Amazing stuff! Scientists discover the removal of CO2 from the air by planting trees, but it's too risky and costly! Hilarious! Looks like another piece of junk science and junk journalism!
Why do we learn and do so little about planting trees to mitigate the contrived, so called climate crisis? The solution is too simple, too risky, too costly, and not profitable enough!
Following excerpt reads almost like a bad joke, but it is disseminated by none other than the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS):
"One of the most popular strategies used to remove carbon dioxide from the air is planting trees. However, not all tree-planting strategies are equally beneficial [???]; questions such as which species grow best in a given environment, which ones will thrive better in a higher–carbon dioxide world, and which ones are the most cost-effective all must be considered in decisions about which types of trees to plant. Cho et al. investigated these issues in the United Kingdom to quantify uncertainties [???] related to climate and economic conditions and to examine how planting choices are affected by modern methods of decision-making. Despite the risks [???], tree planting can be one of the most cost-effective ways to remove carbon dioxide from the air."
From the significance and abstract:
"Significance
For many countries, large-scale tree planting is a crucial component of their decarbonization plans [only plans???]. This paper positions those decisions in the context of the substantial uncertainties surrounding both future climatic and economic conditions.
Using the United Kingdom as an example, this paper finds the following:
1) Nations can expose themselves to substantial cost risk [???] by pursuing planting strategies that ignore uncertainty.
2) Planting strategies that use portfolio approaches to diversify risk can substantially reduce exposure to downside cost extremes.
3) Portfolio approaches can mitigate some risk exposure, but significant cost risks still exist.
4) Despite this persistent risk profile [???], when compared to projected costs for alternative technologies, tree planting emerges as a highly cost-effective option for carbon dioxide removal.
Abstract
To meet decarbonization targets, nations around the globe have made ambitious commitments to expand forested land [only commitments ???].
Operationalizing these commitments requires choosing a planting strategy:
How many trees should be planted, of which species, and where?
Given those choices must be made now but have long-term consequences, such decisions are plagued by uncertainty [???].
For example, species that are well suited to present conditions may perform poorly under future climates [???], yet those future climates are themselves highly uncertain.
Using the exemplar of the United Kingdom, a nation committed to achieving net zero emissions by midcentury, we quantify key uncertainties pertaining to coevolving climate and economic conditions and examine how modern methods of decision-making under uncertainty can advise on planting choices.
Our analysis reveals that the best planting strategy assuming a “high-emissions” future is radically different to that for a future that remains on a “near-historic” path.
Planting for the former while experiencing the latter results in substantial net costs to UK society. Assimilating uncertainty into decision-making identifies planting strategies that diversify risk and significantly reduce the probability of high-cost outcomes. Importantly, our research reveals that the scope for mitigating risk through choice of planting strategy is relatively limited. Despite this persistent risk, we find that tree planting remains a highly cost-effective carbon removal solution when compared to alternative technologies, even when those alternatives are assumed to be riskless."
No comments:
Post a Comment