Natural Climate Solutions

Natural climate solutions are solutions around all of the ecosystems on the planet, our forests, our grasslands, our wetlands, that can address climate change they already absorb a huge amount of carbon. How can we work with those ecosystems to both reduce emissions from those ecosystems as well as enhance their sequestration. They act as a huge giant sink for carbon. The word "natural" is really important. We didn't have to intervene for all of human history making these systems do what they do. Now though we need them to do more of it. At least 20% of the total climate solutions will come from our lands. They are available today. We don't need to wait for tech fixes that will come decades down the line It makes no sense at all the talk about carbon capture and sequestration as a technological solution without thinking about what that is relative to a natural sequestration. We know there are things that we can be doing to enhance how food is produced and reduce emissions from land use and the agriculture sector we know that there are things that we can do today to be restoring forests to be incentivizing different forestry practices. Decarbonizing energy alone is not sufficient to address the scale of the threat we face with climate change.

We start recognizing what our ecosystems do today to already be absorbing so much carbon, then we start to recognize this is actually a critical biological bridge to be able to get too deeper decarbonisation away from the energy sector that we cannot do without. We've got to get the science for network solutions really watertight that we can demonstrate to politicians, to corporates that this is a serious sector In California we have a comprehensive climate change regulatory program that included cap-and-trade mechanism with a role for forests. This is the first one in the world that actually allows force landowners to produce offets that regulated entities like utilities can submit to meet the requirements of the law. There's a parallel revenue stream that's being generated from the auction of the permits. That is producing more than a billion dollars for Californians. In many other parts of the world you have forest dependent communities, you have indigenous communities. who know very well how to protect their natural environment they see the natural world and their own world is much more integrated.

20 percent of the world's forest carbon is found in Indigenous lands. So this means that if we're gonna be serious about finding solutions to climate and serious about finding solutions to conservation then that means we need to be engaging indigenous people in local communities. We gotta bring multiple parties together to recognize that there are shared objectives. The role of the private sector really coming forward and saying what's good for climate mitigation can also be good for business. This is really not a tradeoff anymore. We have to have policies that stimulate the enabling environment. We need to have a price for carbon. We need to have the right mechanisms where credits can be offered to businesses that are facing steeper costs to abate emissions in other ways. We need to full force, and the full creativity of the financial service industry, to come behind helping us find solutions get from us science-based NGOs, academic organizations. What we all know, because we know a ton. And help us convert that into investable structures.

We need to find new ways of bringing private sector actors in of unlocking the entrepreneurial spirit of people around the world to shape so of these solutions. The Nature Conservancy has relationships, it has land assets, it has field programs around the world. If we can leverage all of that then The Nature Conservancy can play a very very important role in addressing the climate challenge..

Trump pulls U S out of non binding Paris Climate Accord — Here’s why he was right to do it

Trump pulls U.S. out of non-binding Paris Climate Accord � Here�s why he was right to do it by: JD Heyes Far-Left Democrats and so-called �environmentalists� who still believe the global warming hoax are furious at President Donald J. Trump for keeping his campaign pledge to withdraw the United States from the �non-binding� Paris Climate Accords signed onto by the Obama administration. But perhaps after they calm down and allow their blood pressure to return to normal, they can take a rational, reasoned look at why the president made his decision; if they afford him that courtesy, there is no way they can conclude that his decision was wrong. In making the announcement from the White House Rose Garden Thursday afternoon, Trump stated that he felt obligated to withdraw from the agreement � which should have been sent to the U.

S. Senate by Obama to be ratified as a treaty, because that�s what it was, in both style and substance � because it is �a bad deal� for American workers, taxpayers and companies. (RELATED: The Paris Climate Accord is GENOCIDE against plants, forests and all life on our planet) Trump also knocked the cost of the agreement � which will rise to some $450 billion a year, much of which would have to come from the U.S. � while major polluters who are also signatories to the deal do not have to comply with the accords� emissions limitations for more than a decade. Meanwhile, the U.S. has to comply immediately. The president also lashed out at his critics who said pulling out of the deal would be a disaster for the country, noting that remaining in the agreement would cost American families and businesses billions per year. Also, he said, the agreement prohibited the U.S. from �conducting its own domestic economic affairs� by preventing the development of our own natural resources, like clean coal and natural gas, both of which create far fewer emissions than other forms of energy.

�I was elected to represent the people of Pittsburg, not Paris,� Trump said. �It�s time to pursue a new deal that protects� the environment, as well as the American people. Trump, according to various experts and analyses, was right to withdraw from the current agreement as written. �Through a litany of regulations stemming from the agreement, Obama has essentially offered up the U.S. economy as a sacrificial lamb to further his own legacy,� Americans for Tax Reform noted Wednesday in a post on its website. �Sadly, the agreement will not just hurt the country�s growth as a whole, but will trickle down to low-and-middle income Americans. As a result of the agreement, energy costs will skyrocket, in turn raising the cost of utility bills for families and increasing the costs of consumer goods.

