Recent research indicates that the spread of parasitic foci is due to ecological processes that act on different spatial scales. In this work, we set up a network model for the analysis and management of parasite outbreaks, which takes into account small-scale host-parasite interactions as well as landscape topology and connectivity. The model explains eruption cycles for both geometric moths and beetles and provides insight into the relative importance and interactions between multiscalic drivers of eruption dynamics. Our results show that epidemic behaviour is most sensitive to changes in parasite pressure at the local level and that taking into account the spatial connectivity of habitat spots is essential to measure propagation behaviour in landscapes. Unlike early warning signals based on retrospective data, our model provides predictions of the future risk of eruption based on a mechanical understanding of the system we apply to forest management at the landscape scale. The 2015 Paris Agreement states that a rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to keep global warming at a safe level. A new approach (known as GWP*) has been proposed to compare the contributions of long-lived and short-lived greenhouse gases and to establish a strong link between cumulative CO2 equivalent emissions and global warming. However, the non-CO2 greenhouse gas comparison factors under the GWP* measure depend on past emissions and therefore raise issues of fairness and equity when applied globally. The use of GWP* would penalize most developing countries compared to industrialized countries, since the use of GWP* excludes countries with historically high emissions of short-lived greenhouse gases from taking into account the avoidable future warming caused by the maintenance of these emissions. We show that when different equity or established equity criteria are applied to GWP* (defined here by eGWP*), perceived national non-CO2 emissions vary by more than an order of magnitude, especially in countries with high methane emissions, such as New Zealand. We show that national estimates of emissions using GWP* are very sensitive to arbitrary decisions made by countries, thus facilitating the creation of loopholes when CO2 equivalent emissions are traded on the basis of the GWP* concept between countries that use different approaches. Given these accounting differences based on equity, GHG ratios such as GWP* should only be used globally.

A common, transparent and capital-neutral accounting ratio is essential for the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement and its environmental integrity. The text of the Paris Agreement does not explicitly contain the question of whether the balance between sources and sinks is mandatory at the global or national level. From a climate point of view, it is the global level that is the most important. However, the expected residual emissions (i.e. costly and difficult to reduce) vary considerably from country to country; Some countries have high emissions from agriculture, heavy industry, etc., which can be costly or difficult to bring down to zero. In addition, emissions from international air and maritime transport are not currently attributed to individual countries. There are also differences in net negative CO2 emission potential between countries due to differences in forest volumes and characteristics, carbon-free biofuels and renewables, sequestration capacity, etc. .