Building on a previous study 24 , we used ten climate change and six trade scenarios, and analysed hunger effects at the global and regional levels. Four RCPs (2.6 W m −2 , 4.5 W m −2 , 6.0 W m −2 and 8.5 W m −2
This paper develops structural dynamic methods to project future carbon fluxes in forests. These methods account for land management changes on both the intensive and extensive margins, both of which are critical components of future carbon fluxes. When implemented, the model suggests that U.S. forests remain a carbon sink through most of the coming century, sequestering 128 Tg C y −1 . Constraining forestland to its current boundaries and constraining management to current levels reduce average sequestration by 25 to 28 Tg C y −1 . An increase in demand leads to increased management and greater sequestration in forests. The results are robust to climate change. (JEL Q23, Q54)
The United States has recently set ambitious national goals for greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions over the coming decades. A portion of these reductions are based on expected sequestration and storage contributions from land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF). Significant uncertainty exists in future forest markets and thus the potential LULUCF contribution to US GHG reduction goals. This study seeks to inform the discussion by modeling US forest GHG accounts per different simulated demand scenarios across a grid of over 130,000 USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) forestland plots over the conterminous United States. This spatially disaggregated future supply is based on empirical yield functions for log volume, biomass and carbon. Demand data is based on a spatial database of over 2300 forest product manufacturing facilities representing 11 intermediate and 13 final solid and pulpwood products. Transportation costs are derived from fuel prices and the locations of FIA plot from which a log is harvested and mill or port destination. Trade between mills in intermediate products such as sawmill residues or planer shavings is also captured within the model formulation. The resulting partial spatial equilibrium model of the US forest sector is solved annually for the period 2015-2035 with demand shifted by energy prices and macroeconomic indicators from the US EIA's Annual Energy Outlook for a Reference, Low Economic Growth, and High Economic Growth case. For each macroeconomic scenario simulated, figures showing historic and scenario-specific live tree carnon emissions and sequestration are generated. Maps of the spatial allocation of both forest harvesting and related carbon fluxes are presented at the National level and detail is given for both regions and ownerships.
Forests are critical for stabilizing our climate, but costs of mitigation over space, time, and stakeholder group remain uncertain. Using the Global Timber Model, we project mitigation potential and costs for four abatement activities across 16 regions for carbon price scenarios of $5–$100/tCO2. We project 0.6–6.0 GtCO2 yr−1 in global mitigation by 2055 at costs of 2–393 billion USD yr−1, with avoided tropical deforestation comprising 30–54% of total mitigation. Higher prices incentivize larger mitigation proportions via rotation and forest management activities in temperate and boreal biomes. Forest area increases 415–875 Mha relative to the baseline by 2055 at prices $35–$100/tCO2, with intensive plantations comprising <7% of this increase. Mitigation costs borne by private land managers comprise less than one-quarter of total costs. For forests to contribute ~10% of mitigation needed to limit global warming to 1.5 °C, carbon prices will need to reach $281/tCO2 in 2055.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.