Land management and climate change determine second‐generation bioenergy potential of the US Northern Great Plains

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) has been proposed as a potential climate mitigation strategy raising concerns over trade‐offs with existing ecosystem services. We evaluate the feasibility of BECCS in the Upper Missouri River Basin (UMRB), a landscape with diverse land use, ownership, and bioenergy potential. We develop land‐use change scenarios and a switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) crop functional type to use in a land‐surface model to simulate second‐generation bioenergy production. By the end of this century, average annual switchgrass production over the UMRB ranges from 60 to 210 Tg dry mass/year and is dependent on the Representative Concentration Pathway for greenhouse gas emissions and on land‐use change assumptions. Under our simple phase‐in assumptions this results in a cumulative total production of 2,000–6,000 Tg C over the study period with the upper estimates only possible in the absence of climate change. Switchgrass yields decreased as average CO₂ concentrations and temperatures increased, suggesting the effect of elevated atmospheric CO₂ was small because of its C4 photosynthetic pathway. By the end of the 21st century, the potential energy stored annually in harvested switchgrass averaged between 1 and 4 EJ/year assuming perfect conversion efficiency, or an annual electrical generation capacity of 7,000–28,000 MW assuming current bioenergy efficiency rates. Trade‐offs between bioenergy and ecosystem services were identified, including cumulative direct losses of 1,000–2,600 Tg C stored in natural ecosystems from land‐use change by 2090. Total cumulative losses of ecosystem carbon stocks were higher than the potential ~300 Tg C in fossil fuel emissions from the single largest power plant in the region over the same time period, and equivalent to potential carbon removal from the atmosphere from using biofuels grown in the same region. Numerous trade‐offs from BECCS expansion in the UMRB must be balanced against the potential benefits of a carbon‐negative energy system.     

Uncertain effectiveness of Miscanthus bioenergy expansion for climate change mitigation explored using land surface,agronomic and integrated assessment models

Large-scale bioenergy plays a key role in climate change mitigation scenarios, but its efficacy is uncertain. This study aims to quantify that uncertainty by contrasting the results of three different types of models under the same mitigation scenario (RCP2.6-SSP2), consistent with a 2°C temperature target. This analysis focuses on a single bioenergy feedstock, Miscanthus × giganteus, and contrasts projections for its yields and environmental effects from an integrated assessment model (IMAGE), a land surface and dynamic global vegetation model tailored to Miscanthus bioenergy (JULES) and a bioenergy crop model (MiscanFor). Under the present climate, JULES, IMAGE and MiscanFor capture the observed magnitude and variability in Miscanthus yields across Europe; yet in the tropics JULES and IMAGE predict high yields, whereas MiscanFor predicts widespread drought-related diebacks. 2040–2049 projections show there is a rapid scale up of over 200 Mha bioenergy cropping area in the tropics. Resulting biomass yield ranges from 12 (MiscanFor) to 39 (JULES) Gt dry matter over that decade. Change in soil carbon ranges from +0.7 Pg C (MiscanFor) to −2.8 Pg C (JULES), depending on preceding land cover and soil carbon.2090–99 projections show large-scale biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is projected in Europe. The models agree that <2°C global warming will increase yields in the higher latitudes, but drought stress in the Mediterranean region could produce low yields (MiscanFor), and significant losses of soil carbon (JULES and IMAGE). These results highlight the uncertainty in rapidly scaling-up biomass energy supply, especially in dry tropical climates and in regions where future climate change could result in drier conditions. This has important policy implications—because prominently used scenarios to limit warming to ‘well below 2°C’ (including the one explored here) depend upon its effectiveness.     

Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment

Bioenergy deployment offers significant potential for climate change mitigation, but also carries considerable risks. In this review, we bring together perspectives of various communities involved in the research and regulation of bioenergy deployment in the context of climate change mitigation: Land‐use and energy experts, land‐use and integrated assessment modelers, human geographers, ecosystem researchers, climate scientists and two different strands of life‐cycle assessment experts. We summarize technological options, outline the state‐of‐the‐art knowledge on various climate effects, provide an update on estimates of technical resource potential and comprehensively identify sustainability effects. Cellulosic feedstocks, increased end‐use efficiency, improved land carbon‐stock management and residue use, and, when fully developed, BECCS appear as the most promising options, depending on development costs, implementation, learning, and risk management. Combined heat and power, efficient biomass cookstoves and small‐scale power generation for rural areas can help to promote energy access and sustainable development, along with reduced emissions. We estimate the sustainable technical potential as up to 100 EJ: high agreement; 100–300 EJ: medium agreement; above 300 EJ: low agreement. Stabilization scenarios indicate that bioenergy may supply from 10 to 245 EJ yr^?1 to global primary energy supply by 2050. Models indicate that, if technological and governance preconditions are met, large‐scale deployment (>200 EJ), together with BECCS, could help to keep global warming below 2° degrees of preindustrial levels; but such high deployment of land‐intensive bioenergy feedstocks could also lead to detrimental climate effects, negatively impact ecosystems, biodiversity and livelihoods. The integration of bioenergy systems into agriculture and forest landscapes can improve land and water use efficiency and help address concerns about environmental impacts. We conclude that the high variability in pathways, uncertainties in technological development and ambiguity in political decision render forecasts on deployment levels and climate effects very difficult. However, uncertainty about projections should not preclude pursuing beneficial bioenergy options.     

Climate change mitigation potential of local use of harvest residues for bioenergy in Canada

We estimate the mitigation potential of local use of bioenergy from harvest residues for the 2.3 × 10⁶ km² (232 Mha) of Canada's managed forests from 2017 to 2050 using three models: Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM‐CFS3), a harvested wood products (HWP) model that estimates bioenergy emissions, and a model of emission substitution benefits from the use of bioenergy. We compare the use of harvest residues for local heat and electricity production relative to a base case scenario and estimate the climate change mitigation potential at the forest management unit level. Results demonstrate large differences between and within provinces and territories across Canada. We identify regions with increasing benefits to the atmosphere for many decades into the future and regions where no net benefit would occur over the 33‐year study horizon. The cumulative mitigation potential for regions with positive mitigation was predicted to be 429 Tg CO₂e in 2050, with 7.1 TgC yr ^?1 of harvest residues producing bioenergy that met 3.1% of the heat demand and 2.9% of the electricity demand for 32.1 million people living within these regions. Our results show that regions with positive mitigation produced bioenergy, mainly from combined heat and power facilities, with emissions intensities that ranged from roughly 90 to 500 kg CO₂e MWh^?1. Roughly 40% of the total captured harvest residue was associated with regions that were predicted to have a negative cumulative mitigation potential in 2050 of ?152 Tg CO₂e. We conclude that the capture of harvest residues to produce local bioenergy can reduce GHG emissions in populated regions where bioenergy, mainly from combined heat and power facilities, offsets fossil fuel sources (fuel oil, coal and petcoke, and natural gas).     

Using dynamic relative climate impact curves to quantify the climate impact of bioenergy production systems over time

The climate impact of bioenergy is commonly quantified in terms of CO₂ equivalents, using a fixed 100‐year global warming potential as an equivalency metric. This method has been criticized for the inability to appropriately address emissions timing and the focus on a single impact metric, which may lead to inaccurate or incomplete quantification of the climate impact of bioenergy production. In this study, we introduce Dynamic Relative Climate Impact (DRCI) curves, a novel approach to visualize and quantify the climate impact of bioenergy systems over time. The DRCI approach offers the flexibility to analyze system performance for different value judgments regarding the impact category (e.g., emissions, radiative forcing, and temperature change), equivalency metric, and analytical time horizon. The DRCI curves constructed for fourteen bioenergy systems illustrate how value judgments affect the merit order of bioenergy systems, because they alter the importance of one‐time (associated with land use change emissions) versus sustained (associated with carbon debt or foregone sequestration) emission fluxes and short‐ versus long‐lived climate forcers. Best practices for bioenergy production (irrespective of value judgments) include high feedstock yields, high conversion efficiencies, and the application of carbon capture and storage. Furthermore, this study provides examples of production contexts in which the risk of land use change emissions, carbon debt, or foregone sequestration can be mitigated. For example, the risk of indirect land use change emissions can be mitigated by accompanying bioenergy production with increasing agricultural yields. Moreover, production contexts in which the counterfactual scenario yields immediate or additional climate impacts can provide significant climate benefits. This paper is accompanied by an Excel‐based calculation tool to reproduce the calculation steps outlined in this paper and construct DRCI curves for bioenergy systems of choice.     

Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): Finding the win–wins for energy,negative emissions and ecosystem services—size matters

Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) features heavily in the energy scenarios designed to meet the Paris Agreement targets, but the models used to generate these scenarios do not address environmental and social implications of BECCS at the regional scale. We integrate ecosystem service values into a land‐use optimization tool to determine the favourability of six potential UK locations for a 500 MW BECCS power plant operating on local biomass resources. Annually, each BECCS plant requires 2.33 Mt of biomass and generates 2.99 Mt CO₂ of negative emissions and 3.72 TWh of electricity. We make three important discoveries: (a) the impacts of BECCS on ecosystem services are spatially discrete, with the most favourable locations for UK BECCS identified at Drax and Easington, where net annual welfare values (from the basket of ecosystems services quantified) of £39 and £25 million were generated, respectively, with notably lower annual welfare values at Barrow (?£6 million) and Thames (£2 million); (b) larger BECCS deployment beyond 500 MW reduces net social welfare values, with a 1 GW BECCS plant at Drax generating a net annual welfare value of £19 million (a 50% decline compared with the 500 MW deployment), and a welfare loss at all other sites; (c) BECCS can be deployed to generate net welfare gains, but trade‐offs and co‐benefits between ecosystem services are highly site and context specific, and these landscape‐scale, site‐specific impacts should be central to future BECCS policy developments. For the United Kingdom, meeting the Paris Agreement targets through reliance on BECCS requires over 1 GW at each of the six locations considered here and is likely, therefore, to result in a significant welfare loss. This implies that an increased number of smaller BECCS deployments will be needed to ensure a win–win for energy, negative emissions and ecosystem services.     

Carbon implications of converting cropland to bioenergy crops or forest for climate mitigation: a global assessment

The potential for climate change mitigation by bioenergy crops and terrestrial carbon sinks has been the object of intensive research in the past decade. There has been much debate about whether energy crops used to offset fossil fuel use, or carbon sequestration in forests, would provide the best climate mitigation benefit. Most current food cropland is unlikely to be used for bioenergy, but in many regions of the world, a proportion of cropland is being abandoned, particularly marginal croplands, and some of this land is now being used for bioenergy. In this study, we assess the consequences of land‐use change on cropland. We first identify areas where cropland is so productive that it may never be converted and assess the potential of the remaining cropland to mitigate climate change by identifying which alternative land use provides the best climate benefit: C₄ grass bioenergy crops, coppiced woody energy crops or allowing forest regrowth to create a carbon sink. We do not present this as a scenario of land‐use change – we simply assess the best option in any given global location should a land‐use change occur. To do this, we use global biomass potential studies based on food crop productivity, forest inventory data and dynamic global vegetation models to provide, for the first time, a global comparison of the climate change implications of either deploying bioenergy crops or allowing forest regeneration on current crop land, over a period of 20 years starting in the nominal year of 2000 ad . Globally, the extent of cropland on which conversion to energy crops or forest would result in a net carbon loss, and therefore likely always to remain as cropland, was estimated to be about 420.1 Mha, or 35.6% of the total cropland in Africa, 40.3% in Asia and Russia Federation, 30.8% in Europe‐25, 48.4% in North America, 13.7% in South America and 58.5% in Oceania. Fast growing C₄ grasses such as Miscanthus and switch‐grass cultivars are the bioenergy feedstock with the highest climate mitigation potential. Fast growing C₄ grasses such as Miscanthus and switch‐grass cultivars provide the best climate mitigation option on ≈485 Mha of cropland worldwide with ~42% of this land characterized by a terrain slope equal or above 20%. If that land‐use change did occur, it would displace ≈58.1 Pg fossil fuel C equivalent (C_eq oil). Woody energy crops such as poplar, willow and Eucalyptus species would be the best option on only 2.4% (≈26.3 Mha) of current cropland, and if this land‐use change occurred, it would displace ≈0.9 Pg C_eq oil. Allowing cropland to revert to forest would be the best climate mitigation option on ≈17% of current cropland (≈184.5 Mha), and if this land‐use change occurred, it would sequester ≈5.8 Pg C in biomass in the 20‐year‐old forest and ≈2.7 Pg C in soil. This study is spatially explicit, so also serves to identify the regional differences in the efficacy of different climate mitigation options, informing policymakers developing regionally or nationally appropriate mitigation actions.     

