The influence of system boundaries and baseline in climate impact assessment of forest products

Peñaloza, Diego; Røyne, Frida; Sandin, Gustav; Svanström, Magdalena; Erlandsson, Martin

doi:10.1007/s11367-018-1495-z

Cited by 27 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, commencing at the time of replanting shows the opposite trend: a period of CO 2 removal during forest growth, followed by a pulse emission returning the CO 2 to the atmosphere. Thus, stand‐level assessments give inconsistent results and can be misleading as a basis to assess climate impacts of forest systems (Berndes et al, 2013; Cintas, Berndes, Cowie, et al, 2017; Peñaloza et al, 2019). Furthermore, when considering only the stand level, it is difficult to identify whether the forest is sustainably managed or subject to unsustainable practices that cause declining productive capacity and decreasing carbon stocks.…”

Section: Stand Versus Landscape Scale Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Across the whole forest landscape, that is, at the scale that forests are generally managed, temporal fluctuations observed at stand level are evened out and the forest carbon stock fluctuates around a trend line that can be increasing or decreasing, or roughly stable, depending on the age class distribution and weather patterns (Cowie et al, 2013). Landscape‐level assessment provides a more complete representation of the dynamics of forest systems, as it can integrate the effects of all changes in forest management and harvesting taking place in response to—experienced or anticipated—bioenergy demand, and it also incorporates the effects of landscape‐scale processes such as fire (Cintas et al, 2016; Cowie et al, 2013; Dwivedi et al, 2019; Koponen et al, 2018; Peñaloza et al, 2019).…”

Section: Stand Versus Landscape Scale Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Applying a science‐based systems perspective to dispel misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The scientific literature contains contrasting findings about the climate effects of forest bioenergy, partly due to the wide diversity of bioenergy systems and associated contexts, but also due to differences in assessment methods. The climate effects of bioenergy must be accurately assessed to inform policy‐making, but the complexity of bioenergy systems and associated land, industry and energy systems raises challenges for assessment. We examine misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy and discuss important considerations in assessing these effects and devising measures to incentivize sustainable bioenergy as a component of climate policy. The temporal and spatial system boundary and the reference (counterfactual) scenarios are key methodology choices that strongly influence results. Focussing on carbon balances of individual forest stands and comparing emissions at the point of combustion neglect system‐level interactions that influence the climate effects of forest bioenergy. We highlight the need for a systems approach, in assessing options and developing policy for forest bioenergy that: (1) considers the whole life cycle of bioenergy systems, including effects of the associated forest management and harvesting on landscape carbon balances; (2) identifies how forest bioenergy can best be deployed to support energy system transformation required to achieve climate goals; and (3) incentivizes those forest bioenergy systems that augment the mitigation value of the forest sector as a whole. Emphasis on short‐term emissions reduction targets can lead to decisions that make medium‐ to long‐term climate goals more difficult to achieve. The most important climate change mitigation measure is the transformation of energy, industry and transport systems so that fossil carbon remains underground. Narrow perspectives obscure the significant role that bioenergy can play by displacing fossil fuels now, and supporting energy system transition. Greater transparency and consistency is needed in greenhouse gas reporting and accounting related to bioenergy.

show abstract

Section: Stand Versus Landscape Scale Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Stand Versus Landscape Scale Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying a science‐based systems perspective to dispel misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The dynamic LCA method appears to be adequate, tackling the issue of timing biogenic elementary flows, as applied in several other studies of forest bioproducts (Fouquet et al 2015;Daystar et al 2016;Peñaloza et al 2016Peñaloza et al , 2018Demertzi et al 2018), and more specifically of forest-bioenergy (Zetterberg and Chen 2015;Albers et al 2019a). As highlighted by Levasseur et al (2012c), none of the current carbon accounting methods consider the temporal profiles of Cbio flows.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Published studies have applied the historic (Vogtländer et al 2014;Zetterberg and Chen 2015;Demertzi et al 2018;Albers et al 2019a), future (Cherubini et al 2011b, a;Levasseur et al 2012b;Repo et al 2015;Pingoud et al 2016;De Rosa et al 2017) and occasionally both (Levasseur et al 2012c;Fouquet et al 2015;Peñaloza et al 2018) approaches. These opposed time perspectives yield different results, which require careful justification of the modelling choice.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Full lifetime accounting of biogenic carbon (Cbio) from forest wood residues includes fixation, sequestration and endof-life releases through decay and/or combustion. The system boundary features two scenarios, the bioenergy (70% of logging residues are combusted and 30% left behind to decay) and the (all residues are left in the forest floor to decay) Defining the temporal boundaries is as a key issue when describing the emission flows through time, particularly concerning Cbio from forestry resources (Levasseur et al 2012b;Peñaloza et al 2018). The LCA ISO 14040/14044 standard (ISO 2006a, b) refers to the setting of a time horizon (TH) for the impact characterisation (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Back to the future: dynamic full carbon accounting applied to prospective bioenergy scenarios

Albers

Collet

Benoist

et al. 2019

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ongoing debates focus on the role of forest-sourced bioenergy within climate mitigation efforts, due to the long rotation lengths of forest biomass. Valuing sequestration is debated due to its reversibility; however, dynamic modelling of biogenic carbon (Cbio) flows captures both negative and positive emissions. The objective of this work is to respond to the key issue of timing sequestration associated with two opposed modelling choices (historic vs. future) in the context of dynamic LCA.Methods. The model outputs of a partial-equilibrium model are used to inform prospective evaluations of the use of forest wood residues in response to an energy transition policy. Dynamic forest carbon modelling represents the carbon cycle between the atmosphere and technosphere: Cbio fixation and release through combustion and/or decay. Time-dependent characterisation is used to assess the time-sensitive climate change effects. The two Cbio sequestration perspectives for bioenergy (biomass use) and reference (no use) scenarios are contrasted to assess i) their temporal profiles, ii) their climatic consequences concerning C-complete (fossil + biogenic C) vs Cneutral (fossil C) approaches, and iii) the implications of comparing the two approaches with dynamic LCA.Results and discussion. Full lifetime carbon accounting confirms that Cbio entering the bioenergy system equals the Cbio leaving it in a net balance, but not within annual balances, which alter the atmospheric greenhouse gas composition. The impacts of the historic approach differed considerably from those of the future. Moreover, the methane proportions. The chicken-egg dilemma arises in attributional LCA: as the forcing depends on the timing of the Cbio sequestration and its allocation to a harvest activity. A decision tree supported by case study applications provides general rules for selecting the adequate time-related modelling approach based the criteria of provision of wood and regrowth from managed and unmanaged forests, determined by the origin of biotic resources and related spheres. Conclusions.Excluding dynamic Cbio introduces under-(future) or over-(historic) estimation of the results, misleading mitigation results. Further research is needed to close the gap between forest stand and landscape level, addressing issues beyond the chicken-egg dilemma, and developing complete dynamic LCA studies.

show abstract

Life Cycle Assessment of Biofuels

Reijnders

2021

Methods in Molecular Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The influence of system boundaries and baseline in climate impact assessment of forest products

Cited by 27 publications

References 33 publications

Applying a science‐based systems perspective to dispel misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy

Applying a science‐based systems perspective to dispel misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy

Back to the future: dynamic full carbon accounting applied to prospective bioenergy scenarios

Life Cycle Assessment of Biofuels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About