Just realized I have a 50 day-open access link for this paper, so re-sharing with the open link:
authors.elsevier.com/c/1nEVd7tZ6a...
A deeply important signal and read, from a person I trust more than anyone on this stuff
This matters because industry stakeholders are pushing an accounting rule that would assign carbon removals to forest harvests and wood consumption.
That's the opposite of what happens in physical reality. Forest harvests cause emissions, not removals.
The long and short of it is that we have to have a managed decline of fossil fuels because it will be complicated and complex. Unmanaged decline on this level would be catastrophic. The private sector is incapable/uninterested in doing this work.
Emily Grubert
Emily Grubert
It's "For example, sheep have energy content, but we do not have sheep-fired power plants." o'clock over here
I really need to emphasize that the US is essentially the only country that *doesn’t* own its minerals, to the point where people outside the US are sometimes like, wait, what??? when I explain that a lot of my work argues that we should.
Necessary, not sufficient!
