•Projections of different biomass futures contributing to strict climate targets.•We investigate the dynamics and emissions of land and energy systems.•Achieving climate targets is contingent on use ...of advanced bioenergy technologies.•Land use emissions can be minimised without constraining biomass supply.•Technology development and future land use are main sensitivities.
Biomass is often seen as a key component of future energy systems as it can be used for heat and electricity production, as a transport fuel, and a feedstock for chemicals. Furthermore, it can be used in combination with carbon capture and storage to provide so-called “negative emissions”. At the same time, however, its production will require land, possibly impacting food security, land-based carbon stocks, and other environmental services. Thus, the strategies adopted in the supply, conversion, and use of biomass have a significant impact on its effectiveness as a climate change mitigation measure. We use the IMAGE 3.0 integrated assessment model to project three different global, long term scenarios spanning different socioeconomic futures with varying rates of population growth, economic growth, and technological change, and investigate the role of biomass in meeting strict climate targets. Using these scenarios we highlight different possibilities for biomass supply and demand, and provide insights on the requirements and challenges for the effective use of this resource as a climate change mitigation measure. The results show that in scenarios meeting the 1.5 °C target, biomass could exceed 20% of final energy consumption, or 115–180 EJPrim/yr in 2050. Such a supply of bioenergy can only be achieved without extreme levels land use change if agricultural yields improve significantly and effective land zoning is implemented. Furthermore, the results highlight that strict mitigation targets are contingent on the availability of advanced technologies such as lignocellulosic fuels and carbon capture and storage.
Scenarios that limit global warming to below 2 degrees Centigrade by 2100 assume significant land-use change to support large-scale carbon dioxide (CO2) removal from the atmosphere by ...afforestation/reforestation, avoided deforestation, and Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS). The more ambitious mitigation scenarios require even greater land area for mitigation and/or earlier adoption of CO2 removal strategies. Here we show that additional land-use change to meet a 1.5 degrees Centigrade climate change target could result in net losses of carbon from the land. The effectiveness of BECCS strongly depends on several assumptions related to the choice of biomass, the fate of initial above ground biomass, and the fossil-fuel emissions offset in the energy system. Depending on these factors, carbon removed from the atmosphere through BECCS could easily be offset by losses due to land-use change. If BECCS involves replacing high-carbon content ecosystems with crops, then forest-based mitigation could be more efficient for atmospheric CO2 removal than BECCS.
We present a suite of nine scenarios of future emissions trajectories of
anthropogenic sources, a key deliverable of the ScenarioMIP experiment within
CMIP6. Integrated assessment model results for ...14 different emissions species
and 13 emissions sectors are provided for each scenario with consistent
transitions from the historical data used in CMIP6 to future trajectories using
automated harmonization before being downscaled to provide higher emissions
source spatial detail. We find that the scenarios span a wide range of
end-of-century radiative forcing values, thus making this set of scenarios ideal
for exploring a variety of warming pathways. The set of scenarios is bounded on
the low end by a 1.9 W m−2 scenario, ideal for analyzing a world with
end-of-century temperatures well below 2 ∘C, and on the high end by a 8.5 W m−2
scenario, resulting in an increase in warming of nearly 5 ∘C over pre-industrial
levels. Between these two extremes, scenarios are provided such that differences
between forcing outcomes provide statistically significant regional temperature
outcomes to maximize their usefulness for downstream experiments within CMIP6.
A wide range of scenario data products are provided for the CMIP6 scientific
community including global, regional, and gridded emissions datasets.
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.
Afforestation is often presented as a key climate change mitigation option, but potential risks and trade‐offs are generally disregarded. In this study we show afforestation has large potential for mitigation, which could reduce overall costs. However, we also show there could be major risks regarding implementation and permanence as well as large trade‐offs with food security. 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.
Human land use activities have resulted in large changes to the biogeochemical and biophysical properties of the Earth's surface, with consequences for climate and other ecosystem services. In the ...future, land use activities are likely to expand and/or intensify further to meet growing demands for food, fiber, and energy. As part of the World Climate Research Program Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), the international community has developed the next generation of advanced Earth system models (ESMs) to estimate the combined effects of human activities (e.g., land use and fossil fuel emissions) on the carbon–climate system. A new set of historical data based on the History of the Global Environment database (HYDE), and multiple alternative scenarios of the future (2015–2100) from Integrated Assessment Model (IAM) teams, is required as input for these models. With most ESM simulations for CMIP6 now completed, it is important to document the land use patterns used by those simulations. Here we present results from the Land-Use Harmonization 2 (LUH2) project, which smoothly connects updated historical reconstructions of land use with eight new future projections in the format required for ESMs. The harmonization strategy estimates the fractional land use patterns, underlying land use transitions, key agricultural management information, and resulting secondary lands annually, while minimizing the differences between the end of the historical reconstruction and IAM initial conditions and preserving changes depicted by the IAMs in the future. The new approach builds on a similar effort from CMIP5 and is now provided at higher resolution (0.25°×0.25°) over a longer time domain (850–2100, with extensions to 2300) with more detail (including multiple crop and pasture types and associated management practices) using more input datasets (including Landsat remote sensing data) and updated algorithms (wood harvest and shifting cultivation); it is assessed via a new diagnostic package. The new LUH2 products contain > 50 times the information content of the datasets used in CMIP5 and are designed to enable new and improved estimates of the combined effects of land use on the global carbon–climate system.
Land use is at the core of various sustainable development goals. Long-term climate foresight studies have structured their recent analyses around five socio-economic pathways (SSPs), with consistent ...storylines of future macroeconomic and societal developments; however, model quantification of these scenarios shows substantial heterogeneity in land-use projections. Here we build on a recently developed sensitivity approach to identify how future land use depends on six distinct socio-economic drivers (population, wealth, consumption preferences, agricultural productivity, land-use regulation, and trade) and their interactions. Spread across models arises mostly from diverging sensitivities to long-term drivers and from various representations of land-use regulation and trade, calling for reconciliation efforts and more empirical research. Most influential determinants for future cropland and pasture extent are population and agricultural efficiency. Furthermore, land-use regulation and consumption changes can play a key role in reducing both land use and food-security risks, and need to be central elements in sustainable development strategies.
PDF
