Carbon stored in harvested wood products (HWPs) can affect national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories, in which the production and end use of HWPs play a key role. The Intergovernmental Panel on ...Climate Change (IPCC) provides guidance on HWP carbon accounting, which is sensitive to future developments of socioeconomic factors including population, income, and trade. We estimated the carbon stored within HWPs from 1961 to 2065 for 180 countries following IPCC carbon-accounting guidelines, consistent with Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAOSTAT) historical data and plausible futures outlined by the shared socioeconomic pathways. We found that the global HWP pool was a net annual sink of 335 Mt of CO₂ equivalent (CO₂e)·y−1 in 2015, offsetting substantial amounts of industrial processes within some countries, and as much as 441 Mt of CO₂e·y−1 by 2030 under certain socioeconomic developments. Furthermore, there is a considerable sequestration gap (71 Mt of CO₂e·y−1 of unaccounted carbon storage in 2015 and 120 Mt of CO₂e·y−1 by 2065) under current IPCC Good Practice Guidance, as traded feedstock is ineligible for national GHG inventories. However, even under favorable socioeconomic conditions, and when accounting for the sequestration gap, carbon stored annually in HWPs is <1% of global emissions. Furthermore, economic shocks can turn the HWP pool into a carbon source either long-term—e.g., the collapse of the USSR—or short-term—e.g., the US economic recession of 2008/09. In conclusion, carbon stored within end-use HWPs varies widely across countries and depends on evolving market forces.
Iontronic Wood
In article number 2314190, Yu Chang, Tingrui Pan, and co‐workers develop an intelligent human‐wood interface, referred to as the iWood device. The interactive device is based on the ...emerging principle of iontronic tactile sensing for seamless integration into the wood structure. Through a standard weaving process, the scalable interwoven sensing structure can be established in various wood products, from which valuable information about daily and health activities can be unnoticeably extracted.
The use of cross-laminated timber (CLT), as an environmentally sustainable building material, has generated significant interest among the wood products industry, architects and policy makers in ...Washington State. However, the environmental impacts of CLT panels can vary significantly depending on material logistics and wood species mix. This study developed a regionally specific cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of CLT produced in western Washington. Specifically, this study focused on transportation logistics, mill location, and relevant wood species mixes to provide a comparative analysis for CLT produced in the region. For this study, five sawmills (potential lamstock suppliers) in western Washington were selected along with two hypothetical CLT mills. The results show that the location of lumber suppliers, in reference to the CLT manufacturing facilities, and the wood species mix are important factors in determining the total environmental impacts of the CLT production. Additionally, changing wood species used for lumber from a heavier species such as Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) to a lighter species such as Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) could generate significant reduction in the global warming potential (GWP) of CLT. Given the size and location of the CLT manufacturing facilities, the mills can achieve up to 14% reduction in the overall GWP of the CLT panels by sourcing the lumber locally and using lighter wood species.
The capture and use of carbon dioxide to create valuable products might lower the net costs of reducing emissions or removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Here we review ten pathways for the ...utilization of carbon dioxide. Pathways that involve chemicals, fuels and microalgae might reduce emissions of carbon dioxide but have limited potential for its removal, whereas pathways that involve construction materials can both utilize and remove carbon dioxide. Land-based pathways can increase agricultural output and remove carbon dioxide. Our assessment suggests that each pathway could scale to over 0.5 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide utilization annually. However, barriers to implementation remain substantial and resource constraints prevent the simultaneous deployment of all pathways.
Afforestation and reforestation (AR) on marginal land are nature-based solutions to climate change. There is a gap in understanding the climate mitigation potential of protection and commercial AR ...with different combinations of forest plantation management and wood utilization pathways. Here, we fill the gap using a dynamic, multiscale life cycle assessment to estimate one-century greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation delivered by (both traditional and innovative) commercial and protection AR with different planting density and thinning regimes on marginal land in the southeastern United States. We found that innovative commercial AR generally mitigates more GHGs across 100 y (3.73 to 4.15 Giga tonnes of CO
equivalent (Gt CO
e)) through cross-laminated timber (CLT) and biochar than protection AR (3.35 to 3.69 Gt CO
e) and commercial AR with traditional lumber production (3.17 to 3.51 Gt CO
e), especially in moderately cooler and dryer regions in this study with higher forest carbon yield, soil clay content, and CLT substitution. In a shorter timeframe (≤50 y), protection AR is likely to deliver higher GHG mitigation. On average, for the same wood product, low-density plantations without thinning and high-density plantations with thinning mitigate more life cycle GHGs and result in higher carbon stock than that of low-density with thinning plantations. Commercial AR increases the carbon stock of standing plantations, wood products, and biochar, but the increases have uneven spatial distributions. Georgia (0.38 Gt C), Alabama (0.28 Gt C), and North Carolina (0.13 Gt C) have the largest carbon stock increases that can be prioritized for innovative commercial AR projects on marginal land.
