Month in Review ~ October 2023

Guiding principles for just, effective natural climate solutions / 02 Climate scientists and cattle ranchers meet at High Lonesome Ranch / 04 Woodwell scientists brief congressional audience on climate security risks / 06 In the news: highlights / 07

Notes from the Field Month in Review ● October 2023 woodwellclimate.org

02

Monthly Newsletter

Guiding principles for just, effective natural climate solutions Science and values to ensure just, effective implementation of natural climate solutions

This offers science-based principles to guide implementation of natural climate solutions (NCS) at national and sub-national scales. These principles broadly support the inclusion of NCS among measures needed to meet targets associated with the Paris Climate Agreement that establishes a global framework to limit warming to less than 2°C. NCS employ “negative emissions,” or greenhouse gases removed from the atmosphere, and have a significant role to play in limiting warming along with emissions reductions. Land, inland waters, and coastal ecosystems currently remove about 30% of global annual carbon dioxide emissions, and have the potential to continue or even increase this critical carbon sequestration function—they could potentially deliver up to one-third of net emission reductions needed to remain within a 1.5- or 2-degree Celsius warming pathway by 2030 (Adams et al. 2021).

Solutions that abate emissions using NCS are also estimated to be highly cost-effective when compared to engineered solutions, such as carbon capture, utilization, and storage (Griscom et al.

2020). Many forms of NCS are available to deploy immediately, at scale, without technological breakthroughs.

An advantage of NCS is that if carefully designed, the activities can have substantial co-benefits such as conserving biodiversity and protecting water supplies. However, realizing this potential will require careful analysis of options for deploying NCS, as well as monitoring of results which may be impacted by climate change.

The framework underlying these principles includes considerations of time, space, and community. The time dimension recognizes that natural climate solutions involve changes in ecosystems and ecosystem management that have impacts spanning decades and centuries. The effectiveness of a particular climate solution will vary over these timeframes— some will be effective in the short term, and some in the long term as climate changes and other factors evolve. Likewise, some will be ineffective at times and so the expected benefits as well as co-benefits need to be evaluated now and for the future.

The spatial dimension reflects that ecosystems are highly variable geographically, as are the various factors that influence

ecosystems. For example, natural disturbances such as wildfire are much more common and severe in areas where drought and high temperatures are prevalent. Existing management practices are also highly variable, with some regions dominated by agriculture, some by forest management, and some by protection from human-caused disturbances. Potential solutions will be different for these categories, as will the effectiveness of each for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere.

The community, or human, dimension is critical because natural climate solutions are implemented by people within specific social and economic contexts. All solutions have consequences that go beyond the goal of reducing greenhouse gases, and people will be affected in different ways. Impacts may be positive, such as providing jobs or cooling communities by planting trees near buildings, or negative by increasing the costs of goods and services or impacting specific economic sectors, such as agriculture and the forest products industry.

The following principles are intended to help avoid specific unintended consequences of NCS implementation. Although the principles were developed with U.S. policies and programs in mind, the scope is not limited to U.S. borders, particularly considering that agricultural and forest products are internationally traded commodities, and that protecting biodiversity and reducing greenhouse gasses are globally recognized priorities.

Protect, manage, and restore ecosystems to maintain or increase climate benefits.

Protecting threatened high-carbon ecosystems can avoid emissions and help protect biodiversity; the benefits are immediate and difficult to replace once lost, making ecosystem protection a top priority. Improved management can be applied at low cost over large areas, and can have substantial and enduring co-benefits. Restoring degraded land to native vegetation can increase biodiversity while increasing carbon stocks to levels consistent with the potential of the site over the long term. While important, restoration should not be viewed as an alternative to or replacement for protection.

October 2023

Consider risks from climate extremes, natural disturbances, and socioeconomic events.

Many NCS will take time to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions; exceptions are avoiding deforestation and forest degradation, delaying harvest, and reducing emissions from agricultural soils. Calculations of expected benefits must consider climate change and other factors that are likely to impact the outcomes of NCS. Engage Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and work to mitigate inequalities and injustices.

Natural climate solutions should be implemented with full engagement of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in ways that respect land, culture, and human rights. The historical legacies and ongoing effects of institutional racism necessitate particular care to include the knowledge and interests of these communities. Participatory engagement, negotiations, and consent are critical.

03

maintain or increase carbon stocks, as well as impacts on fossil fuel emissions from related economic sectors. Fullsystem accounting should be complemented with effective monitoring and reporting.

Ensure that carbon credits used to finance natural climate solutions meet the highest standards of quality, integrity, and offset eligibility.

