Thanks for the great explanation! It’s the ocean acidification part that I feel like isn‘t talked about enough in public debates. Even if someone doesn’t believe in climate change „because the earth has had warm periods before“ or „the share of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is way to small to have an impact“, ocean acidification is definitely human made and has to be halted at all costs. I truly wish for all nbs carbon projects - be it conservation, renaturation or afforestation - more science less profit seeking and Elias for me you are an important part of it.
Why are these calculations conducted on 100 years. if carbon lasts in the atmosphere for 300 to 1000 years should we not be looking at what the delta is at that time between whether trees were cut immediately or 1 year later?
Projects typically have to assure permanence of 100 years to ensure that credits are not being issued and then immediately reversed after the project was put into place. I am not sure how they came up with the 100 year timeline, but this requirement is why his calculations are based on 100 years, I'm guessing.
So CAR may not be over-doing it at all with their version of tonne-year accounting over required 100 year period (or portion thereof) as CAR is potentially accounting for ecological damage from GHG emissions to both atmosphere and hydrosphere.
Thanks for the great explanation!
It’s the ocean acidification part that I feel like isn‘t talked about enough in public debates. Even if someone doesn’t believe in climate change „because the earth has had warm periods before“ or „the share of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is way to small to have an impact“, ocean acidification is definitely human made and has to be halted at all costs. I truly wish for all nbs carbon projects - be it conservation, renaturation or afforestation - more science less profit seeking and Elias for me you are an important part of it.
Interesting video. What do you think about verras proposal to use a conversion rate of 100 tonne-years to 1 ton?
Why are these calculations conducted on 100 years. if carbon lasts in the atmosphere for 300 to 1000 years should we not be looking at what the delta is at that time between whether trees were cut immediately or 1 year later?
Projects typically have to assure permanence of 100 years to ensure that credits are not being issued and then immediately reversed after the project was put into place. I am not sure how they came up with the 100 year timeline, but this requirement is why his calculations are based on 100 years, I'm guessing.
So CAR may not be over-doing it at all with their version of tonne-year accounting over required 100 year period (or portion thereof) as CAR is potentially accounting for ecological damage from GHG emissions to both atmosphere and hydrosphere.
well done.
That twig isn't all carbon! It's only half carbon! Lies!
lol