Climate impacts of a large‐scale biofuels expansion

Hallgren, Willow; Schlosser, C. Adam; Monier, Erwan; Kicklighter, David W.; Sokolov, Andrei P.; Melillo, Jerry M.

doi:10.1002/grl.50352

Cited by 40 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Effects of enhanced forest cover are less pronounced in lower latitudes (Li et al, 2015) and for BECCS scenarios . A modelling study by Hallgren et al (2013) found that while albedo effects and C emissions from deforestation for biofuel production might balance on the global scale, biophysical effects can be large locally. In our BECCS simulations, albedo changes are relatively small.…”

Section: Climate Regulation Via Biogeochemical and Biophysical Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Land management for carbon storage is discussed as being indispensable for climate change mitigation because of its large potential to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and to avoid further emissions from deforestation. However, the acceptance and feasibility of land-based mitigation projects depends on potential side effects on other important ecosystem functions and their services. Here, we use projections of future land use and land cover for different land-based mitigation options from two land-use models (IMAGE and MAgPIE) and evaluate their effects with a global dynamic vegetation model (LPJ-GUESS). In the landuse models, carbon removal was achieved either via growth of bioenergy crops combined with carbon capture and storage, via avoided deforestation and afforestation, or via a combination of both. We compare these scenarios to a reference scenario without land-based mitigation and analyse the LPJ-GUESS simulations with the aim of assessing synergies and trade-offs across a range of ecosystem service indicators: carbon storage, surface albedo, evapotranspiration, water runoff, crop production, nitrogen loss, and emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds.In our mitigation simulations cumulative carbon storage by year 2099 ranged between 55 and 89 GtC. Other ecosystem service indicators were influenced heterogeneously both positively and negatively, with large variability across regions and land-use scenarios. Avoided deforestation and afforestation led to an increase in evapotranspiration and enhanced emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds, and to a decrease in albedo, runoff, and nitrogen loss. Crop production could also decrease in the afforestation scenarios as a result of reduced crop area, especially for MAgPIE land-use patterns, if assumed increases in crop yields cannot be realized. Bioenergy-based climate change mitigation was projected to affect less area globally than in the forest expansion scenarios, and resulted in less pronounced changes in most ecosystem service indicators than forest-based mitigation, but included a possible decrease in nitrogen loss, crop production, and biogenic volatile organic compounds emissions.

show abstract

Section: Climate Regulation Via Biogeochemical and Biophysical Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These effects are most pronounced at regional scales (Feddema et al 2005;Foley et al 2005;Bonan 2008;Hallgren et al 2013;Brovkin et al 2013), but some scenarios of future LULCC have been shown to affect global mean quantities such as temperature and precipitation (Jones et al 2013a;Davies-Barnard et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for radiative forcing from albedo change in future global land-use scenarios

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We demonstrate the effectiveness of a new method for quantifying radiative forcing from land use and land cover change (LULCC) within an integrated assessment model, the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM). The method relies on geographically differentiated estimates of radiative forcing from albedo change associated with major land cover transitions derived from the Community Earth System Model. We find that conversion of 1 km 2 of woody vegetation (forest and shrublands) to non-woody vegetation (crops and grassland) yields between 0 and −0.71 nW/m 2 of globally averaged radiative forcing determined by the vegetation characteristics, snow dynamics, and atmospheric radiation environment characteristic within each of 151 regions we consider globally. Across a set of scenarios designed to span a range of potential future LULCC, we find LULCC forcing ranging from −0.06 to −0.29 W/m 2 by 2070 depending on assumptions regarding future crop yield growth and whether climate policy favors afforestation or bioenergy crops. Inclusion of this previously uncounted forcing in the policy targets driving future climate mitigation efforts leads to changes in fossil fuel emissions on the order of 1.5 PgC/yr by 2070 for a climate forcing limit of 4.5 Wm −2 , corresponding to a 12-67 % change in fossil fuel emissions depending on the scenario. Scenarios with significant afforestation must compensate for albedo-induced warming through additional emissions reductions, and scenarios with significant deforestation need not mitigate as aggressively due to albedo-induced cooling. In all scenarios considered, inclusion of albedo forcing in policy targets increases forest and shrub cover globally.Climatic Change

show abstract

“…In previous work, the climate impact of albedo changes has been assessed to describe the effect of forestation policies (Rautiainen et al 2009, Lohila et al 2010, Rautiainen et al 2011. Recent studies have also attempted to evaluate the albedo effect of biomass feedstock cultivation, using either numerical models (Georgescu et al 2011, Anderson-Teixeira et al 2012, Hallgren et al 2013, Anderson et al 2013 or satellite measurements (Bright et al 2011, Loarie et al 2011. The results of those analyses suggest that albedo effects are potentially as important as the biogeochemical effects assessed by traditional LCA (Georgescu et al 2011, Anderson-Teixeira et al 2012.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying the Climate Impacts of Albedo Changes Due to Biofuel Production: A Comparison with Biogeochemical Effects

Caiazzo¹,

Malina²,

Staples³

et al. 2015

Climate Change Mitigation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lifecycle analysis is a tool widely used to evaluate the climate impact of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the production and use of biofuels. In this paper we employ an augmented lifecycle framework that includes climate impacts from changes in surface albedo due to land use change. We consider eleven land-use change scenarios for the cultivation of biomass for middle distillate fuel production, and compare our results to previous estimates of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for the same set of land-use change scenarios in terms of CO 2 e per unit of fuel energy. We find that two of the land-use change scenarios considered demonstrate a warming effect due to changes in surface albedo, compared to conventional fuel, the largest of which is for replacement of desert land with salicornia cultivation. This corresponds to 222 gCO 2 e/MJ, equivalent to 3890% and 247% of the lifecycle GHG emissions of fuels derived from salicornia and crude oil, respectively. Nine of the land-use change scenarios considered demonstrate a cooling effect, the largest of which is for the replacement of tropical rainforests with soybean cultivation. This corresponds to −161 gCO 2 e/MJ, or −28% and −178% of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of fuels derived from soybean and crude oil, respectively. These results indicate that changes in surface albedo have the potential to dominate the climate impact of biofuels, and we conclude that accounting for changes in surface albedo is necessary for a complete assessment of the aggregate climate impacts of biofuel production and use.

show abstract

Climate impacts of a large‐scale biofuels expansion

Cited by 40 publications

References 31 publications

Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators

Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators

Accounting for radiative forcing from albedo change in future global land-use scenarios

Quantifying the Climate Impacts of Albedo Changes Due to Biofuel Production: A Comparison with Biogeochemical Effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About