In total, we have engaged with his collective feedback for about three to four hours. Dahlhausen, after which he sent us a more thorough written assessment of the issue. We have since had a constructive conversation with Dr. Matthew Dahlhausen of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory pointed out in a Slack post that our treatment of permanence required more nuance, since permanence can be assessed on different timescales. We first published this report in December 2022. We have tried to flag major sources of uncertainty in the report and are open to revising our views as more information becomes available. Finally, we estimate with 80% confidence that the cost-effectiveness of REDD+ falls within the range of $6-$62 per tonne of CO 2 abated. We then evaluate REDD+ with respect to the issues that plague PES programs in general, and spotlight jurisdictional REDD+ (i.e., as implemented consistently within a state or country) as a promising solution. We first investigate the overall effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services (PES) programs, the broad category of environmental interventions into which REDD+ falls. This report examines the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the REDD+ framework for reducing forest loss and degradation and for abating CO 2 emissions that contribute to climate change. The overall project was commissioned by an anonymous donor. This report is the first part of a two-part series on anti-deforestation initiatives. We conducted a vast majority of the research in Q1 and Q2 2022, and we have not updated the research to reflect changes in the global landscape nor other research/publications since then. There was no direct communication between the researchers and the client - who remains anonymous to the researchers - for the duration of the project. We opted to focus our investigation on REDD+, since it is both the intervention that CfRN proposed and seemingly one of the most tractable anti-deforestation solutions of which we are aware. The research was commissioned by a client who sought an unbiased and academic research-driven perspective on the promise of anti-deforestation initiatives.
This preliminary evaluation of the intervention does not include recommendations for funding particular organizations, nor does it sit within a wider portfolio of such evaluations that would allow for comparisons in cost-effectiveness across similarly evaluated climate interventions.
The purpose of this report is to provide a rigorous overview of the research and uncertainties in relation to REDD+, given disagreements and inconsistencies in the EA perspective on anti-deforestation initiatives (particularly the Coalition for Rainforest Nations) in the past. Greer Gosnell - Senior Environmental Economist
0 kommentar(er)