There are numerous financing models for natural climate solutions. Regulatory and voluntary carbon markets could be a significant source of funding for scaling up NCS, but their use needs to follow strict guidelines to ensure real climate benefits. Offsetting should only be used as a complement to—not substitute for—rigorous decarbonization efforts; this includes both immediate use as emissions are being reduced, as well as long-term use to offset hard-to-abate emissions. All carbon credits must be backed by thorough monitoring and accounting of both risks and benefits (as outlined in previous sections) to ensure quality and integrity.

Enhance human welfare and “do no harm.”

Natural climate solutions should aim to generate a net enhancement to human welfare, while doing no harm to impacted parties. If the tradeoffs between the private and public benefits from policy choices are clearly defined and quantified, potential negative outcomes can be identified and mitigated to the greatest extent possible. Unless natural climate solutions can be demonstrated to have clear overall benefits to society and impacted stakeholders, and private costs mitigated, they are unlikely to be adopted.

This is an update to principles originally released in 2021. The authorship team consisted of Dr. Richard Birdsey, Natalie Baillargeon, Dr. Glenn Bush, Dr. Richard (Skee) Houghton, Dave McGlinchey, Dr. Sue Natali, Dr. Jonathan Sanderman, Dr. Wayne Walker, and Dr. Zach Zobel. In addition, five external reviewers contributed to the development of the original principles.

Practice full-system accounting so that all effects on the carbon cycle are assessed, and the contributions of a given natural climate solution can be evaluated.

Assessing the climate impacts of natural climate solutions requires a systems approach because of the connections between agriculture, forests, land use, food and fiber production, and energy production. It is therefore essential to practice full-system carbon accounting, including the effects of activities on ecosystems and their ability to

MORE

To learn more and read the paper in full, visit woodwellclimate.org/ncs-principles.

04

Monthly Newsletter

Climate scientists and cattle ranchers meet at High Lonesome Ranch Regenerative ranching workshop explores how to enhance rangeland stewardship as a climate solution Dr. Jennifer Watts

Assistant Scientist

High Lonesome is a working cattle ranch that does things a little differently. The managers of High Lonesome employ regenerative ranching, a technique that works with natural cycles and ecological principles to restore a degraded landscape. The result is a productive ranch with healthy cows, good water retention, a diverse ecology, and— crucially for our work—carbon-rich soils. It’s an ideal location for Woodwell Climate Research Center’s second annual Rangeland Carbon Workshop.

On a beautiful late September day in western Colorado, the Woodwell Climate Rangeland Team (myself, Dr. Jon Sanderman, Dr. Yushu Xia, and Andrew Mullen) gathered at High Lonesome Ranch to lead the workshop in partnership with Colorado State University and Green Groups Graze.

We were joined by 45 scientists, ranch managers, members of NGO communities, and representatives from government agencies, all eager to discuss rangeland health, management, and monitoring in the U.S.

with deep root systems. They also keep nutrients cycling through the system, building up a store of water and soil carbon over time.

The growing interest in regenerative ranching across the U.S. (and globally) is being driven by the awareness of increasing impacts from climate change.

Severe droughts, flooding, and fire have posed a particular threat to ranching communities. In July 2020 the historic Pine Gulch fire burned through a large portion of High Lonesome Ranch, as well as their grazing leases on adjacent U.S. land. The fire destroyed $1 million in ranching infrastructure and much of the forage needed for grazing that year. It also caused undesirably dense shrubs to replace diverse herbaceous plant species.

On top of climate-driven changes, many ranches in the area are simultaneously dealing with the after-effects of land degradation, lost plant cover, and depletion of soil carbon following decades-to-centuries of misuse.

But because ranching communities directly rely on healthy lands for their socioeconomic well-being, many members of these communities are coming forward as good stewards, with the goal of improving private and public lands for the benefit of their families, their country, and future generations.

Throughout the workshop we heard from multiple producers about how they are continuously adapting and evolving their land management practices, building up an arsenal of regenerative strategies by

Conversations centered on the benefits and challenges of regenerative practices like the ones used at High Lonesome.

One core tenant of regenerative ranching is the use of adaptive grazing systems—a concept that promotes the frequent movement of livestock between pastures (whether that’s cattle, bison, goats, or another grazing animal) with short, intense, grazing intervals. Following a grazing event, that land is given a long period of rest and regrowth. These cycles between grazing and rest help promote robust, healthy plant communities Jon Sanderman leading a group discussion from a soil pit, during the workshop field tour.

/ photo by Andrew Mullen

October 2023

05

“We’ve been working on developing the first version of the Rangeland Carbon Monitoring Tool (RCMT) system, which provides high resolution estimates of rangeland soil carbon and productivity,” says Dr. Xia. “This workshop presented a valuable opportunity for us to gather insights from diverse stakeholders. Their inputs are crucial for us to improve the visualization of our tool.”

combining their knowledge of ecological principles with what they are observing firsthand on the land.