Balance between climate change mitigation benefits and land use impacts of bioenergy: conservation implications for European birds

Both climate change and habitat modification exert serious pressure on biodiversity. Although climate change mitigation has been identified as an important strategy for biodiversity conservation, bioenergy remains a controversial mitigation action due to its potential negative ecological and socio-economic impacts which arise through habitat modification by land use change. While the debate continues, the separate or simultaneous impacts of both climate change and bioenergy on biodiversity have not yet been compared. We assess projected range shifts of 156 European bird species by 2050 under two alternative climate change trajectories: a baseline scenario, where the global mean temperature increases by 4 °C by the end of the century, and a 2 degrees scenario, where global concerted effort limits the temperature increase to below 2 °C. For the latter scenario, we also quantify the pressure exerted by increased cultivation of energy biomass as modelled by IMAGE2.4, an integrated land use model. The global bioenergy use in this scenario is in the lower end of the range of previously estimated sustainable potential. Under the assumptions of these scenarios, we find that the magnitude of range shifts due to climate change is far greater than the impact of land conversion to woody bioenergy plantations within the European Union, and that mitigation of climate change reduces the exposure experienced by species. However, we identified potential for local conservation conflict between priority areas for conservation and bioenergy production. These conflicts must be addressed by strict bioenergy sustainability criteria that acknowledge biodiversity conservation needs beyond existing protected areas and apply also to biomass imported from outside the European Union.     

GHG emissions and other environmental impacts of indirect land use change mitigation

The implementation of measures to increase productivity and resource efficiency in food and bioenergy chains as well as to more sustainably manage land use can significantly increase the biofuel production potential while limiting the risk of causing indirect land use change (ILUC). However, the application of these measures may influence the greenhouse gas (GHG) balance and other environmental impacts of agricultural and biofuel production. This study applies a novel, integrated approach to assess the environmental impacts of agricultural and biofuel production for three ILUC mitigation scenarios, representing a low, medium and high miscanthus‐based ethanol production potential, and for three agricultural intensification pathways in terms of sustainability in Lublin province in 2020. Generally, the ILUC mitigation scenarios attain lower net annual emissions compared to a baseline scenario that excludes ILUC mitigation and bioethanol production. However, the reduction potential significantly depends on the intensification pathway considered. For example, in the moderate ILUC mitigation scenario, the net annual GHG emissions in the case study are 2.3 MtCO₂‐eq yr^?1 (1.8 tCO₂‐eq ha^?1 yr^?1) for conventional intensification and ?0.8 MtCO₂‐eq yr^?1 (?0.6 tCO₂‐eq ha^?1 yr^?1) for sustainable intensification, compared to 3.0 MtCO₂‐eq yr^?1 (2.3 tCO₂‐eq ha^?1 yr^?1) in the baseline scenario. In addition, the intensification pathway is found to be more influential for the GHG balance than the ILUC mitigation scenario, indicating the importance of how agricultural intensification is implemented in practice. Furthermore, when the net emissions are included in the assessment of GHG emissions from bioenergy, the ILUC mitigation scenarios often abate GHG emissions compared to gasoline. But sustainable intensification is required to attain GHG abatement potentials of 90% or higher. A qualitative assessment of the impacts on biodiversity, water quantity and quality, soil quality and air quality also emphasizes the importance of sustainable intensification.     

Evaluating climate change mitigation potential of hydrochars: compounding insights from three different indicators

