As the framework considers anthropogenic emissions and removals, the reference is unmanaged land, i.e. natural vegetation. All carbon losses following land transformation are accounted for and allocated to products. The framework can be applied for example in product environmental footprinting.
The framework seems to be retrospective, thus not applicable to estimate future effects. According to the results, GWP of harvested softwood is negative, which means it has cooling effect on the climate. How should people interpret this result?
Negative emissions indicate antropogenic carbon removals, and yes, they have a cooling effect. That is why removals are generated as part of climate actions (carbon farming etc.).
As carbon footprint is a metric to measure climate efficiency of various systems or decisions, a negative CF means that the system is extremely efficient. Wouldn't the right conclusion then be that the particular products should be produced as much as possible?
If the production keeps removing carbon from the atmosphere, then yes. That is the idea of CDR. But of course there are limits for that. In land-based systems, excess production can turn the negative emissions into positive.
Based on your results, wood harvesting generates CDR but increased wood harvesting reduces CDR as net emissions increase. You think this is not confusing?
Comments