He discusses, with current examples, why mainstream science is not necessarily good science. The Kyoto Protocol permits credits for carbon sequestration by trees and soils. But this raises all kinds of difficult questions related to monitoring and verification. Beyond this there are wider environmental implications. For example, higher crop yields produce more carbon accumulation in soils but also require higher fertilizer use.
Conservation tillage has many environmental benefits but requires increased use of herbicides.
Green zealots who care less about climate change but insist that energy generation itself must be reduced. Aside from the usual problems of accounting and monitoring, there is the problem of definitions. Boreal forests are different from savanna forests, which have sparse canopies. Another crucial problem the report notes is whether forests that are harvested commercially and planted should be counted. There is an additional dispute about the carbon cost of applying nitrogen fertilizer to crops.