We employed life cycle assessment to evaluate the use of hydrochars, prospective soil conditioners produced from biowaste using hydrothermal carbonization, as an approach to improving agriculture while using carbon present in the biowaste. We considered six different crops (barley, wheat, sugar beet, fava bean, onion, and lucerne) and two different countries (Spain and Germany), and used three different indicators of climate change: global warming potential (GWP), global temperature change potential (GTP), and climate tipping potential (CTP). We found that although climate change benefits (GWP) from just sequestration and temporary storage of carbon are sufficient to outweigh impacts stemming from hydrochar production and transportation to the field, even greater benefits stem from replacing climate‐inefficient biowaste management treatment options, like composting in Spain. By contrast, hydrochar addition to soil is not a good approach to improving agriculture in countries where incineration with energy recovery is the dominant treatment option for biowaste, like in Germany. Relatively small, but statistically significant differences in impact scores (ISs) were found between crops. Although these conclusions remained the same in our study, potential benefits from replacing composting were smaller in the GTP approach, which due to its long‐term perspective gives less weight to short‐lived greenhouse gases (GHGs) like methane. Using CTP as indicator, we also found that there is a risk of contributing to crossing of a short‐term climatic target, the tipping point corresponding to an atmospheric GHG concentration of 450 ppm CO₂ equivalents, unless hydrochar stability in the soil is optimized. Our results highlight the need for considering complementary perspectives that different climate change indicators offer, and overall provide a foundation for assessing climate change mitigation potential of hydrochars used in agriculture.     

The climate change mitigation effect of bioenergy from sustainably managed forests in Central Europe

We compare sustainably managed with unmanaged forests in terms of their contribution to climate change mitigation based on published data. For sustainably managed forests, accounting of carbon (C) storage based on ecosystem biomass and products as required by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is not sufficient to quantify their contribution to climate change mitigation. The ultimate value of biomass is its use for biomaterials and bioenergy. Taking Germany as an example, we show that the average removals of wood from managed forests are higher than stated by official reports, ranging between 56 and 86 mill. m³ year^?1 due to the unrecorded harvest of firewood. We find that removals from one hectare can substitute 0.87 m³ ha^?1 year^?1 of diesel, or 7.4 MWh ha^?1 year^?1, taking into account the unrecorded firewood, the use of fuel for harvesting and processing, and the efficiency of energy conversion. Energy substitution ranges between 1.9 and 2.2 t CO_{2 equiv.} ha^?1 year^?1 depending on the type of fossil fuel production. Including bioenergy and carbon storage, the total mitigation effect of managed forest ranges between 3.2 and 3.5 t CO_{2 equiv.} ha^?1 year^?1. This is more than previously reported because of the full accounting of bioenergy. Unmanaged nature conservation forests contribute via C storage only about 0.37 t CO_{2 equiv.}  ha^?1 year^?1 to climate change mitigation. There is no fossil fuel substitution. Therefore, taking forests out of management reduces climate change mitigation benefits substantially. There should be a mitigation cost for taking forest out of management in Central Europe. Since the energy sector is rewarded for the climate benefits of bioenergy, and not the forest sector, we propose that a CO₂ tax is used to award the contribution of forest management to fossil fuel substitution and climate change mitigation. This would stimulate the production of wood for products and energy substitution.     

Afforestation for climate change mitigation: Potentials,risks and trade‐offs

Afforestation is considered a cost‐effective and readily available climate change mitigation option. In recent studies afforestation is presented as a major solution to limit climate change. However, estimates of afforestation potential vary widely. Moreover, the risks in global mitigation policy and the negative trade‐offs with food security are often not considered. Here we present a new approach to assess the economic potential of afforestation with the IMAGE 3.0 integrated assessment model framework. In addition, we discuss the role of afforestation in mitigation pathways and the effects of afforestation on the food system under increasingly ambitious climate targets. We show that afforestation has a mitigation potential of 4.9 GtCO₂/year at 200 US$/tCO₂ in 2050 leading to large‐scale application in an SSP2 scenario aiming for 2°C (410 GtCO₂ cumulative up to 2100). Afforestation reduces the overall costs of mitigation policy. However, it may lead to lower mitigation ambition and lock‐in situations in other sectors. Moreover, it bears risks to implementation and permanence as the negative emissions are increasingly located in regions with high investment risks and weak governance, for example in Sub‐Saharan Africa. Afforestation also requires large amounts of land (up to 1,100 Mha) leading to large reductions in agricultural land. The increased competition for land could lead to higher food prices and an increased population at risk of hunger. Our results confirm that afforestation has substantial potential for mitigation. At the same time, we highlight that major risks and trade‐offs are involved. Pathways aiming to limit climate change to 2°C or even 1.5°C need to minimize these risks and trade‐offs in order to achieve mitigation sustainably.     

