Bioenergy deployment offers significant potential for climate change mitigation, but also carries considerable risks. In this review, we bring together perspectives of various communities involved in the research and regulation of bioenergy deployment in the context of climate change mitigation: Land-use and energy experts, landuse and integrated assessment modelers, human geographers, ecosystem researchers, climate scientists and two different strands of life-cycle assessment experts. We summarize technological options, outline the state-of-theart knowledge on various climate effects, provide an update on estimates of technical resource potential and comprehensively identify sustainability effects. Cellulosic feedstocks, increased end-use efficiency, improved land carbon-stock management and residue use, and, when fully developed, BECCS appear as the most promising options, depending on development costs, implementation, learning, and risk management. Combined heat and power, efficient biomass cookstoves and small-scale power generation for rural areas can help to promote energy access and sustainable development, along with reduced emissions. We estimate the sustainable technical potential as up to 100 EJ: high agreement; 100-300 EJ: medium agreement; above 300 EJ: low agreement. Stabilization scenarios indicate that bioenergy may supply from 10 to 245 EJ yr À1 to global primary energy supply by 2050. Models indicate that, if technological and governance preconditions are met, large-scale deployment (>200 EJ), together with BECCS, could help to keep global warming below 2°degrees of preindustrial levels; but such high deployment of land-intensive bioenergy feedstocks could also lead to detrimental climate effects, negatively impact ecosystems, biodiversity and livelihoods. The integration of bioenergy systems into agriculture and forest landscapes can improve land and water use efficiency and help address concerns about environmental impacts. We conclude that the high variability in pathways, uncertainties in technological development and ambiguity in political decision render forecasts on deployment levels and climate effects very difficult. However, uncertainty about projections should not preclude pursuing beneficial bioenergy options. IntroductionThe recent IPCC report on energy sources and climate change mitigation (SRREN) and the Global Energy Assessment provided comprehensive overviews on bioenergy. An update to these reports is nonetheless important because: (i) many of the more stringent mitigation scenarios (resulting in 450 ppm, but also 550 ppm CO2eq concentration by 2100) heavily rely on a large-scale deployment of bioenergy with CO2 capture and storage (CCS) called BECCS technologies; (ii) there has been a large body of literature published since SRREN, which complement and update the analysis presented in this last report; (iii) bioenergy is important for many sectors and mitigation perspectives as well as from the perspective of developmental goals such as energy security and rural dev...

No abstract

Production of biomass for bioenergy can alter biogeochemical and biogeophysical mechanisms, thus affecting local and global climate. Recent scientific developments have mainly embraced impacts from land use changes resulting from area-expanded biomass production, with several extensive insights available. Comparably less attention, however, has been given to the assessment of direct land surface-atmosphere climate impacts of bioenergy systems under rotation such as in plantations and forested ecosystems, whereby land use disturbances are only temporary. Here, following IPCC climate metrics, we assess bioenergy systems in light of two important dynamic land use climate factors, namely, the perturbation in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) concentration caused by the timing of biogenic CO 2 fluxes, and temporary perturbations to surface reflectivity (albedo). Existing radiative forcing-based metrics can be adapted to include such dynamic mechanisms, but high spatial and temporal modeling resolution is required. Results show the importance of specifically addressing the climate forcings from biogenic CO 2 fluxes and changes in albedo, especially when biomass is sourced from forested areas affected by seasonal snow cover. The climate performance of bioenergy systems is highly dependent on biomass species, local climate variables, time horizons, and the climate metric considered. Bioenergy climate impact studies and accounting mechanisms should rapidly adapt to cover both biogeochemical and biogeophysical impacts, so that policy makers can rely on scientifically robust analyses and promote the most effective global climate mitigation options.

No abstract

No abstract