The Tradeoffs Between Engineered and Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change
weekly.regeneration.works
One of the most common conversations that has come up in my time working in the regenerative agriculture space is comparing “carbon farming” and other nature-based solutions (including forestry projects, mangrove restoration, and other projects focused on preserving and enhancing natural ecosystems through proper management) to “engineered solutions'' like direct air capture, various forms of CO2 mineralization, and carbon capture and storage built into industrial systems. In essence, it’s a flawed paradigm in many ways because the array of nature-based and engineered approaches is a continuum - not a binary. New technologies are emerging that both enhance a natural ecosystem’s ability to store carbon and perform ecosystem services while relying on human engineering. This being said, the nature-based/engineered framework allows us to understand the carbon markets’ potential reductionism, the need for decentralization and small stakeholder empowerment, and the underlying significance of the time value of carbon.
What is your source for nature based solutions being able to "deliver between 30%-37% of the emissions mitigation needed to stabilize the climate by 2030"?
What is your source for nature based solutions being able to "deliver between 30%-37% of the emissions mitigation needed to stabilize the climate by 2030"?