This is how Tasmania became carbon negative

“Hidden” emissions, unrecognized benefits

According to Australian researchers, there is a problem with the way countries build their carbon footprint. If it is possible to calculate the GHG emissions for each sector of forest inventory, one of them is often found to compensate for the other.

This is the type known as land use, land use change and forestry. In short, we are talking about the LULUCF sector (from English) Land use, Land use change and forestry)

When we talk about LULUCF, for example, a forest near your home was cut down to build a shopping center. This is called land use changeFrédérik Doyon, researcher specializing in natural ecology and forest management.

Then there is a change, which is accompanied by a net loss of carbon [que stockait la forêt détruite]Continues Professor of the Institute of Moderate Forest Sciences (ISFORT) affiliated with the University of Quebec in Outlaw.

If we cut down a tree, carbon is also lost, he adds. But mitigation strategies, such as deforestation, will allow ecosystems to store carbon at a single rate for 10 to 15 years. This is because young ecosystems are best at accumulating and sorting CO₂.

All of these emissions are released into the atmosphere or absorbed by these carbon sinks into locking environments, which are compiled by governments, which send them to the Secretariat of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) each year. The latter thus monitors the progress of 195 countries and the implementation of measures aimed at achieving climate goals.

Looking at the data compiled regarding LULUCF, Australian researchers have found that something is wrong.

Within the LULUCF sector, some segments offset their GHG emissions by other types [qui permettent d’absorber le CO₂]This has the significant effect of covering the emissions caused by logging, hence the benefits of forest conservationResearchers write.

One such category that allows GHG emissions to be offset is forest land.

The natural growth of the forest will save so much CO₂ Some countries may use these absorbed levels to offset part of the emissions, for example, to the fossil fuel industry, Brendan Mackie observes. We are talking about the net accounting problem in the carbon balance.

” This is not a scam, it is completely legal. But if we are really trying to control global warming to +1.5 degrees Celsius, we need to reduce GHG emissions and strengthen measures to allow CO absorption.₂. But we did not. ⁇

Levels of CO₂ Instead of being absorbed by natural forests, it is used to offset emissions from logging, agriculture and fossil fuels, he says.

By comparing data from Australia, the United States, Russia and Canada – which hold only 40% of the world’s forests – Australian researchers calculated the share of emissions in each country.

According to the most recent data, Canada uses the LULUCF sector’s net emissions to compensate for approximately 24% of its emissions, such as fossil fuels. This is totally crazy! Brendan Maggie yells. What we really need to do is not seek to compensate, but to reduce emissions from fossil fuels.

That is our message, he continues. Canada should do this. This is what all nations must do.

According to Frederick Doyle, Canada is one of the most comprehensive carbon accounts in the world, and it is not accurate. Before Brendan Mackie and his colleagues raised the issue, four environmental organizations were particularly critical. Accounting approach Canada as they considered it UnbalancedEven Discriminatory.

In a report released in October 2021, they criticized the Canadian government for underestimating total CO emissions.₂ From the Forest Department, Gives free pass to industry.