Correcting a fundamental error in greenhouse gas accounting related to bioenergy

Haberl, Helmut; Sprinz, Detlef F.; Bonazountas, Marc; Cocco, Pierluigi; Desaubies, Yves; Henze, Mogens; Hertel, Ole; Johnson, Richard K.; Kastrup, Ulrike; Laconte, Pierre; Lange, Eckart; Novák, Peter; Paavola, Jouni; Reenberg, Anette; Hove, Sybille van den; Vermeire, Theo; Wadhams, Peter; Searchinger, Timothy D.

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.051

Cited by 196 publications

(118 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

117

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The IPCC narrows the potential between 100 and 300 EJ per year, equivalent to 20-60% of current global primary energy 58 . In comparison, the chemical energy value of all current global biomass use in food, fibre, feed, wood products and traditional wood use is 230 EJ per year 59 .…”

Section: Nature Communications | Doimentioning

confidence: 99%

Global potential of biospheric carbon management for climate mitigation

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Elevated concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), particularly carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), have affected the global climate. Land-based biological carbon mitigation strategies are considered an important and viable pathway towards climate stabilization. However, to satisfy the growing demands for food, wood products, energy, climate mitigation and biodiversity conservation-all of which compete for increasingly limited quantities of biomass and land-the deployment of mitigation strategies must be driven by sustainable and integrated land management. If executed accordingly, through avoided emissions and carbon sequestration, biological carbon and bioenergy mitigation could save up to 38 billion tonnes of carbon and 3-8% of estimated energy consumption, respectively, by 2050.P otential pathways to climate stabilization require the deployment of a broad portfolio of solutions to increase energy efficiency, replace fossil fuel use and remove GHGs. The technological solutions available to address these challenges can be broadly divided into two camps: (1) non-biological solutions that do not involve the biosphere, such as wind and solar farms for the generation of electricity and (2) biological solutions that do involve biospheric components of the natural and managed carbon cycle, such as bioenergy or reforestation. Biological solutions are distinctive in at least two ways. First, large terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks (reservoirs that accumulate and store carbon) already exist and remove more than half of the annual anthropogenic CO 2 emissions from the atmosphere 1,2 . Thus, understanding and management of the dynamics of these sinks is of paramount importance. Second, most biological mitigation activities require additional harvesting of the Earth's plant production (that is, net primary production) beyond its current 38% use 3 . However, these requirements face the limitation that a third of the terrestrial plant production is belowground, which is not economically harvestable, and another third takes place on difficult or remote terrain. Thus, there is a clear natural limit to the global fraction further available for human exploitation. Only 10% of the land surface, equivalent to 5 PgC per year (petagrams of carbon per year ¼ 10 15 g ¼ a billion metric tonne) 3 , remains. There is a need to exploit a larger fraction of biomass production for the purpose of climate change mitigation that would place this goal in direct competition with the agendas of food security, energy security and often biodiversity conservation 4 , all of which also require increasing quantities of biomass and land to meet their goals (Fig. 1). In addition, an emerging bio-economy intending to replace many of the petroleum-based products by plant-based products 5,6 will put further demands on biomass production.New technologies will contribute to improving the sustainable production and conversion of biomass for a range of food, fibre, energy, health and industrial products. However, with new demands, there will also be unprece...

show abstract

Section: Nature Communications | Doimentioning

confidence: 99%

Global potential of biospheric carbon management for climate mitigation

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent research has shown that the assumption of carbon neutrality is not given in forest-based bioenergy systems due to the decay time of CO 2 in the atmosphere [5], direct and indirect impacts, alterations in plant growth for bioenergy and systemic feedbacks [34,36,38]. These different aspects play an important role in the evaluation of the real emission profile of bioenergy as alteration can lead to significant variations in the results [5,6,34,36,38,[40][41][42].…”

Section: Challenges Of the Real Ghg Reduction Potential Of Bioenergy mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioenergy as climate change mitigation option within a 2 °C target—uncertainties and temporal challenges of bioenergy systems

Röder

Thornley

2016

Energ Sustain Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioenergy is given an important role in reaching national and international climate change targets. However, uncertainties relating to emission reductions and the timeframe for these reductions are increasingly recognised as challenges whether bioenergy can deliver the required reductions. This paper discusses and highlights the challenges and the importance of the real greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction potential of bioenergy systems and its relevance for a global 450 ppm CO 2 e stabilisation target in terms of uncertainties and temporal aspects. The authors aim to raise awareness and emphasise the need for dynamic and consequential approaches for the evaluation of climate change impacts of bioenergy systems to capture the complexity and challenges of their real emission reduction potential within a 2°C target. This review does not present new research results. This paper shows the variety of challenges and complexity of the problem of achieving real GHG emission reductions from bioenergy systems. By reflecting on current evaluation methods of emissions and impacts from bioenergy systems, this review points out that a rethinking and going beyond static approaches is required, considering each bioenergy systems according to its own characteristics, context and feedbacks. With the development of knowledge and continuously changing systems, policies should be designed in a way that they provide a balance between flexibility to adapt to new information and planning security for investors. These will then allow considering if a bioenergy system will deliver the required emission saving in the appropriate timeframe or not.Keywords: Bioenergy, Emission reductions, Cumulative emissions, Climate change, Uncertainties, Temporal aspects, 450 ppm CO 2 e stabilisation target, 2°C target ReviewBioenergy is given an important role in reaching national and international climate change targets [1,2]. Within the EU, it is considered that by 2020, 10 % of the EU's primary energy requirements could be supplied by biomass [3], significantly contributing to climate change mitigation. Bioenergy is linked to a number of challenges, such as real emission reduction, environmental impacts, sustainability, land use, food security, wider socio-economic impacts and financial incentives [1,4]. Past research showed large variation in the emission intensity of various bioenergy systems [5][6][7][8]. Considering the urgency of climate change mitigation, the net climate impacts of bioenergy systems must be within set emission thresholds, delivering the necessary emission reduction within the given timeframe. Otherwise, it is questionable if bioenergy can be justified as a mitigation option. This paper is focusing on the greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation potential of bioenergy in terms of uncertainties regarding its real emission reduction potential within the necessary emission budget and timeframe. In order to stabilise global GHG emissions at a level consistent with avoiding "dangerous" climate change, it is imperative that bioenergy systems...

show abstract

“…In 2009, two EU Directives 2009/28/EC [1] and 2009/30/EC [2] came into force [3]. They constituted a legal framework for the production and use of sustainable biofuels in EU, particularly in the transport sector.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainability of Transport Biofuels from a Legal Perspective

Pavlovskaia¹

2013

IJEPP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The article investigates the notion of transport biofuels, their possible advantages and disadvantages in comparison to traditional fossil fuels, and sustainability requirements that need be stated to their quality and production methods from a legal perspective. The research results indicate that the understanding of what makes the quality and production of transport biofuels sustainable is still unclear. Sustainability parameters for biofuels will differ depending on the types and purposes of biofuel production. There is no clearly agreed definition on what biofuels, and particularly sustainable biofuels are. The task of law in this situation can be to contribute to the sustainable production of biofuels through the use of the traditional and newly emerging legal approaches and instruments, such as e.g. sustainability criteria for biofuels in Directive 2009/28/EC.

show abstract

Correcting a fundamental error in greenhouse gas accounting related to bioenergy

Cited by 196 publications

References 25 publications

Global potential of biospheric carbon management for climate mitigation

Global potential of biospheric carbon management for climate mitigation

Bioenergy as climate change mitigation option within a 2 °C target—uncertainties and temporal challenges of bioenergy systems

Sustainability of Transport Biofuels from a Legal Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About