Search

Large‐scale bioenergy plays a key role in climate change mitigation scenarios, but its efficacy is uncertain. This study aims to quantify that uncertainty by contrasting the results of three different types of models under the same mitigation scenario (RCP2.6‐SSP2), consistent with a 2°C temperature target. This analysis focuses on a single bioenergy feedstock, Miscanthus × giganteus, and contrasts projections for its yields and environmental effects from an integrated assessment model (IMAGE), a land surface and dynamic global vegetation model tailored to Miscanthus bioenergy (JULES) and a bioenergy crop model (MiscanFor). Under the present climate, JULES, IMAGE and MiscanFor capture the observed magnitude and variability in Miscanthus yields across Europe; yet in the tropics JULES and IMAGE predict high yields, whereas MiscanFor predicts widespread drought‐related diebacks. 2040–2049 projections show there is a rapid scale up of over 200 Mha bioenergy cropping area in the tropics. Resulting biomass yield ranges from 12 (MiscanFor) to 39 (JULES) Gt dry matter over that decade. Change in soil carbon ranges from +0.7 Pg C (MiscanFor) to −2.8 Pg C (JULES), depending on preceding land cover and soil carbon.2090–99 projections show large‐scale biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is projected in Europe. The models agree that <2°C global warming will increase yields in the higher latitudes, but drought stress in the Mediterranean region could produce low yields (MiscanFor), and significant losses of soil carbon (JULES and IMAGE). These results highlight the uncertainty in rapidly scaling‐up biomass energy supply, especially in dry tropical climates and in regions where future climate change could result in drier conditions. This has important policy implications—because prominently used scenarios to limit warming to 'well below 2°C' (including the one explored here) depend upon its effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The agriculture sector can contribute to climate change mitigation by reducing its own greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, sequestering carbon in vegetation and soils, and providing biomass to substitute for fossil fuels and other GHG‐intensive products. The sector also needs to address water, soil, and biodiversity impacts caused by historic and current practices. Emerging EU policies create incentives for cultivation of perennial plants that provide biomass along with environmental benefits. One such option, common in northern Europe, is to include grass in rotations with annual crops to provide biomass while remediating soil organic carbon (SOC) losses and other environmental impacts. Here, we apply a spatially explicit model on >81,000 sub‐watersheds in EU27 + UK (Europe) to explore the effects of widespread deployment of such systems. Based on current accumulated SOC losses in individual sub‐watersheds, the model identifies and quantifies suitable areas for increased grass cultivation and corresponding biomass‐ and protein supply, SOC sequestration, and reductions in nitrogen emissions to water as well as wind and water erosion. The model also provides information about possible flood mitigation. The results indicate a substantial climate mitigation potential, with combined annual GHG savings from soil‐carbon sequestration and displacement of natural gas with biogas from grass‐based biorefineries, equivalent to 13%–48% of current GHG emissions from agriculture in Europe. The environmental co‐benefits are also notable, in some cases exceeding the estimated mitigation needs. Yield increases for annual crops in modified rotations mitigate the displacement effect of increasing grass cultivation. If the grass is used as feedstock in lieu of annual crops, the displacement effect can even be negative, that is, a reduced need for annual crop production elsewhere. Incentivizing widespread deployment will require supportive policy measures as well as new uses of grass biomass, for example, as feedstock for green biorefineries producing protein concentrate, biofuels, and other bio‐based products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both climate change and habitat modification exert serious pressure on biodiversity. Although climate change mitigation has been identified as an important strategy for biodiversity conservation, bioenergy remains a controversial mitigation action due to its potential negative ecological and socio-economic impacts which arise through habitat modification by land use change. While the debate continues, the separate or simultaneous impacts of both climate change and bioenergy on biodiversity have not yet been compared. We assess projected range shifts of 156 European bird species by 2050 under two alternative climate change trajectories: a baseline scenario, where the global mean temperature increases by 4 °C by the end of the century, and a 2 degrees scenario, where global concerted effort limits the temperature increase to below 2 °C. For the latter scenario, we also quantify the pressure exerted by increased cultivation of energy biomass as modelled by IMAGE2.4, an integrated land use model. The global bioenergy use in this scenario is in the lower end of the range of previously estimated sustainable potential. Under the assumptions of these scenarios, we find that the magnitude of range shifts due to climate change is far greater than the impact of land conversion to woody bioenergy plantations within the European Union, and that mitigation of climate change reduces the exposure experienced by species. However, we identified potential for local conservation conflict between priority areas for conservation and bioenergy production. These conflicts must be addressed by strict bioenergy sustainability criteria that acknowledge biodiversity conservation needs beyond existing protected areas and apply also to biomass imported from outside the European Union. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wood from short rotation coppices (SRCs) is discussed as bioenergy feedstock with good climate mitigation potential inter alia because soil organic carbon (SOC) might be sequestered by a land-use change (LUC) from cropland to SRC. To test if SOC is generally enhanced by SRC over the long term, we selected the oldest Central European SRC plantations for this study. Following the paired plot approach soils of the 21 SRCs were sampled to 80 cm depth and SOC stocks, C/N ratios, pH and bulk densities were compared to those of adjacent croplands or grasslands. There was no general trend to SOC stock change by SRC establishment on cropland or grassland, but differences were very site specific. The depth distribution of SOC did change. Compared to cropland soils, the SOC density in 0-10 cm was significantly higher under SRC (17 ± 2 in cropland and 21 ± 2 kg C m−3 in SRC). Under SRC established on grassland SOC density in 0-10 cm was significantly lower than under grassland. The change rates of total SOC stocks by LUC from cropland to SRC ranged from −1.3 to 1.4 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 and −0.6 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 to +0.1 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 for LUC from grassland to SRC, respectively. The accumulation of organic carbon in the litter layer was low (0.14 ± 0.08 Mg C ha−1 yr−1). SOC stocks of both cropland and SRC soils were correlated with the clay content. No correlation could be detected between SOC stock change and soil texture or other abiotic factors. In summary, we found no evidence of any general SOC stock change when cropland is converted to SRC and the identification of the factors determining whether carbon may be sequestered under SRC remains a major challenge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rapid development and adoption of biofuels has been driven by a wide range of targets and other policy instruments, but first-generation biofuels have been widely criticized. In light of the development of new biofuel technologies that aim to avoid the problems of the past, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics conducted an 18-month inquiry on the ethical, social and policy issues raised by both current and future biofuels. The Council concludes that many biofuels policies fail to take consideration of important ethical principles, such as protecting human rights, environmental sustainability, climate change mitigation, just reward, and equitable distribution of costs and benefits. It proposes an overarching ethical standard for biofuels, enforced by a certification scheme for all biofuels produced in and imported into Europe and ideally worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]