In response to the Pine Gulch Fire, High Lonesome Ranch is now adapting by bringing in alternative livestock (goats) to browse down the shrubs, helping to create more structurally and ecologically diverse ecosystems. They are also exploring new methods of sustainable fencing, including a virtual fencing approach where ranchers use GPS-enabled devices that electronically encourage animals to stay within designated grazing areas.

We also discussed how we define the “health” of rangelands in the first place, and how to monitor changes in ecosystem health indicators over time.

The importance of monitoring ecosystem health across all U.S. rangelands recently came to the forefront after the bipartisan organization Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) released a report in late 2022, based on data from Bureau of Land Management (BLM) monitoring sites on western lands.

The report revealed severe declines in the “health, diversity, and productivity” of public grazing lands, primarily driven by overgrazing. The report also emphasized a need to improve data collection and mapping efforts to track range health, while restoring ecosystems through improved management.

But getting to “improved management”

and “healthy rangelands”, means filling in information gaps. Our conversations revealed the difference between the kinds of information producers find important in making management decisions, and what information researchers and conservation groups might want to use to understand healthy rangelands.

“Producers need information on the health and vigor of the vegetation in order to make day-to-day management decisions, while conservation groups may be more interested in the broader ecosystem service benefits, such as bird biodiversity and carbon storage, that are emerging from good rangeland stewardship,” says Dr. Sanderman.

Our discussions at High Lonesome indicated a need for a “well-designed, sustainable, wall-to-wall” land health monitoring system for public and private lands alike—something that could integrate producer knowledge with repeated point-based field observations and data provided through remote sensing. A tool like this could help ranchers make decisions that build up carbon storage and provide the ecosystem services that conservation groups are hoping to restore, while also keeping their businesses productive.

As part of her postdoctoral position, Dr. Xia has been constructing a tool to fill this need, aiding ranchers’ decision making around regenerative ranching practices.

Yushu Xia presents on best methods for targeted soil sampling.

/ photo by Andrew Mullen

Being able to empirically show improvements in carbon storage on rangelands could also help ranchers benefit economically from soil carbon markets—a still-developing strategy for including rangelands in natural climate solutions.

“While there are a lot of debates regarding the practicality of implementing improved rangeland management for economic gains in the carbon market, there is a consensus on the necessity of improved quantification tools like the RCMT,” says Dr. Xia. “These tools are essential to reduce the uncertainty of soil carbon estimates, and thereby facilitate improved rangeland management for multiple ecological benefits.”

Throughout the workshop it also became clear that, in addition to a need for new tools like the RCMT, ranchers need more access to programs that offer community-based networking and knowledge sharing of regenerative practices, as well as support for improving ranch infrastructure to better enact regenerative agriculture.

Ultimately, ranchers would also benefit greatly from programs that provide financial payments for ecosystem services provided by healthy open spaces—a model that would allow them to prioritize biodiversity, wildlife habitat, and carbon sequestration in their decision making. Achieving these goals will require changes in programs and policies at all levels, from local to federal, to provide a much-needed investment in the well-being of our rural environments and the health of our planet.

06

Monthly Newsletter

Woodwell scientists brief congressional audience on climate security risks Presentation at the Capitol details climate-driven concerns in Iran and Türkiye Sarah Ruiz

Science Writer/Editor

On September 27, Woodwell Climate scientists and policy experts from the Center for Climate and Security (CCS) conducted a briefing on climate security risks in Iran and Türkiye. The presentation, hosted in the Capitol, drew in a crowd of interested congressional staffers to learn more about the relationship between the worsening climate crisis and national security issues.

Elsa Barron, and Brigitte Hugh—then provided insight into political and social issues in both countries that intersect with climate risks, creating potentially destabilizing effects. In Türkiye, for example, diminishing water resources have the potential to create crossboundary conflicts if the country is perceived by downstream countries to be “hoarding” water for its own citizens.

This was the second of two such collaborative briefings, following a presentation to members of executive branch agencies, including the State Department, Department of Defense, US Institute of Peace, USAID, National Intelligence Council, and the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, earlier in the month. Dr. Alex Naegele, a postdoctoral researcher with the Climate Risk Program at Woodwell, presented the results of two risk analyses produced in collaboration with CCS. The analyses used model projections to examine the impacts of climate change on rainfall, water scarcity, and wildfire.

The briefing was highly attended by congressional staff across the political spectrum from 27 different House and Senate offices.

