Meeting global temperature targets—the role of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage

Azar, Christian; Johansson, Daniel; Mattsson, Niclas

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034004

Cited by 133 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another option is to use bioenergy together with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which could in theory offer net negative emissions from the energy system. Such negative emissions could open up the possibility to have larger sustained emissions of CH 4 (and N 2 O) for a given temperature target (Azar et al 2013). However, due to lack hitherto of operational experience, and the inertia in the diffusion of these capital-intensive technologies, the prospect of a full-blown BECCS industry at the scale needed by the second half of the century is highly uncertain.…”

Section: Trade-offs Between Short and Long-lived Gases In Long-term Ementioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For agriculture, there are three major options for mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions: 1) productivity improvements, particularly in the livestock sector; 2) dedicated technical mitigation measures; and 3) human dietary changes. The aim of the paper is to estimate long-term agricultural GHG emissions, under different mitigation scenarios, and to relate them to the emissions space compatible with the 2°C temperature target. Our estimates include emissions up to 2070 from agricultural soils, manure management, enteric fermentation and paddy rice fields, and are based on IPCC Tier 2 methodology. We find that baseline agricultural CO 2 -equivalent emissions (using Global Warming Potentials with a 100 year time horizon) will be approximately 13 Gton CO 2 eq/year in 2070, compared to 7.1 Gton CO 2 eq/year 2000. However, if faster growth in livestock productivity is combined with dedicated technical mitigation measures, emissions may be kept to 7.7 Gton CO 2 eq/year in 2070. If structural changes in human diets are included, emissions may be reduced further, to 3-5 Gton CO 2 eq/year in 2070. The total annual emissions for meeting the 2°C target with a chance above 50 % is in the order of 13 Gton CO 2 eq/year or less in 2070, for all sectors combined. We conclude that reduced ruminant meat and dairy consumption will be indispensable for reaching the 2°C target with a high probability, unless unprecedented advances in technology take place.

show abstract

Section: Trade-offs Between Short and Long-lived Gases In Long-term Ementioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As part of the current debate on the role negative emissions might play in reaching the 2-°C target [6][7][8][9][10][11] , we hereby quantify the trade-off between conventional mitigation and negative emissions in the extended RCP2.6. We use a three-step approach to do so.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative emissions physically needed to keep global warming below 2 °C

Gasser¹,

Guivarch²,

Tachiiri³

et al. 2015

Nat Commun

323

218

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To limit global warming to o2°C we must reduce the net amount of CO 2 we release into the atmosphere, either by producing less CO 2 (conventional mitigation) or by capturing more CO 2 (negative emissions). Here, using state-of-the-art carbon-climate models, we quantify the trade-off between these two options in RCP2.6: an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenario likely to limit global warming below 2°C. In our best-case illustrative assumption of conventional mitigation, negative emissions of 0.5-3 Gt C (gigatonnes of carbon) per year and storage capacity of 50-250 Gt C are required. In our worst case, those requirements are 7-11 Gt C per year and 1,000-1,600 Gt C, respectively. Because these figures have not been shown to be feasible, we conclude that development of negative emission technologies should be accelerated, but also that conventional mitigation must remain a substantial part of any climate policy aiming at the 2-°C target.

show abstract

“…In the analysis, we link the World Food Supply Model (WOFSUM) [3], with the fully coupled global energy-transition-climate-system optimization model, GET-Climate [16]. With WOFSUM we construct three dietary scenarios and calculate N 2 O and CH 4 emissions along the food supply chains.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The integrated energy system and climate model, GET-Climate [16] combines a bottom-up energy system model [17][18][19][20][21]. The energy system and climate models are hard-linked, which enables us to generate internally consistent least-cost scenarios for the global energy system for each dietary scenario, for a given climate goal.…”

Section: Energy System Model Get-climatementioning

confidence: 99%

How Do Dietary Choices Influence the Energy-System Cost of Stabilizing the Climate?

Bryngelsson¹,

Hedenus²,

Johansson³

et al. 2017

Energies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:We investigate how different global dietary scenarios affect the constraints on, and costs of, transforming the energy system to reach a global temperature stabilization limit of 2 • C above the pre-industrial level. A global food and agriculture model, World Food Supply Model (WOFSUM), is used to create three dietary scenarios and to calculate the CH 4 and N 2 O emissions resulting from their respective food-supply chains. The diets are: (i) a reference diet based on current trends; (ii) a diet with high (reference-level) meat consumption, but without ruminant products (i.e., no beef, lamb, or dairy, only pork and poultry); and (iii) a vegan diet. The estimated CH 4 and N 2 O emissions from food production are fed into a coupled energy and climate-system optimization model to quantify the energy system implications of the different dietary scenarios, given a 2 • C target. The results indicate that a phase-out of ruminant products substantially increases the emission space for CO 2 by about 250 GtC which reduces the necessary pace of the energy system transition and cuts the net present value energy-system mitigation costs by 25%, for staying below 2 • C. Importantly, the additional cost savings with a vegan diet--beyond those achieved with a phase-out of ruminant products--are marginal (only one additional percentage point). This means that a general reduction of meat consumption is a far less effective strategy for meeting the 2 • C target than a reduction of beef and dairy consumption.

show abstract

Meeting global temperature targets—the role of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage

Cited by 133 publications

References 38 publications

The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets

The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets

Negative emissions physically needed to keep global warming below 2 °C

How Do Dietary Choices Influence the Energy-System Cost of Stabilizing the Climate?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About