土壤碳补偿市场不是公正的气候解决方案

IF 10 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1002/fee.2781
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,&nbsp;Rose Z Abramoff,&nbsp;Erika J Foster,&nbsp;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":null,"pages":null},"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,&nbsp;Rose Z Abramoff,&nbsp;Erika J Foster,&nbsp;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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们对加强土壤碳固存(SCS)作为气候减缓战略的兴趣与日俱增,包括通过开发土壤碳抵消市场来中和化石燃料燃烧产生的大气排放。一些研究侧重于完善对潜在 SCS 规模的估计,或开发市场中土壤碳量化的方法。我们呼吁科学家和政策制定者抵制将土壤纳入碳补偿市场,因为这些市场在实现气候中和的逻辑上不仅存在根本缺陷,而且还存在环境正义问题。在这里,我们首先强调了碳补偿市场是如何以土壤碳的动态存量不恰当地替代惰性化石碳的。然后,我们指出这些市场未能考虑到碳循环中相互交织的人为扰动,包括土壤碳债务和持续的农业排放。接下来,我们请科学家们考虑生产率和盈利能力之外的土壤功能。最后,我们描述并支持环境正义倡导者对抵消市场的历史性反对。我们鼓励科学家们考虑他们的研究和交流如何能够促进多样化的土壤功能和公正的气候变化减缓。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
18.30
自引率
1.00%
发文量
128
审稿时长
9-18 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Cover Image Time to close the knowledge–practice gap in field teaching Clean thy neighbor: the mutualistic interaction between the cattle tyrant and the capybara Managing fire‐prone forests in a time of decreasing carbon carrying capacity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1