Including albedo in time‐dependent LCA of bioenergy

Albedo change during feedstock production can substantially alter the life cycle climate impact of bioenergy. Life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have compared the effects of albedo and greenhouse gases (GHGs) based on global warming potential (GWP). However, using GWP leads to unequal weighting of climate forcers that act on different timescales. In this study, albedo was included in the time‐dependent LCA, which accounts for the timing of emissions and their impacts. We employed field‐measured albedo and life cycle emissions data along with time‐dependent models of radiative transfer, biogenic carbon fluxes and nitrous oxide emissions from soil. Climate impacts were expressed as global mean surface temperature change over time (?T) and as GWP. The bioenergy system analysed was heat and power production from short‐rotation willow grown on former fallow land in Sweden. We found a net cooling effect in terms of ?T per hectare (?3.8 × 10^–11 K in year 100) and GWP₁₀₀ per MJ fuel (?12.2 g CO₂e), as a result of soil carbon sequestration via high inputs of carbon from willow roots and litter. Albedo was higher under willow than fallow, contributing to the cooling effect and accounting for 34% of GWP₁₀₀, 36% of ?T in year 50 and 6% of ?T in year 100. Albedo dominated the short‐term temperature response (10–20 years) but became, in relative terms, less important over time, owing to accumulation of soil carbon under sustained production and the longer perturbation lifetime of GHGs. The timing of impacts was explicit with ?T, which improves the relevance of LCA results to climate targets. Our method can be used to quantify the first‐order radiative effect of albedo change on the global climate and relate it to the climate impact of GHG emissions in LCA of bioenergy, alternative energy sources or land uses.     

气候变化下中国主要生物燃油树种分布与变迁

生物燃油树种是发展生物质能源,实现化石能源替代战略的重要物质基础,明确当前和未来气候变化下我国生物燃油树种适生区分布,对保护和利用生物燃油树种,促进林业生物能源产业发展,保障能源安全和实现“双碳”目标具有重要意义。基于我国10个主要生物燃油树种的1037条树种分布数据和20个环境变量,利用最大熵模型(MaxEnt)预测了各树种当前和未来气候情景下(2050年和2070年的RCP4.5情景)的潜在适生区,得到了影响各树种分布贡献率最大的环境因子,并对我国各区域主要种植树种进行了区划。结果表明：(1)MaxEent模型预测效果较好,各树种模拟结果AUC值均在0.9以上。(2)影响各种分布的贡献率较高的环境因子因树种而异,最暖季度降水量和温度季节性变化标准差的相对贡献率较高。(3)10个生物燃油树种极高适生区面积范围在43.38万km²—117.74万km²之间,可根据模拟结果将树种分布划分为北部、中东部、东南部和西南部4个亚区,北部亚区主要树种为文冠果(Xanthoceras sorbifolium)和欧李(Cerasus humilis),中东...     

A regional assessment of land‐based carbon mitigation potentials: Bioenergy,BECCS, reforestation,and forest management

Land‐based solutions are indispensable features of most climate mitigation scenarios. Here we conduct a novel cross‐sectoral assessment of regional carbon mitigation potential by running an ecosystem model with an explicit representation of forest structure and climate impacts for Bavaria, Germany, as a case study. We drive the model with four high‐resolution climate projections (EURO‐CORDEX) for the representative concentration pathway RCP4.5 and present‐day land‐cover from three satellite‐derived datasets (CORINE, ESA‐CCI, MODIS) and identify total mitigation potential by not only accounting for carbon storage but also material and energy substitution effects. The model represents the current state in Bavaria adequately, with a simulated forest biomass 12.9 ± 0.4% lower than data from national forest inventories. Future land‐use changes according to two ambitious land‐use harmonization scenarios (SSP1xRCP2.6, SSP4xRCP3.4) achieve a mitigation of 206 and 247 Mt C (2015–2100 period) via reforestation and the cultivation and burning of dedicated bioenergy crops, partly combined with carbon capture and storage. Sensitivity simulations suggest that converting croplands or pastures to bioenergy plantations could deliver a carbon mitigation of 40.9 and 37.7 kg C/m², respectively, by the year 2100 if used to replace carbon‐intensive energy systems and combined with CCS. However, under less optimistic assumptions (including no CCS), only 15.3 and 12.2 kg C/m² are mitigated and reforestation might be the better option (20.0 and 16.8 kg C/m²). Mitigation potential in existing forests is limited (converting coniferous into mixed forests, nitrogen fertilization) or even negative (suspending wood harvest) due to decreased carbon storage in product pools and associated substitution effects. Our simulations provide guidelines to policy makers, farmers, foresters, and private forest owners for sustainable and climate‐benefitting ecosystem management in temperate regions. They also emphasize the importance of the CCS technology which is regarded critically by many people, making its implementation in the short or medium term currently doubtable.     

