It does have other value, but they’re often not climate-impacting value. So you don’t want to claim a temporary offset is equivalent to a permanent burning of a fossil fuel.
But what about the climate mitigation (e.g. preventing soil erosion) or potential ecological impact (e.g. habitat restoration). Is it really trivial to compare that to the climate use?
I don’t claim to have comprehensive knowledge on any parts of the equation or how they stack up to each other, I’m just saying that if you have an economical policy that incentivices one measure over the other – which at the of the day is what we’re talking about – it seems sensible to base it on the sum of the measures’ value. If we, for instance, want to disincentivice afforestation that should not strictly be made on the basis of how much carbon it can offset compared to other options.
But maybe that is just my general scepticism towards the promises of future CCS technology talking.
Reforestation is great for the reasons you describe, but the alternative is not some future carbon capture technology; its a faster fossil fuels phase out.
Oh, I agree fully about the focus on phasing out fossil fuels. My impression was that the article argued that it was a temporary method and therefore less valuable than other methods of capturing and storing carbon in terms of offsetting/a carbon credit system.
It does have other value, but they’re often not climate-impacting value. So you don’t want to claim a temporary offset is equivalent to a permanent burning of a fossil fuel.
But what about the climate mitigation (e.g. preventing soil erosion) or potential ecological impact (e.g. habitat restoration). Is it really trivial to compare that to the climate use?
I don’t claim to have comprehensive knowledge on any parts of the equation or how they stack up to each other, I’m just saying that if you have an economical policy that incentivices one measure over the other – which at the of the day is what we’re talking about – it seems sensible to base it on the sum of the measures’ value. If we, for instance, want to disincentivice afforestation that should not strictly be made on the basis of how much carbon it can offset compared to other options.
But maybe that is just my general scepticism towards the promises of future CCS technology talking.
Reforestation is great for the reasons you describe, but the alternative is not some future carbon capture technology; its a faster fossil fuels phase out.
Oh, I agree fully about the focus on phasing out fossil fuels. My impression was that the article argued that it was a temporary method and therefore less valuable than other methods of capturing and storing carbon in terms of offsetting/a carbon credit system.