Reconciling biodiversity and carbon conservation

Climate change is leading to the development of land-based mitigation and adaptation strategies that are likely to have substantial impacts on global biodiversity. Of these, approaches to maintain carbon within existing natural ecosystems could have particularly large benefits for biodiversity. However, the geographical distributions of terrestrial carbon stocks and biodiversity differ. Using conservation planning analyses for the New World and Britain, we conclude that a carbon-only strategy would not be effective at conserving biodiversity, as have previous studies. Nonetheless, we find that a combined carbon-biodiversity strategy could simultaneously protect 90% of carbon stocks (relative to a carbon-only conservation strategy) and > 90% of the biodiversity (relative to a biodiversity-only strategy) in both regions. This combined approach encapsulates the principle of complementarity, whereby locations that contain different sets of species are prioritised, and hence disproportionately safeguard localised species that are not protected effectively by carbon-only strategies. It is efficient because localised species are concentrated into small parts of the terrestrial land surface, whereas carbon is somewhat more evenly distributed; and carbon stocks protected in one location are equivalent to those protected elsewhere. Efficient compromises can only be achieved when biodiversity and carbon are incorporated together within a spatial planning process.

Whole life carbon – a building case study

There is potential to reduce both operational and embodied greenhouse gas emission from buildings. To date the focus has been on reducing the operational element, although given the urgency of carbon reductions, it may be more beneficial to consider upfront embodied carbon reductions. This paper describes a case study on the whole life carbon cycle of a warehouse building in Swindon, UK. It examines the relationship between embodied carbon (Ec) and operational carbon (Oc), the proportions of Ec from the structural and non-structural elements, carbon benchmarking of the structure, the value of ‘cradle to site’ or ‘cradle to grave’ assessments and the significance of the timing of emissions during the life of the building. The case study indicates that Ec was dominant for the building and that the structure was responsible for more than half of the Ec. Weighting of future emissions appears to be an important factor to consider. The PAS 2050 reduction factors had only a modest effect but weighting to allow for future decarbonisation of the national grid energy supply had a large effect. This suggests that future operational carbon emissions are being overestimated compared to embodied.