� (RELATED: UN official actually ADMITS that �global warming� is a scam designed to �change world�s economic model�) A study of the agreement by the Heritage Foundation, released in April 2016, found that the agreement would have resulted in the adoption of government policies that dramatically increased electricity costs for a family of four between 13 and 20 percent annually. In addition, the analysis found that American families would lose out on some $20,000 in income by 2035, regressive (not progressive) economic policies that no doubt would hit the nation�s poorest the hardest. [Meanwhile, we�re sure that Obama won�t have any trouble paying his electric bill, no matter what it costs] Other analysts, as Trump noted in his speech, noted that the loss of U.S. annual gross domestic product would be close to $3 trillion by 2035, while reducing employment in the U.S.

by about 400,000 jobs, half of which would be in manufacturing. But perhaps most galling of all is the fact that even the far Left admitted that the agreement would accomplish virtually nothing � and certainly was not the global carbon emissions destroyer its principle advocates made it out to be. Politico Europe reported: In fact, emissions reductions are barely on the table at all. Instead, the talks are rigged to ensure an agreement is reached regardless of how little action countries plan to take. The developing world, projected to account for four-fifths of all carbon-dioxide emissions this century, will earn applause for what amounts to a promise to stay on their pre-existing trajectory of emissions-intensive growth. As Trump said, �The agreement is a massive redistribution of wealth from the U.S. to other countries.� There is no good reason to remain in it, just as there was no good reason for Obama to have signed it..


The Paris climate negotiations, explained

What is the Paris climate conference? Well, you can think of it as a dinner party for 25,000 people and none of them really get along that well and they have to save the world from total climate disaster But will it actually work? To start, let's take a look back the last 25 years of negotiations. In 1992 in Rio de Janeiro the UN created a treaty to stabilize greenhouse gas levels so they wouldn't actually mess with the climate. But the treaty mostly just said that countries should figure out how to actually accomplish that goal using other future treaties. The Kyoto Protocol required industrialized countries to cut their GHG emissions… a little but developing countries including China and India weren't required to curb emissions at all and the US didn't ratify the treaty. So that didn't really work. After 12 years of negotiations dragged on the big dinner party that was supposed to result in a planet saving deal actually went pretty badly.

So last year, in Lima, diplomats agreed on a new approach. Let a country decide for itself how it will fight climate change …but commit to it, dammit. These countries specific pledges are called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions or INDCs. So now we're in Paris where diplomats hope to reach an agreement that centers around countries INDCs. But how can companies accountable to those pledges… and what actually goes into them? There are a bunch of different options on the menu And, the prices vary dramatically. So India leans over to the United States and says "I got 300 million people without electricity" "I think I'm just gonna stick with a bunch of the cheap coal." And the U.S., kinda hypocritically says "No way India, you've got to try the green energy, it is phenomenal." And India says "No, I really think I want the coal.

You used to love it, you look great and I think I should give it a shot." And then China leans over to Indian and deadpans " you should really try the green energy." But if India think it deserves to use cheap and easy coal to speed up its development and lift several millions out of poverty Who is the U.S. or China to say that it shouldn't? And that's just the first course. There are plenty of other courses to be picked through and paid for. How much effort do we put forth preventing climate change by regulating power plants or replacing fossil fuel subsidies with renewable energy subsidies versus adapting to it, by say, building seawalls versus compensating those already screwed by it, by awarding emergency funding to repair damage caused by natural disasters. The more we can mitigate climate change the less we actually have to adapt to it but climate change is already hitting some communities heavier than others.

Furthermore, can we make clean technology easy for developing countries to acquire? And what doesn't even need to be developing country? How do we make sure that countries have the strongest institutions and best information to deal with climate change? And then, as with all dinners the tensest moment arrives. What do we do with the bill? Countries could develop cheaply and sustainably if richer countries were covering a lot of the expense. After Copenhagen richer countries agreed to mobilize a hundred billion dollars annually by 2020 in funding for countering climate change in developing countries. But where exactly will the money come from and how much more will be needed? All these questions are on the table in Paris. So what might actually be achieved? In 2010, world leaders decided that you have to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius or we'd be in for full-scale world felt. The bad news is that there's no way any Paris agreement will achieve that, but the good news is that doesn't mean the world has to end. If we continue things business as usual we would be in for 4.5 degrees of warming, but if countries committed to existing INDCs, that helps us bring that down to about 3 degrees.

Hotter than we want, but better than nothing. And a Paris deal could at least start to figure out how to mobilize that money and technology to make that follow through happen. And the better news is that even if Paris totally flops and everybody's just hurling Brie and baugette at one another, cities and private companies can take action to cut emissions and make a difference. In fact, they are the real key players here, because diplomacy isn't real climate action. How does an treaty matter if no one does what it says. Grist will be in Paris this November and December covering the climate conference. Check in with us then for all the policy news and baugettes you could ever want. Subtitles by the community.