Implications of Limiting CO
            <sub>2</sub>
            Concentrations for Land Use and Energy

Wise, Marshall; Calvin, Katherine; Thomson, Allison M.; Clarke, Leon; Bond‐Lamberty, Ben; Sands, Ronald D.; Smith, Steven J.; Janetos, Anthony C.; Edmonds, James A.

doi:10.1126/science.1168475

Cited by 851 publications

(631 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

610

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2). For non-LULCC-related emissions (such as those from fossil fuel burning) we use the emission inventories from the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP) for historical time periods, with future emissions from RCP4.5 (Wise et al, 2009). These data sets include emissions of nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHCs), NO, NH 3 , SO 2 , and organic carbon (OC) and black carbon (BC) aerosols.…”

Section: Lulcc Emissions (Not Computed From Clm)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four of the future scenarios of land cover change correspond to the four Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) that were developed for the Climate Model Intercomparison Project in preparation for the IPCC 5th assessment report (AR5) Hurtt et al, 2011;. The low-emissions scenario, RCP2.6, includes widespread proliferation of bioenergy crops (van Vuuren et al, 2007), while RCP4.5 is characterized by global reforestation as a result of carbon credit trading and emission penalties (Wise et al, 2009). The higher emissions scenarios include expansion of crop area at the expense of existing grasslands (RCP6.0; Fujino et al, 2006) or forests (RCP8.5; Riahi et al, 2007;Hurtt et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Potential climate forcing of land use and land cover change

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Pressure on land resources is expected to increase as global population continues to climb and the world becomes more affluent, swelling the demand for food. Changing climate may exert additional pressures on natural lands as present-day productive regions may shift, or soil quality may degrade, and the recent rise in demand for biofuels increases competition with edible crops for arable land. Given these projected trends there is a need to understand the global climate impacts of land use and land cover change (LULCC). Here we quantify the climate impacts of global LULCC in terms of modifications to the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere (radiative forcing, RF) that are caused by changes in long-lived and short-lived greenhouse gas concentrations, aerosol effects, and land surface albedo. We attribute historical changes in terrestrial carbon storage, global fire emissions, secondary organic aerosol emissions, and surface albedo to LULCC using simulations with the Community Land Model version 3.5. These LULCC emissions are combined with estimates of agricultural emissions of important trace gases and mineral dust in two sets of Community Atmosphere Model simulations to calculate the RF of changes in atmospheric chemistry and aerosol concentrations attributed to LULCC. With all forcing agents considered together, we show that 40 % (±16 %) of the present-day anthropogenic RF can be attributed to LULCC. Changes in the emission of non-CO 2 greenhouse gases and aerosols from LULCC enhance the total LULCC RF by a factor of 2 to 3 with respect to the LULCC RF from CO 2 alone. This enhancement factor also applies to projected LULCC RF, which we compute for four future scenarios associated with the Representative Concentration Pathways. We attribute total RFs between 0.9 and 1.9 W m −2 to LULCC for the year 2100 (relative to a preindustrial state). To place an upper bound on the potential of LULCC to alter the global radiation budget, we include a fifth scenario in which all arable land is cultivated by 2100. This theoretical extreme case leads to a LULCC RF of 3.9 W m −2 (±0.9 W m −2 ), suggesting that not only energy policy but also land policy is necessary to minimize future increases in RF and associated climate changes.

show abstract

Section: Lulcc Emissions (Not Computed From Clm)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential climate forcing of land use and land cover change

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, the results reveal the advantage of using woody biomass rather than crop bio-energy. Crop bio-energy will have exactly the opposite effect on forest carbon sequestration because it would increase the relative value of cropland causing forestland to shrink (Fargione et al 2008;Melillo et al 2009;Searchinger et al 2009;Wise et al 2009). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is also clear that this increase in forestland will cause overall carbon sequestration rates to increase (Malmsheimer et al 2011;Havlík et al 2011;Daigneault et al 2012;Sedjo and Tian 2012). Note that crop bio-energy would have the opposite effect on carbon sequestration because it would increase the relative value of cropland (Fargione et al 2008;Melillo et al 2009;Searchinger et al 2009;Wise et al 2009). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Global Role of Woody Biomass as a Mitigation Strategy

Mendelsohn

2013

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As policy makers consider stringent targets for greenhouse gas emissions, integrated assessment models are increasingly relying on biomass energy as a critical energy source. However, it is not clear how much woody biomass to expect across time and across the planet. The integrated assessment models simply do not have enough detail about global forests and arable land to make careful forecasts of biomass supply over time. Integrating the complex dynamic demand for bioenergy from the IAMs with the complex dynamic structure of forests and forest supply is a daunting intertemporal task. This study examines the market for woody biomass by combining the integrated assessment model WITCH with the global dynamic forestry model GTM. Three carbon tax schedules are used to simulate different mitigation policies that lead to radiative forcing levels of 3.7, 3.2 and 2.5 W/m 2 and a baseline scenario with no mitigation policies. WITCH determines the demand for woody biomass and GTM determines the supply of woody biomass over time. Moving from a mild to stringent mitigation policy would increase the demand of woody biomass from 8.2 to 15.2 billion m 3 /yr while the international price of wood would increase 4 to 9 times relative to the baseline scenario by 2100. This would shrink the demand for industrial wood products from 80% to 90% with the biomass program. Forest area will expand by 70-95% leading to increased storage of 685-1,279 GtCO 2 in forest by 2100. Overall, the biomass program with the CCS technology plays a key contribution to overall GHG emission reductions in all scenarios contributing 20-27% of all mitigation for 2020-2100.

show abstract

“…In particular, questions arise about potential conflicts between "natural areas" and managed lands in climate mitigation scenarios that envision large--scale landuse changes for large--scale deployment of bioenergy production (see for example, Luckow et al, 2010) or the preservation of terrestrial carbon stocks by avoiding deforestation (see for example, Wise et al, 2009). A next logical question arises as to what specific kinds of lands are being modified in these scenarios.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explicitly Accounting for Protected Lands within the GCAM 3.0

Dooley¹,

Zhou²

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

3 Abstract: The Global Change Assessment Model Version 3.0 defines three different levels of "Protected Lands" within the agricultural and landuse component. These three different scenarios effectively cordon off 3.2% (5.0 million km 2 ) of the Earth's lands in the de minimus Protected Land Scenario, 4.9% (7.2 million km 2 ) in the Core Protected Land Scenario, and 8.4% (11.8 million km 2 ) in the Expanded Protected Land Scenario. None of these scenarios represents the "right" level of Protected Lands for the planet today or tomorrow. Rather, the goal is to create a range of scenarios that can be used in modeling demands for agricultural land for food and bioenergy crops, responses to climate change and the impact those would have on managed and unmanaged lands. These scenarios harness the wealth of information in the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre's World Database on Protected Areas and its categories of explicit degrees of protection.

show abstract

Implications of Limiting CO ₂ Concentrations for Land Use and Energy

Cited by 851 publications

References 14 publications

Potential climate forcing of land use and land cover change

Potential climate forcing of land use and land cover change

Evaluating the Global Role of Woody Biomass as a Mitigation Strategy

Explicitly Accounting for Protected Lands within the GCAM 3.0

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Implications of Limiting CO 2 Concentrations for Land Use and Energy

Cited by 851 publications

References 14 publications

Potential climate forcing of land use and land cover change

Potential climate forcing of land use and land cover change

Evaluating the Global Role of Woody Biomass as a Mitigation Strategy

Explicitly Accounting for Protected Lands within the GCAM 3.0

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Implications of Limiting CO ₂ Concentrations for Land Use and Energy