Dataset Information

A bioenergy-focused versus a reforestation-focused mitigation pathway yields disparate carbon storage and climate responses.

ABSTRACT: Limiting global warming to 2 °C requires urgent action on land-based mitigation. This study evaluates the biogeochemical and biogeophysical implications of two alternative land-based mitigation scenarios that aim to achieve the same radiative forcing. One scenario is primarily driven by bioenergy expansion (SSP226Lu-BIOCROP), while the other involves re/afforestation (SSP126Lu-REFOREST). We find that overall, SSP126Lu-REFOREST is a more efficient strategy for removing CO₂ from the atmosphere by 2100, resulting in a net carbon sink of 242 ~ 483 PgC with smaller uncertainties compared to SSP226Lu-BIOCROP, which exhibits a wider range of -78 ~ 621 PgC. However, SSP126Lu-REFOREST leads to a relatively warmer planetary climate than SSP226Lu-BIOCROP, and this relative warming can be intensified in certain re/afforested regions where local climates are not favorable for tree growth. Despite the cooling effect on a global scale, SSP226Lu-BIOCROP reshuffles regional warming hotspots, amplifying summer temperatures in vulnerable tropical regions such as Central Africa and Southeast Asia. Our findings highlight the need for strategic land use planning to identify suitable regions for re/afforestation and bioenergy expansion, thereby improving the likelihood of achieving the intended climate mitigation outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Cheng Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10873610 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A bioenergy-focused versus a reforestation-focused mitigation pathway yields disparate carbon storage and climate responses.

Cheng Yanyan Y Lawrence David M DM Pan Ming M Zhang Baoqing B Graham Neal T NT Lawrence Peter J PJ Liu Zhongfang Z He Xiaogang X

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20240205 7

Limiting global warming to 2 °C requires urgent action on land-based mitigation. This study evaluates the biogeochemical and biogeophysical implications of two alternative land-based mitigation scenarios that aim to achieve the same radiative forcing. One scenario is primarily driven by bioenergy expansion (SSP226Lu-BIOCROP), while the other involves re/afforestation (SSP126Lu-REFOREST). We find that overall, SSP126Lu-REFOREST is a more efficient strategy for removing CO<sub>2</sub> from the atm ...[more]

PMID: 38315850

Similar Datasets

Project description:Short rotation plantations are often considered as holding vast potentials for future global bioenergy supply. In contrast to raising biomass harvests in forests, purpose-grown biomass does not interfere with forest carbon (C) stocks. Provided that agricultural land can be diverted from food and feed production without impairing food security, energy plantations on current agricultural land appear as a beneficial option in terms of renewable, climate-friendly energy supply. However, instead of supporting energy plantations, land could also be devoted to natural succession. It then acts as a long-term C sink which also results in C benefits. We here compare the sink strength of natural succession on arable land with the C saving effects of bioenergy from plantations. Using geographically explicit data on global cropland distribution among climate and ecological zones, regionally specific C accumulation rates are calculated with IPCC default methods and values. C savings from bioenergy are given for a range of displacement factors (DFs), acknowledging the varying efficiency of bioenergy routes and technologies in fossil fuel displacement. A uniform spatial pattern is assumed for succession and bioenergy plantations, and the considered timeframes range from 20 to 100 years. For many parameter settings-in particular, longer timeframes and high DFs-bioenergy yields higher cumulative C savings than natural succession. Still, if woody biomass displaces liquid transport fuels or natural gas-based electricity generation, natural succession is competitive or even superior for timeframes of 20-50 years. This finding has strong implications with climate and environmental policies: Freeing land for natural succession is a worthwhile low-cost natural climate solution that has many co-benefits for biodiversity and other ecosystem services. A considerable risk, however, is C stock losses (i.e., emissions) due to disturbances or land conversion at a later time.

Project description:There is a growing recognition that the interrelations between agriculture, food, bioenergy, and climate change have to be better understood in order to derive more realistic estimates of future bioenergy potentials. This article estimates global bioenergy potentials in the year 2050, following a "food first" approach. It presents integrated food, livestock, agriculture, and bioenergy scenarios for the year 2050 based on a consistent representation of FAO projections of future agricultural development in a global biomass balance model. The model discerns 11 regions, 10 crop aggregates, 2 livestock aggregates, and 10 food aggregates. It incorporates detailed accounts of land use, global net primary production (NPP) and its human appropriation as well as socioeconomic biomass flow balances for the year 2000 that are modified according to a set of scenario assumptions to derive the biomass potential for 2050. We calculate the amount of biomass required to feed humans and livestock, considering losses between biomass supply and provision of final products. Based on this biomass balance as well as on global land-use data, we evaluate the potential to grow bioenergy crops and estimate the residue potentials from cropland (forestry is outside the scope of this study). We assess the sensitivity of the biomass potential to assumptions on diets, agricultural yields, cropland expansion and climate change. We use the dynamic global vegetation model LPJmL to evaluate possible impacts of changes in temperature, precipitation, and elevated CO(2) on agricultural yields. We find that the gross (primary) bioenergy potential ranges from 64 to 161 EJ y(-1), depending on climate impact, yields and diet, while the dependency on cropland expansion is weak. We conclude that food requirements for a growing world population, in particular feed required for livestock, strongly influence bioenergy potentials, and that integrated approaches are needed to optimize food and bioenergy supply.

Dataset Information

A bioenergy-focused versus a reforestation-focused mitigation pathway yields disparate carbon storage and climate responses.

Publications

A bioenergy-focused versus a reforestation-focused mitigation pathway yields disparate carbon storage and climate responses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets