Bioenergy and land use change—state of the art. Issue 3 (19th July 2012)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Berndes, Göran; Ahlgren, Serina; Börjesson, Pål; Cowie, Annette L.
• Is Part Of: Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Volume 2:Issue 3(2013)
• Page Start: 282
• Page End: 303
• Publication Date: 2012-07-19
• Subjects: Power resources -- Environmental aspects -- Periodicals; Power resources -- Periodicals; Renewable energy sources -- Periodicals; Energy policy -- Environmental aspects -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 333.79
• DOI: 10.1002/wene.41
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2041-8396

Abstract

Abstract : Abstract: Bioenergy projects can lead to direct and indirect land use change (LUC), which can substantially affect greenhouse gas balances with both beneficial and adverse outcomes for bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation. The causes behind LUC are multiple, complex, interlinked, and change over time. This makes quantification uncertain and sensitive to many factors that can develop in different directions—including land use productivity, trade patterns, prices and elasticities, and use of by‐products associated with biofuels production. Quantifications reported so far vary substantially and do not support the ranking of bioenergy options with regard to LUC and associated emissions. There are however several options for mitigating these emissions, which can be implemented despite the uncertainties. Long‐rotation forest management is associated with carbon emissions and sequestration that are not in temporal balance with each other and this leads to mitigation trade‐offs between biomass extraction for energy use and the alternative to leave the biomass in the forest. Bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation needs to reflect a balance between near‐term targets and the long‐term objective to hold the increase in global temperature below 2°C (Copenhagen Accord). Although emissions from LUC can be significant in some circumstances, the reality of such emissions is not sufficient reason to exclude bioenergy from the list of worthwhile technologies for climate change mitigation. Policy measures to minimize the negative impacts of LUC should be based on a holistic perspective recognizing the multiple drivers and effects of LUC. This article is categorized under: Bioenergy > Economics and Policy Bioenergy > Climate and Environment