Thats the right way to present it @IPBES 🤗

I hope you have a certain number of peer reviews about what you tell and show. Otherwise, there could be no scientific foundation for it.

....and approximately double our remaining carbon budget to a 1.5C pathway (depending on calculation method, but the order of magnitude is right)

@TEEB4ME speaking about money: TEEB still alive?

Any evidence you personally know of that supports pseudoscience of #ClimateChange? I think not. That is how pseudo science spreads Phrenology. Cold hard butter in the morning melts by lunch time due to glow ball warming of 1 degree per hour. hellosemi.com/hypercube/pmwi…

Am I wrong, or is the entire boreal forest missing (in a global study dealing with climate change mitigation)?

This is a highly problematic perspective-shows such unawareness on environmental racism, new studies on non-forest/savannas. They should have themselves seen their results as alarmingly wrong when almost all of Mississippi basin/great plains showed as low priority for restoration

RT @robinjroth Restoration beyond tree planting is a critical nature based climate solution! BUT it should be done with Indigenous knowledge holders - returning biocultural diversity and capturing carbon! 👍🏿 🌿@fionaharvey @IndgLed_Conserv @UNBiodiversity @ICCAConsortium

Read-only free access: rdcu.be/b8v3A

Those 30% need to be interpreted in the proper context. Carbon sinks have positive and negative cycles. During the negative cycles sinks actually release CO2. So, overall contribution drops from ~30% to ~15%. Nevertheless, this is good news.