Impacts of herbaceous bioenergy crops on atmospheric volatile organic composition and potential consequences for global climate change

The introduction of new crops to agroecosystems can change the chemical composition of the atmosphere by altering the amount and type of plant‐derived biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs). BVOCs are produced by plants to aid in defense, pollination, and communication. Once released into the atmosphere, they have the ability to influence its chemical and physical properties. In this study, we compared BVOC emissions from three potential bioenergy crops and estimated their theoretical impacts on bioenergy agroecosystems. The crops chosen were miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), and an assemblage of prairie species (mix of ~28 species). The concentration of BVOCs was different within and above plant canopies. All crops produced higher levels of emissions at the upper canopy level. Miscanthus produced lower amounts of volatiles compared with other grasses. The chemical composition of volatiles differed significantly among plant communities. BVOCs from miscanthus were depleted in terpenoids relative to the other vegetation types. The carbon flux via BVOC emissions, calculated using the flux‐gradient method, was significantly higher in the prairie assemblage compared with miscanthus and switchgrass. The BVOC carbon flux was approximately three orders of magnitude lower than the net fluxes of carbon measured over the same fields using eddy covariance systems. Extrapolation of our findings to the landscape scale leads us to suggest that the widespread adoption of bioenergy crops could potentially alter the composition of BVOCs in the atmosphere, thereby influencing its warming potential, the formation of atmospheric particulates, and interactions between plants and arthropods. Our data and projections indicate that, among at least these three potential options for bioenergy production, miscanthus is likely to have lower impacts on atmospheric chemistry and biotic interactions mediated by these volatiles when miscanthus is planted on the landscape scale.     

Toward sustainable climate change adaptation

Industrial ecology (IE) has made great contributions to climate change mitigation research, in terms of its systems thinking and solid methodologies such as life cycle assessment, material flow analysis, and environmentally extended input–output analysis. However, its potential contribution to climate change adaptation is unclear. Adaptation has become increasingly urgent in a continuously changing climate, especially in developing countries, which are projected to bear the brunt of climate‐change‐related damages. On the basis of a brief review of climate change impacts and adaptation literature, we suggest that IE can play an important role in the following two aspects. First, with the emphasis on a systems perspective, IE can help us determine how climate change interacts with our socio‐economic system and how the interactions may aggravate (or moderate) its direct impacts or whether they may shift burden to other environmental impacts. Second, IE methodologies can help us quantify the direct and indirect environmental impacts of adaptation activities, identify mitigation opportunities, and achieve sustainable adaptation. Further, we find that substantial investment is needed to increase the resilience of infrastructure (e.g., transport, energy, and water supply) and agriculture in developing countries. Because these sectors are also the main drivers of environmental degradation, how to achieve sustainable climate‐resilient infrastructure and agriculture in developing countries deserves special attention in future IE studies. Overall, IE thinking and methodologies have great potential to contribute to climate change adaptation research and policy questions, and exploring this growing field will, in turn, inspire IE development.     

Range and uncertainties in estimating delays in greenhouse gas mitigation potential of forest bioenergy sourced from Canadian forests

