Mustafa Saifuddin, Rose Z Abramoff, Erika J Foster, Shelby C McClelland
{"title":"土壤碳补偿市场不是公正的气候解决方案","authors":"Mustafa Saifuddin, Rose Z Abramoff, Erika J Foster, Shelby C McClelland","doi":"10.1002/fee.2781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is growing interest in enhancing soil carbon sequestration (SCS) as a climate mitigation strategy, including neutralizing atmospheric emissions from fossil-fuel combustion through the development of soil carbon offset markets. Several studies have focused on refining estimates of the magnitude of potential SCS or on developing methods for soil carbon quantification in markets. We call on scientists and policy makers to resist assimilating soils into carbon offset markets due to not only fundamental flaws in the logic of these markets to reach climate neutrality but also environmental justice concerns. Here, we first highlight how carbon offset markets rely on an inappropriate substitution of inert fossil carbon with dynamic stocks of soil carbon. We then note the failure of these markets to account for intersecting anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle, including the soil carbon debt and ongoing agricultural emissions. Next, we invite scientists to consider soil functions beyond productivity and profitability. Finally, we describe and support historical opposition to offset markets by environmental justice advocates. We encourage scientists to consider how their research and communications can promote diverse soil functions and just climate-change mitigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":171,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","volume":"22 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2781","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Soil carbon offset markets are not a just climate solution\",\"authors\":\"Mustafa Saifuddin, Rose Z Abramoff, Erika J Foster, Shelby C McClelland\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/fee.2781\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>There is growing interest in enhancing soil carbon sequestration (SCS) as a climate mitigation strategy, including neutralizing atmospheric emissions from fossil-fuel combustion through the development of soil carbon offset markets. Several studies have focused on refining estimates of the magnitude of potential SCS or on developing methods for soil carbon quantification in markets. We call on scientists and policy makers to resist assimilating soils into carbon offset markets due to not only fundamental flaws in the logic of these markets to reach climate neutrality but also environmental justice concerns. Here, we first highlight how carbon offset markets rely on an inappropriate substitution of inert fossil carbon with dynamic stocks of soil carbon. We then note the failure of these markets to account for intersecting anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle, including the soil carbon debt and ongoing agricultural emissions. Next, we invite scientists to consider soil functions beyond productivity and profitability. Finally, we describe and support historical opposition to offset markets by environmental justice advocates. We encourage scientists to consider how their research and communications can promote diverse soil functions and just climate-change mitigation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":171,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment\",\"volume\":\"22 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fee.2781\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fee.2781\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fee.2781","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Soil carbon offset markets are not a just climate solution
There is growing interest in enhancing soil carbon sequestration (SCS) as a climate mitigation strategy, including neutralizing atmospheric emissions from fossil-fuel combustion through the development of soil carbon offset markets. Several studies have focused on refining estimates of the magnitude of potential SCS or on developing methods for soil carbon quantification in markets. We call on scientists and policy makers to resist assimilating soils into carbon offset markets due to not only fundamental flaws in the logic of these markets to reach climate neutrality but also environmental justice concerns. Here, we first highlight how carbon offset markets rely on an inappropriate substitution of inert fossil carbon with dynamic stocks of soil carbon. We then note the failure of these markets to account for intersecting anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle, including the soil carbon debt and ongoing agricultural emissions. Next, we invite scientists to consider soil functions beyond productivity and profitability. Finally, we describe and support historical opposition to offset markets by environmental justice advocates. We encourage scientists to consider how their research and communications can promote diverse soil functions and just climate-change mitigation.
期刊介绍:
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment is a publication by the Ecological Society of America that focuses on the significance of ecology and environmental science in various aspects of research and problem-solving. The journal covers topics such as biodiversity conservation, ecosystem preservation, natural resource management, public policy, and other related areas.
The publication features a range of content, including peer-reviewed articles, editorials, commentaries, letters, and occasional special issues and topical series. It releases ten issues per year, excluding January and July. ESA members receive both print and electronic copies of the journal, while institutional subscriptions are also available.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment is highly regarded in the field, as indicated by its ranking in the 2021 Journal Citation Reports by Clarivate Analytics. The journal is ranked 4th out of 174 in ecology journals and 11th out of 279 in environmental sciences journals. Its impact factor for 2021 is reported as 13.789, which further demonstrates its influence and importance in the scientific community.