Commercial afforestation can deliver effective climate change mitigation under multiple decarbonisation pathways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Afforestation is an important greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation strategy but the efficacy of commercial forestry is disputed. Here, we calculate the potential GHG mitigation of a UK national planting strategy of 30,000 ha yr −1 from 2020 to 2050, using dynamic life cycle assessment. What-if scenarios vary: conifer-broadleaf composition, harvesting, product breakouts, and decarbonisation of substituted energy and materials, to estimate 100-year GHG mitigation. Here we find forest growth rate is the most important determinant of cumulative mitigation by 2120, irrespective of whether trees are harvested. A national planting strategy of commercial forest could mitigate 1.64 Pg CO 2 e by 2120 (cumulative), compared with 0.54–1.72 Pg CO 2 e for planting only conservation forests, depending on species composition. Even after heavy discounting of future product substitution credits based on industrial decarbonisation projections, GHG mitigation from harvested stands typically surpasses unharvested stands. Commercial afforestation can deliver effective GHG mitigation that is robust to future decarbonisation pathways and wood uses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".