Smokescreen exposed

G - Articles in popular magazines and other technical publications

Powlson, D. S. and Smith, P. 2000. Smokescreen exposed. New Scientist. 167(2257) (23 Sept), pp. 51-51.

AuthorsPowlson, D. S. and Smith, P.

Sequestering carbon in trees or soil is no substitute for cutting carbon dioxide emissions. This is the message of the article by Fred Pearce(26 August, p 18) and the report by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
( Scientists trying to quantify the benefits of carbon sequestration also emphasise this—at least, we do.
We too believe that CO2 reduction targets should be met through cutting CO2 emissions. The benefits from sequestering carbon should be seen as additional. It is certain that some interest groups will use the Kyoto Protocol to avoid taking the politically difficult steps required to cut emissions. But don’t throw out the baby with the bath water—Kyoto is the
first and only agreement that will lead to some reduction in CO2 emissions, though certainly not enough.
The carbon sequestration measures in the protocol will at least encourage better forest management. The medium-term tying-up of carbon that can be achieved is better than no action at all. [End of letter]

Year of Publication2000
JournalNew Scientist
Journal citation167(2257) (23 Sept), pp. 51-51
Funder project or code444
Project: 034172
Open accessPublished as non-open access
PublisherReed Business Information Ltd

Permalink -

95 total views
0 total downloads
1 views this month
0 downloads this month