Search

[EN] The expected increased share of renewables due to the ongoing energy transition may reduce the estimated potential mitigation effect of wood. Here, we estimated the climate change mitigation effect for five scenarios of wood products use in Europe applying dynamic substitution factors embracing a future energy mix with an increasing share of renewables in accordance with the emission reductions necessary to achieve the Paris Agreement targets. Our innovative modelling approach also included the elimination of eternal recycling loops, the inclusion of more realistic wood use cascading scenarios, and adoption of a more realistic marginal (ceteris paribus) substitution approach. Results show that the mitigation effect derived from material substitution is 33% lower in 2030 than previously predicted, and even 96% lower in 2100, showing its expiry date by the end of the century. Nevertheless, the mitigation effect of wood product use, in addition to mitigation by forests, may represent 3.3% of the European emission reduction targets by 2030., We thank Estelle Vial and AnneLaure Levet for the help provided to adapt the substitution factors from FORMIT project (EU grant no. 311970) to our needs and EOS for providing access to their confidential work. We also thank anonymous reviewers for providing thoughtful comments on the manuscript. This research was supported by the EU through the Marie Curie Initial Training Networks (ITN) action CASTLE, grant agreement no. 316020. The content of this publication reflects only the authors' views, and the European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

Short rotation plantations are often considered as holding vast potentials for future global bioenergy supply. In contrast to raising biomass harvests in forests, purpose‐grown biomass does not interfere with forest carbon (C) stocks. Provided that agricultural land can be diverted from food and feed production without impairing food security, energy plantations on current agricultural land appear as a beneficial option in terms of renewable, climate‐friendly energy supply. However, instead of supporting energy plantations, land could also be devoted to natural succession. It then acts as a long‐term C sink which also results in C benefits. We here compare the sink strength of natural succession on arable land with the C saving effects of bioenergy from plantations. Using geographically explicit data on global cropland distribution among climate and ecological zones, regionally specific C accumulation rates are calculated with IPCC default methods and values. C savings from bioenergy are given for a range of displacement factors (DFs), acknowledging the varying efficiency of bioenergy routes and technologies in fossil fuel displacement. A uniform spatial pattern is assumed for succession and bioenergy plantations, and the considered timeframes range from 20 to 100 years. For many parameter settings—in particular, longer timeframes and high DFs—bioenergy yields higher cumulative C savings than natural succession. Still, if woody biomass displaces liquid transport fuels or natural gas‐based electricity generation, natural succession is competitive or even superior for timeframes of 20–50 years. This finding has strong implications with climate and environmental policies: Freeing land for natural succession is a worthwhile low‐cost natural climate solution that has many co‐benefits for biodiversity and other ecosystem services. A considerable risk, however, is C stock losses (i.e., emissions) due to disturbances or land conversion at a later time., How can spare cropland be used more efficiently in terms of climate change mitigation? By growing short rotation coppice for bioenergy or allowing cropland to revert to its natural state. We show that the more beneficial option depends on the timeframe considered, biophysical conditions in the considered region, upstream emissions of fuel supply, and the efficiency of the particular bioenergy route in displacing fossil fuels.