2017
DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12456
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the global limits of bioenergy and land use for climate change mitigation

Abstract: Across energy, agricultural and forestry landscapes, the production of biomass for energy has emerged as a controversial driver of land-use change. We present a novel, simple methodology, to probe the potential global sustainability limits of bioenergy over time for energy provision and climate change mitigation using a complexsystems approach for assessing land-use dynamics. Primary biomass that could provide between 70 EJ year À1 and 360 EJ year , globally, by 2050 was simulated in the context of different l… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
27
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
(18 reference statements)
1
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Notably, two studies include food consumption broadly, and another two include consumption disaggregated by types of food, allowing for the possibility of linking dietary patterns to climate change, undernutrition, and/or obesity in the latter. For example, Strapasson et al's model examines the dynamics of land use for bioenergy, crop cultivation, and livestock on a global scale and allows for testing of multiple scenarios (eg, modifying food calories consumed, crop yields, quantity and type of meat consumed, and animal density on pasture lands) for effect on global greenhouse gas emissions and temperature. This model could potentially be expanded to allow for quantifying impact on obesity or undernutrition prevalence.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Notably, two studies include food consumption broadly, and another two include consumption disaggregated by types of food, allowing for the possibility of linking dietary patterns to climate change, undernutrition, and/or obesity in the latter. For example, Strapasson et al's model examines the dynamics of land use for bioenergy, crop cultivation, and livestock on a global scale and allows for testing of multiple scenarios (eg, modifying food calories consumed, crop yields, quantity and type of meat consumed, and animal density on pasture lands) for effect on global greenhouse gas emissions and temperature. This model could potentially be expanded to allow for quantifying impact on obesity or undernutrition prevalence.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The European Union also has a calculator under preparation and a preliminary modelling approach to land use dynamics, food and bioenergy, called EU Land Use Futures model (EULUF) was recently launched. The EULUF model and the Global Calculator Land Use Change (GCLUC) model demonstrate that changes in dietary patterns, bioenergy and land use, including soil carbon dynamics, can have a very significant impact on GHG emissions (Strapasson, Woods, & Mbuk, 2016;Strapasson et al, 2017), and this issue is not entirely covered by the Mexico 2050 Calculator yet, at least not in its current version 1.5.0. Also, recently, the Financial Times (FT, 2016) made available an emissions footprint calculator 4 prepared by Imperial College London for helping visualize the impact from the implementation of major economies' INDCs on global GHG emissions, and inform the negotiations at the UNFCCC.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, 14 studies remained for the systematic analysis. Two studies calculated the geographical biomass potential [31,32], one study the sustainable potential [38], and the remaining eleven studies the technical potential [15,22,27,29,30,33,[39][40][41][42][43] (see Appendix B for definition of biomass potential types). The (environmentally) sustainable potential includes more assumptions for ecological boundaries, environmental protection and long-term availability of resources.…”
Section: The Procedures Of the Systematic Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%