Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies
The land-use sector can contribute to climate change mitigation not only by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also by increasing carbon uptake from the atmosphere and thereby creating negative CO _2 emissions. In this paper, we investigate two land-based climate change mitigation strategi...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
IOP Publishing
2014-01-01
|
| Series: | Environmental Research Letters |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064029 |
| _version_ | 1797747930111672320 |
|---|---|
| author | Florian Humpenöder Alexander Popp Jan Philip Dietrich David Klein Hermann Lotze-Campen Markus Bonsch Benjamin Leon Bodirsky Isabelle Weindl Miodrag Stevanovic Christoph Müller |
| author_facet | Florian Humpenöder Alexander Popp Jan Philip Dietrich David Klein Hermann Lotze-Campen Markus Bonsch Benjamin Leon Bodirsky Isabelle Weindl Miodrag Stevanovic Christoph Müller |
| author_sort | Florian Humpenöder |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The land-use sector can contribute to climate change mitigation not only by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also by increasing carbon uptake from the atmosphere and thereby creating negative CO _2 emissions. In this paper, we investigate two land-based climate change mitigation strategies for carbon removal: (1) afforestation and (2) bioenergy in combination with carbon capture and storage technology (bioenergy CCS). In our approach, a global tax on GHG emissions aimed at ambitious climate change mitigation incentivizes land-based mitigation by penalizing positive and rewarding negative CO _2 emissions from the land-use system. We analyze afforestation and bioenergy CCS as standalone and combined mitigation strategies. We find that afforestation is a cost-efficient strategy for carbon removal at relatively low carbon prices, while bioenergy CCS becomes competitive only at higher prices. According to our results, cumulative carbon removal due to afforestation and bioenergy CCS is similar at the end of 21st century (600–700 GtCO _2 ), while land-demand for afforestation is much higher compared to bioenergy CCS. In the combined setting, we identify competition for land, but the impact on the mitigation potential (1000 GtCO _2 ) is partially alleviated by productivity increases in the agricultural sector. Moreover, our results indicate that early-century afforestation presumably will not negatively impact carbon removal due to bioenergy CCS in the second half of the 21st century. A sensitivity analysis shows that land-based mitigation is very sensitive to different levels of GHG taxes. Besides that, the mitigation potential of bioenergy CCS highly depends on the development of future bioenergy yields and the availability of geological carbon storage, while for afforestation projects the length of the crediting period is crucial. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T15:57:43Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-6d90c8b97d094cb5a941bdbf3a6177a6 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1748-9326 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T15:57:43Z |
| publishDate | 2014-01-01 |
| publisher | IOP Publishing |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Environmental Research Letters |
| spelling | doaj.art-6d90c8b97d094cb5a941bdbf3a6177a62023-08-09T14:47:29ZengIOP PublishingEnvironmental Research Letters1748-93262014-01-019606402910.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064029Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategiesFlorian Humpenöder0Alexander Popp1Jan Philip Dietrich2David Klein3Hermann Lotze-Campen4Markus Bonsch5Benjamin Leon Bodirsky6Isabelle Weindl7Miodrag Stevanovic8Christoph Müller9Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, Germany; Technical University of Berlin , Berlin, GermanyPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, GermanyPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, GermanyPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, Germany; Technical University of Berlin , Berlin, GermanyPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, GermanyPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, Germany; Technical University of Berlin , Berlin, GermanyPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, Germany; Technical University of Berlin , Berlin, GermanyPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, Germany; Humboldt University of Berlin , Berlin, GermanyPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, Germany; Technical University of Berlin , Berlin, GermanyPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, GermanyThe land-use sector can contribute to climate change mitigation not only by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also by increasing carbon uptake from the atmosphere and thereby creating negative CO _2 emissions. In this paper, we investigate two land-based climate change mitigation strategies for carbon removal: (1) afforestation and (2) bioenergy in combination with carbon capture and storage technology (bioenergy CCS). In our approach, a global tax on GHG emissions aimed at ambitious climate change mitigation incentivizes land-based mitigation by penalizing positive and rewarding negative CO _2 emissions from the land-use system. We analyze afforestation and bioenergy CCS as standalone and combined mitigation strategies. We find that afforestation is a cost-efficient strategy for carbon removal at relatively low carbon prices, while bioenergy CCS becomes competitive only at higher prices. According to our results, cumulative carbon removal due to afforestation and bioenergy CCS is similar at the end of 21st century (600–700 GtCO _2 ), while land-demand for afforestation is much higher compared to bioenergy CCS. In the combined setting, we identify competition for land, but the impact on the mitigation potential (1000 GtCO _2 ) is partially alleviated by productivity increases in the agricultural sector. Moreover, our results indicate that early-century afforestation presumably will not negatively impact carbon removal due to bioenergy CCS in the second half of the 21st century. A sensitivity analysis shows that land-based mitigation is very sensitive to different levels of GHG taxes. Besides that, the mitigation potential of bioenergy CCS highly depends on the development of future bioenergy yields and the availability of geological carbon storage, while for afforestation projects the length of the crediting period is crucial.https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064029climate change mitigationafforestationbioenergycarbon capture and storageland-use modelingland-based mitigation |
| spellingShingle | Florian Humpenöder Alexander Popp Jan Philip Dietrich David Klein Hermann Lotze-Campen Markus Bonsch Benjamin Leon Bodirsky Isabelle Weindl Miodrag Stevanovic Christoph Müller Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies Environmental Research Letters climate change mitigation afforestation bioenergy carbon capture and storage land-use modeling land-based mitigation |
| title | Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies |
| title_full | Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies |
| title_fullStr | Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies |
| title_full_unstemmed | Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies |
| title_short | Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies |
| title_sort | investigating afforestation and bioenergy ccs as climate change mitigation strategies |
| topic | climate change mitigation afforestation bioenergy carbon capture and storage land-use modeling land-based mitigation |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064029 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT florianhumpenoder investigatingafforestationandbioenergyccsasclimatechangemitigationstrategies AT alexanderpopp investigatingafforestationandbioenergyccsasclimatechangemitigationstrategies AT janphilipdietrich investigatingafforestationandbioenergyccsasclimatechangemitigationstrategies AT davidklein investigatingafforestationandbioenergyccsasclimatechangemitigationstrategies AT hermannlotzecampen investigatingafforestationandbioenergyccsasclimatechangemitigationstrategies AT markusbonsch investigatingafforestationandbioenergyccsasclimatechangemitigationstrategies AT benjaminleonbodirsky investigatingafforestationandbioenergyccsasclimatechangemitigationstrategies AT isabelleweindl investigatingafforestationandbioenergyccsasclimatechangemitigationstrategies AT miodragstevanovic investigatingafforestationandbioenergyccsasclimatechangemitigationstrategies AT christophmuller investigatingafforestationandbioenergyccsasclimatechangemitigationstrategies |