Change Carbon Storage and Sequestration model name?

[dcdenu4]

There was some Carbon model discussion in #1758 and #1825 related to removing REDD scenarios, renaming some output filenames, AND possibly renaming the model name. This is a discussion around the last part, whether it makes sense to rename the model. Below is a highlight reel from the issues so far.

@rmgriffin

I could see renaming the model being the preferred route vs the outputs, as some scenarios could cause emissions versus sequestration. Maybe something like carbon "storage and change."

@newtpatrol

As for changing the model name to "storage and change", I'm somewhat ambivalent, but leaning toward yes. Changing it would be more consistent with the new output file names. And perhaps "change" would make it sound less fancy than "sequestration", which is appropriate given its simplicity. And it would encompass loss as well as gain. But I don't feel strongly about it, my main concern was making the file names more intuitive.

@lmandle

In general, the InVEST models are named after the ecosystem service/benefit, so from that angle I think it makes sense to keep "storage and sequestration" in the name, even if scenarios could involve negative changes in sequestration/increase in emissions. Or we could just call it "Carbon Storage" since the Coastal Blue Carbon model also calculates change, but doesn't include "Change" in the name?