Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies

Florian Humpenöder · Alexander Popp · Jan Philipp Dietrich · David Klein · Hermann Lotze‐Campen · Markus Bonsch +4 more

191 citations0/0 files storedEnvironmental Research Letters

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Climate Change Policy and Economics Forest Management and Policy Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies

Abstract

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 191 citations exist upstream.

References

20062006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 2009Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C 2013A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways 2011IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation 2009Implications of Limiting CO 2 Concentrations for Land Use and Energy 2013Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation 2011Emission pathways consistent with a 2 °C global temperature limit 2010The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)

Cited by

2021Evaluating the use of BECCS and afforestation under China’s carbon-neutral target for 2060 2017Fast growing research on negative emissions 2022Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable Development 2017The limits to global‐warming mitigation by terrestrial carbon removal 2017The road to achieving the long-term Paris targets: energy transition and the role of direct air capture

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.