Trees, and their derivative products, have been used by societies around the world for thousands of years. Contemporary construction of tall buildings from timber, in whole or in part, suggests a ...growing interest in the potential for building with wood at a scale not previously attainable. As wood is the only significant building material that is grown, we have a natural inclination that building in wood is good for the environment. But under what conditions is this really the case? The environmental benefits of using timber are not straightforward; although it is a natural product, a large amount of energy is used to dry and process it. Much of this can come from the biomass of the tree itself, but that requires investment in plant, which is not always possible in an industry that is widely distributed among many small producers. And what should we build with wood? Are skyscrapers in timber a good use of this natural resource, or are there other aspects of civil and structural engineering, or large-scale infrastructure, that would be a better use of wood? Here, we consider a holistic picture ranging in scale from the science of the cell wall to the engineering and global policies that could maximise forestry and timber construction as a boon to both people and the planet.
Global forests have the potential to significantly increase or reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration. Harvested wood products (HWP) are an important part of the forest-atmosphere ...carbon cycle. On the one hand, HWP can retain the carbon for various periods of time, depending on the end uses. On the other hand, using HWP in place of more GHG-intensive materials and using wood bioenergy to substitute for fossil fuels result in reduced fossil fuel emissions. However, critical methodological differences exist in existing literature in assessing the GHG effects of HWP and wood bioenergy substitution, and large diversity in system boundary, substitution scenario, study period, and reference baseline results in large difference in reported GHG effects of wood substitution. In the present study, we conducted a comprehensive literature review to (a) clarify the methodological issues in GHG effects assessments of HWP and wood bioenergy substitution, (b) summarize and compare the reported GHG effects, and (c) identify knowledge gaps to inform future research. We support the conclusion that to accurately assess the GHG effects, HWP and wood bioenergy life-cycle carbon analysis needs to be integrated with forest carbon balance analysis. Substituting HWP for non-wood materials appears to be more effective in reducing GHG emissions than substituting wood for fossil fuels. The time required to obtain net emission reduction for wood bioenergy in place of fossil fuels can be 0years, decades or more than a century, depending on forest biomass sources (e.g., harvest residue, standing live trees) and fossil fuels displaced. For HWP used to replace non-wood material, however, the time required to obtain net emission reduction largely remains a future research need. Overall, HWP and wood bioenergy originated from sustainably managed forests can significantly contribute to GHG emissions reduction in the long term.
•Changes in HWP carbon stocks can influence the GHG concentration in the atmosphere.•Each Mg C in HWP used for material substitution reduces 0.25–5.6Mg C of emissions.•Time to achieve net emission reduction is an important metric for forest bioenergy.•Wood biomass type and fossil fuel replaced determine the time to obtain net emissions reduction.
Background
There are high estimates of the potential climate change mitigation opportunity of using wood products. A significant part of those estimates depends on long-lived wood products in the ...construction sector replacing concrete, steel, and other non-renewable goods. Often the climate change mitigation benefits of this substitution are presented and quantified in the form of displacement factors. A displacement factor is numerically quantified as the reduction in emissions achieved per unit of wood used, representing the efficiency of biomass in decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. The substitution benefit for a given wood use scenario is then represented as the estimated change in emissions from baseline in a study’s modelling framework. The purpose of this review is to identify and assess the central economic and technical assumptions underlying forest carbon accounting and life cycle assessments that use displacement factors or similar simple methods.
Main text
Four assumptions in the way displacement factors are employed are analyzed: (1) changes in harvest or production rates will lead to a corresponding change in consumption of wood products, (2) wood building products are substitutable for concrete and steel, (3) the same mix of products could be produced from increased harvest rates, and (4) there are no market responses to increased wood use.
Conclusions
After outlining these assumptions, we conclude suggesting that many studies assessing forest management or products for climate change mitigation depend on a suite of assumptions that the literature either does not support or only partially supports. Therefore, we encourage the research community to develop a more sophisticated model of the building sectors and their products. In the meantime, recognizing these assumptions has allowed us to identify some structural, production, and policy-based changes to the construction industry that could help realize the climate change mitigation potential of wood products.
The building sector, including building operations and materials, was responsible for the emission of ∼11.9 gigatons of global energy-related CO2 in 2020, accounting for 37% of the total CO2 ...emissions, the largest share among different sectors. Lowering the carbon footprint of buildings requires the development of carbon-storage materials as well as novel designs that could enable multifunctional components to achieve widespread applications. Wood is one of the most abundant biomaterials on Earth and has been used for construction historically. Recent research breakthroughs on advanced engineered wood products epitomize this material’s tremendous yet largely untapped potential for addressing global sustainability challenges. In this review, we explore recent developments in chemically modified wood that will produce a new generation of engineered wood products for building applications. Traditionally, engineered wood products have primarily had a structural purpose, but this review broadens the classification to encompass more aspects of building performance. We begin by providing multiscale design principles of wood products from a computational point of view, followed by discussion of the chemical modifications and structural engineering methods used to modify wood in terms of its mechanical, thermal, optical, and energy-related performance. Additionally, we explore life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis tools for guiding future research toward environmentally friendly and economically feasible directions for engineered wood products. Finally, this review highlights the current challenges and perspectives on future directions in this research field. By leveraging these new wood-based technologies and analysis tools for the fabrication of carbon-storage materials, it is possible to design sustainable and carbon-negative buildings, which could have a significant impact on mitigating climate change.
PDF