Accurately assessing the delay before the substitution of fossil fuel by forest bioenergy starts having a net beneficial impact on atmospheric CO₂ is becoming important as the cost of delaying GHG emission reductions is increasingly being recognized. We documented the time to carbon (C) parity of forest bioenergy sourced from different feedstocks (harvest residues, salvaged trees, and green trees), typical of forest biomass production in Canada, used to replace three fossil fuel types (coal, oil, and natural gas) in heating or power generation. The time to C parity is defined as the time needed for the newly established bioenergy system to reach the cumulative C emissions of a fossil fuel, counterfactual system. Furthermore, we estimated an uncertainty period derived from the difference in C parity time between predefined best‐ and worst‐case scenarios, in which parameter values related to the supply chain and forest dynamics varied. The results indicate short‐to‐long ranking of C parity times for residues < salvaged trees < green trees and for substituting the less energy‐dense fossil fuels (coal < oil < natural gas). A sensitivity analysis indicated that silviculture and enhanced conversion efficiency, when occurring only in the bioenergy system, help reduce time to C parity. The uncertainty around the estimate of C parity time is generally small and inconsequential in the case of harvest residues but is generally large for the other feedstocks, indicating that meeting specific C parity time using feedstock other than residues is possible, but would require very specific conditions. Overall, the use of single parity time values to evaluate the performance of a particular feedstock in mitigating GHG emissions should be questioned given the importance of uncertainty as an inherent component of any bioenergy project.     

Implications of emissions timing on the cost‐effectiveness of greenhouse gas mitigation strategies: application to forest bioenergy systems

Conventional cost‐effectiveness calculations ignore the implications of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions timing and thus may not properly inform decision‐makers in the efficient allocation of resources to mitigate climate change. To begin to address this disconnect with climate change science, we modify the conventional cost‐effectiveness approach to account for emissions timing. GHG emissions flows occurring over time are translated into an ‘Equivalent Present Emission’ based on radiative forcing, enabling a comparison of system costs and emissions on a consistent present time basis. We apply this ‘Present Cost‐Effectiveness’ method to case studies of biomass‐based electricity generation (biomass co‐firing with coal, biomass cogeneration) to evaluate implications of forest carbon trade‐offs on the cost‐effectiveness of emission reductions. Bioenergy production from forest biomass can reduce forest carbon stocks, an immediate emissions source that contributes to atmospheric greenhouse gases. Forest carbon impacts thereby lessen emission reductions in the near‐term relative to the assumption of biomass ‘carbon neutrality’, resulting in higher costs of emission reductions when emissions timing is considered. In contrast, conventional cost‐effectiveness approaches implicitly evaluate strategies over an infinite analytical time horizon, underestimating nearer term emissions reduction costs and failing to identify pathways that can most efficiently contribute to climate change mitigation objectives over shorter time spans (e.g. up to 100 years). While providing only a simple representation of the climate change implications of emissions timing, the Present Cost‐Effectiveness method provides a straightforward approach to assessing the cost‐effectiveness of emission reductions associated with any climate change mitigation strategy where future GHG reductions require significant initial capital investment or increase near‐term emissions. Timing is a critical factor in determining the attractiveness of any investment; accounting for emissions timing can better inform decisions related to the merit of alternative resource uses to meet near‐, mid‐, and long‐term climate change mitigation objectives.     

Shifts in the climate space of temperate cyprinid fishes due to climate change are coupled with altered body sizes and growth rates

Predictions of species responses to climate change often focus on distribution shifts, although responses can also include shifts in body sizes and population demographics. Here, shifts in the distributional ranges (‘climate space’), body sizes (as maximum theoretical body sizes, L∞) and growth rates (as rate at which L∞ is reached, K) were predicted for five fishes of the Cyprinidae family in a temperate region over eight climate change projections. Great Britain was the model area, and the model species were Rutilus rutilus, Leuciscus leuciscus, Squalius cephalus, Gobio gobio and Abramis brama. Ensemble models predicted that the species' climate spaces would shift in all modelled projections, with the most drastic changes occurring under high emissions; all range centroids shifted in a north‐westerly direction. Predicted climate space expanded for R. rutilus and A. brama, contracted for S. cephalus, and for L. leuciscus and G. gobio, expanded under low‐emission scenarios but contracted under high emissions, suggesting the presence of some climate‐distribution thresholds. For R. rutilus, A. brama, S. cephalus and G. gobio, shifts in their climate space were coupled with predicted shifts to significantly smaller maximum body sizes and/or faster growth rates, aligning strongly to aspects of temperature‐body size theory. These predicted shifts in L∞ and K had considerable consequences for size‐at‐age per species, suggesting substantial alterations in population age structures and abundances. Thus, when predicting climate change outcomes for species, outputs that couple shifts in climate space with altered body sizes and growth rates provide considerable insights into the population and community consequences, especially for species that cannot easily track their thermal niches.