found, and member countries agreed, that maintaining the resilience of biodiversity and ecosystem services at a global scale is "fundamental" for climate mitigation and adaptation, and requires "effective and equitable conservation of approximately 30 to 50% of Earth's land, freshwater and ocean areas, including current near-natural ecosystems." Our key message is that many of the current and proposed forest management actions in the United States are not consistent with climate goals, and that preserving 30 to 50% of lands for their carbon, biodiversity and water is feasible, effective, and necessary for achieving them.

environmental studies

Approaching an individual methotrexate regimen in leptomeningeal carcinomatosis

Natural climate solutions provide robust carbon mitigation capacity under future climate change scenarios

The global potential for increased storage of carbon on land

Climate mitigation potential of natural climate solutions and clean energy on The Nature Conservancy properties in California, USA

National mitigation potential from natural climate solutions in the tropics

Model-based scenarios for achieving net negative emissions in the food system

Biophysical and Economic Constraints on China’s Natural Climate Solutions

A generalizable framework for enhanced natural climate solutions

Fast action on short-lived climate pollutants and nature-based solutions to help countries meet carbon neutrality goals

The potential of nature-based solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from US agriculture

The spatiotemporal domains of natural climate solutions research and strategies for implementation in the Pacific Northwest, USA

Counterfactual scenarios reveal historical impact of cropland management on soil organic carbon stocks in the United States

A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States

Greenhouse gas mitigation on croplands: clarifying the debate on knowns, unknowns and risks to move forward with effective management interventions

The role of soil carbon in natural climate solutions

Protect, manage and then restore lands for climate mitigation

How large is the mitigation potential of natural climate solutions in China?

Large climate mitigation potential from adding trees to agricultural lands

The principles of natural climate solutions

A Strong Mitigation Scenario Maintains Climate Neutrality of Northern Peatlands

Creating Strategic Reserves to Protect Forest Carbon and Reduce Biodiversity Losses in the United States