Security experts from CCS—Tom Ellison,

“The congressional crowd can be different and you never know exactly what you’re going to get,” says Woodwell External Affairs Manager Andrew Condia. “But you could just tell by the questions, and sort of the attention to the presentation that this was a very relevant and interesting topic across the board. It was a much more bipartisan turnout than I was expecting.”

That turnout speaks to the broad interest in how climate change represents a

growing threat to national security interests. By speaking on climate through a security lens, Woodwell scientists are able to broaden interest and attention on climate issues throughout various branches of the federal government.

“Through this collaboration with CCS, we’re able to use our science and forwardlooking approach to highlight specific climate risks to the security community.

It’s something that’s not widely practiced and it’s a unique position to be in,” says Dr. Naegele.

Woodwell and CCS are looking forward to expanding the scope of future climate security case studies to draw links between the impacts of climate change and disruption to other countries or even other social systems.

“It would be interesting to apply this same thinking to an analysis of a certain theme instead of country. Perhaps examining impacts on supply chains or food systems,” says Ellison. “There’s a ton of issues we’ve barely scratched the surface on.”

Alex Naegele presents on climate risks in Iran for Congressional staff in Washington, DC. / photo by Sarah Ruiz

October 2023

07

Dr. Brendan Rogers was invited to give a plenary talk at Google. org’s Geo for Good summit in Mountain View, California this week, showcasing the Permafrost Discovery Gateway. Yili Yang, Seth Gorelik, and Monica Caparas also attended the conference.

Dr. Sue Natali attended the Arctic Circle Assembly (ACA) where she moderated the “Climate Justice, Permafrost Thaw, and Community-Based Observations” panel organized by Woodwell Climate Research Center as part of Permafrost Pathways, Svalbard Integrated Arctic Earth Observing System (SIOS), and Arctic PASSION. Dr. Natali also participated in the “Grappling with the Arctic Methane Curveball” panel with Permafrost Pathways co-lead Dr. John Holdren from the Arctic Initiative at Harvard Kennedy School (HKS).

photo by Seth Gorelik

photo by Liz Hanlon / Arctic Initiative at Harvard Kennedy School

In the news: highlights Esri and the Science of Where podcast interviewed Dr. Sue Natali for an episode on understanding Arctic ecology and climate science.

Phys.org and Earth.com both published articles quoting Dr. Brendan Rogers on recent research examining what happens to boreal forests after fire.

Permafrost Pathways was directly mentioned in the Implementation Plan for the National Strategy for the Arctic Region (NSARIP) released by The White House (pg 27, objective 2.3.3).

A BBC News article quoted Dr. Jennifer Francis about heat anomalies in the North Atlantic and North Pacific oceans.

She was also quoted on how increased heat leads to stronger storms in an article syndicated to multiple outlets, including Phys.org, Financial Post, and Bloomberg.

Dave McGlinchey, Chief of Government Relations, was featured on Deep State Radio podcast in a roundtable discussion on the road to COP28.

An article from Digital Congo covered the recent climate risk workshop in DRC, hosted in collaboration with the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development.

Dr. Marcia Macedo was interviewed for an article on the major drought and wildfires happening in the Brazilian Amazon, published to Grist, Salon, and Truthout.

Dr. Jen Francis succinctly summarized why we’re seeing extreme heat and what needs to be done about it in an article for The Washington Post, which was also published in The Boston Globe.

Lawrence Livermore National Lab announced $19 million in DOE funding for an Energy Earthshot Research Center (EERC) called “Terraforming Soil.” Dr. Jon Sanderman is a collaborator on the project.

Terra published a brief article covering recent collaborative research on lethal heat events, and how they are likely to become more frequent with climate change (Portuguese). A Boston Globe article on the same research inspired a letter to the editor titled: “A call to action on climate change.”

Dr. Jen Francis’ popular quote about the term ‘wildfire’ was referenced in a New Yorker story about what really started the Great Chicago Fire.

A Carbon Brief Q&A article mentioned Dr. Peter Frumhoff and quoted Dr. Marcia Macedo in an article about how scientists estimate carbon emissions from wildfire.

Fly Fisherman highlighted Science on the Fly in a recent online news article.

Radio Canada International quoted Dr. Christina Schaedel in a blog post about the “ice emergency,” and named her as “one of a group of top scientists” at Climate Week NYC.

cover: Sunset at High Lonesome Ranch, western Colorado. / photo by Andrew Mullen

Donations play an important role in securing the future of Woodwell Climate Research Center’s work—and help safeguard the health of our planet for generations to come. woodwellclimate.org/give @woodwellclimate #sciencefortheworld

149 Woods Hole Road Falmouth, MA, 02540-1644

CLIMATE SCIENCE FOR CHANGE

Please help us to conserve paper. To receive this newsletter electronically, please send your email address to info@woodwellclimate.org.