Economic and ecological views on climate change mitigation with bioenergy and negative emissions

Creutzig, Felix

doi:10.1111/gcbb.12235

Cited by 65 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, AR is relatively inexpensive, but the unintended impacts on radiative forcing through decreased albedo at high latitudes, and increased evapotranspiration increasing the atmospheric water vapour content, could limit effectiveness; likewise, increased water requirements could be an important trade-off, particularly in dry regions. Competition for land is also a potential issue, as it is for BECCS 50,88,89 . BECCS may also be limited by nutrient demand, or by increased water use, particularly if feedstocks are irrigated and when the additional water required for CCS is considered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | ADVANCE ONLINE PUBLICATION | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 1 D espite two decades of effort to curb emissions of CO 2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs), emissions grew faster during the 2000s than in the 1990s 1 , and by 2010 had reached ~50 Gt CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 eq) yr −1 (refs 2,3). The continuing rise in emissions is a growing challenge for meeting the international goal of limiting warming to less than 2 °C relative to the pre-industrial era, particularly without stringent climate policies to decrease emissions in the near future 2-4 . As negative emissions technologies (NETs) seem ever more necessary 3,[5][6][7][8][9][10] To have a >50% chance of limiting warming below 2 °C, most recent scenarios from integrated assessment models (IAMs) require large-scale deployment of negative emissions technologies (NETs). These are technologies that result in the net removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. We quantify potential global impacts of the different NETs on various factors (such as land, greenhouse gas emissions, water, albedo, nutrients and energy) to determine the biophysical limits to, and economic costs of, their widespread application. Resource implications vary between technologies and need to be satisfactorily addressed if NETs are to have a significant role in achieving climate goals.options, to be able to decide which pathways are most desirable for dealing with climate change.There are distinct classes of NETs, such as: (1) bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) 11,12 ; (2) direct air capture of CO 2 from ambient air by engineered chemical reactions (DAC) 13,14 ; (3) enhanced weathering of minerals (EW) 15 , where natural weathering to remove CO 2 from the atmosphere is accelerated and the products stored in soils, or buried in land or deep ocean [16][17][18][19] ; (4) afforestation and reforestation (AR) to fix atmospheric carbon in biomass and soils [20][21][22] ; (5) manipulation of carbon uptake by the ocean, either

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reported yields of dedicated bioenergy crops under present-day conditions show large variability (miscanthus × giganteus: 5-44 t dry mass ha −1 yr −1 ; switchgrass: 1-35 t ha −1 yr −1 ; woody species: 0-51 t ha −1 yr −1 ), depending on location, plot size, and management (Searle and Malins, 2014). By the end of the century, the LUMs report average bioenergy yields of ∼ 15.0 t ha −1 yr −1 (IMAGE) and ∼ 20.3 t ha −1 yr −1 (MAgPIE), but how bioenergy yields will evolve in reality when averaged across regions (including more marginal land) is highly uncertain (Creutzig, 2016;Searle and Malins, 2014;Slade et al, 2014).…”

Section: Role Of Model Assumptions On Carbon Uptake Via Land-based MImentioning

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

“…One interpretation of this divergence is that the first strand of literature emphasizes technological opportunities, such as yield increases, to reduce land use impact, and reap economic opportunities, while the other strand of literature investigates environmental dimensions under risk of being harmed (Creutzig, ). The growing literature exploring sustainable landscape management systems for the provision of biomass and other ecosystem services might gradually come to bridge the gap between these two strands of literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioenergy production and sustainable development: science base for policymaking remains limited

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The possibility of using bioenergy as a climate change mitigation measure has sparked a discussion of whether and how bioenergy production contributes to sustainable development. We undertook a systematic review of the scientific literature to illuminate this relationship and found a limited scientific basis for policymaking. Our results indicate that knowledge on the sustainable development impacts of bioenergy production is concentrated in a few well‐studied countries, focuses on environmental and economic impacts, and mostly relates to dedicated agricultural biomass plantations. The scope and methodological approaches in studies differ widely and only a small share of the studies sufficiently reports on context and/or baseline conditions, which makes it difficult to get a general understanding of the attribution of impacts. Nevertheless, we identified regional patterns of positive or negative impacts for all categories – environmental, economic, institutional, social and technological. In general, economic and technological impacts were more frequently reported as positive, while social and environmental impacts were more frequently reported as negative (with the exception of impacts on direct substitution of GHG emission from fossil fuel). More focused and transparent research is needed to validate these patterns and develop a strong science underpinning for establishing policies and governance agreements that prevent/mitigate negative and promote positive impacts from bioenergy production.

show abstract

Economic and ecological views on climate change mitigation with bioenergy and negative emissions

Cited by 65 publications

References 59 publications

Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions

Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions

Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators

Bioenergy production and sustainable development: science base for policymaking remains limited

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About