1Q1A – where we ask one question and an expert gives one answer
By Inga Kiderra | UC San Diego Today
Every public and private organization has to make choices about where to invest limited resources. So how do we decide which climate projects are worth funding?
We posed that question to Teevrat Garg, associate professor of economics in the UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy.
Holder of the Marshall Saunders Chancellor’s Endowed Chair in Global Climate Policy and Research, Garg studies environmental policy and energy transitions. He also works directly with regional governments and utilities on climate adaptation and decarbonization.
In a recent Comment article published in Nature Climate Change, Garg and his co-authors argue that looking beyond carbon alone could lead to smarter climate investment decisions.
How do we decide which climate projects are worth funding?
Teevrat Garg: “I think the first step is to recognize that carbon is only one part of the picture. Reducing carbon emissions is incredibly important, but many nature-based climate projects do much more than that. Restoring a mangrove forest, for example, can store carbon while also protecting a nearby community from storm damage.
Carbon markets do a pretty good job of rewarding projects for reducing or storing carbon but typically overlook other important benefits. Those additional benefits, often called “co-benefits,” can include protecting biodiversity, reducing flood risk or supporting local livelihoods. Taking those benefits into account can help us make better decisions about which climate projects to prioritize.
We’re getting much better at measuring benefits that used to be difficult to quantify. As these tools improve, they give us an opportunity to make better investment decisions based on the full range of benefits that a climate project can provide. Ultimately, that’s how we can make climate investments work better for both people and the planet.”
Read the Comment in Nature Climate Change for more.