• Energy Research

Repository reproducing plots and processing used in Dooley et al., 2022 (One Earth, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.06.002). For questions and comments about the paper, please contact Kate Dooley (kate.dooley@unimelb.edu.au). For questions and comments about the code, please contact Zebedee Nicholls (zebedee.nicholls@climate-energy-college.org). For full details, please see https://gitlab.com/znicholls/one-earth-2022. {"references": ["Dooley et al. 2022 (One Earth, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.06.002)"]}

Repository reproducing plots and processing used in Dooley et al., 2022 (One Earth).For questions and comments about the paper, please contact Kate Dooley (kate.dooley@unimelb.edu.au). For questions and comments about the code, please contact Zebedee Nicholls (zebedee.nicholls@climate-energy-college.org). For full details, please see https://gitlab.com/znicholls/one-earth-2022. {"references": ["Dooley et al., 2022 (One Earth)"]}

Abstract Limiting global warming to a 1.5°C temperature rise requires drastic emissions reductions and removal of carbon-dioxide from the atmosphere. Most modelled pathways for 1.5°C assume substantial removals in the form of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage, which brings with it increasing risks to biodiversity and food security via extensive land-use change. Recently, multiple efforts to describe and quantify potential removals via ecosystem-based approaches have gained traction in the climate policy discourse. However, these options have yet to be evaluated in a systematic and scientifically robust way. We provide spatially explicit estimates of ecosystem restoration potential quantified with a Dynamic Global Vegetation Model. Simulations covering forest restoration, reforestation, reduced harvest, agroforestry and silvopasture were combined and found to sequester an additional 93 Gt C by 2100, reducing mean global temperature increase by ∼0.12°C (5%–95% range 0.06°C–0.21°C) relative to a baseline mitigation pathway. Ultimately, pathways to achieving the 1.5°C goal garner broader public support when they include land management options that can bring about multiple benefits, including ecosystem restoration, biodiversity protection, and resilient agricultural practices.

This paper offers a normative analysis of the current negotiations on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Drawing on existing theories of distributive justice, we seek to determine which interpretations of equity are embodied in the key proposals and policy approaches to REDD in the run up to a post-Kyoto climate agreement. Our analysis indicates that whilst the various proposals are characterised by different and sometimes contradictory notions of equity, it is the ideas that are more consistent with neoliberal concepts of justice that tend to prevail. The result is that despite abiding contestations and controversies, emerging REDD policy solutions for the post-2012 climate regime looks very likely to reflect a commitment to market-based approaches to forest governance. However, whilst such market-based approaches might serve the preferences of powerful players, their effectiveness in terms of forest preservation, the protection of indigenous peoples and sustainable community development remains extremely dubious. On a broader note, our analysis reinforces the growing realization that the international arena is not beyond the pale of moral arguments but rather that the governance of global environmental change implicates elemental ethical questions regarding which ways of life human beings ought to pursue.