Temperate forest and coastal wetland (blue carbon) ecosystems contain significant carbon stocks and in many cases sequester additional carbon each year. Uncertainty remains about the precise carbon dynamics, but it is clear at the scale of Massachusetts, the United States, and the globe that preserving forests and blue carbon systems both avoids greenhouse gas emissions and removes existing carbon from the air. Land use policy and public funding influence carbon sequestration rates as well as whether existing carbon stocks are secure or released over time. However, scientific knowledge is not always communicated in a way that informs policy.
In Massachusetts, the Global Warming Solutions Act aims to reduce annual carbon emissions to 25% below 1990 baseline emissions (25 million metric tons of carbon (MMTC)) in 2020 and 80% below in 2050. Current progress reports suggest that Massachusetts may fall just short of its 2020 goal. In addition to further reducing fossil fuel use, to meet its emissions reductions goals Massachusetts will need to protect carbon stocks in forests (containing an estimated 106 MMTC) and blue carbon systems (containing an estimated 6.7 MMTC), and maintain the ability of these ecosystems to remove additional carbon from the air. Using scientific literature, modeled scenario analyses, and expert opinion, we created two policy factsheets to propose state policy actions that will increase the amount of carbon reduced and removed by forest and blue carbon systems.
Results/Conclusions
Our two factsheets provide a plain language but scientifically sound introduction to forest and blue carbon ecosystems' role in reducing and removing carbon in Massachusetts. We suggest strengthening existing policies and adding new ones to prevent the loss of forest carbon and blue carbon stocks and sequestration ability. We suggest several policies to improve management of forests and reduce degradation of blue carbon ecosystems.
Scientists are sometimes reluctant to advocate for specific policies rather than neutrally present data. They fear losing their credibility, though recent research indicates this fear is misplaced. It can be difficult to switch between the communication style and evidence norms of ecology and policy. We describe our writing and vetting process, how we communicated positive but imprecise carbon balances, and the ways our policy factsheets have broadened the list of climate change policies being considered in Massachusetts. We hope that this case study can help others bridge the communication gap between ecology and policy.