Cargando…

Setting priorities for land management to mitigate climate change

BACKGROUND: No consensus has been reached how to measure the effectiveness of climate change mitigation in the land-use sector and how to prioritize land use accordingly. We used the long-term cumulative and average sectorial C stocks in biomass, soil and products, C stock changes, the substitution...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Böttcher, Hannes, Freibauer, Annette, Scholz, Yvonne, Gitz, Vincent, Ciais, Philippe, Mund, Martina, Wutzler, Thomas, Schulze, Ernst-Detlef
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3386023/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423646
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-7-5
_version_ 1782236934144262144
author Böttcher, Hannes
Freibauer, Annette
Scholz, Yvonne
Gitz, Vincent
Ciais, Philippe
Mund, Martina
Wutzler, Thomas
Schulze, Ernst-Detlef
author_facet Böttcher, Hannes
Freibauer, Annette
Scholz, Yvonne
Gitz, Vincent
Ciais, Philippe
Mund, Martina
Wutzler, Thomas
Schulze, Ernst-Detlef
author_sort Böttcher, Hannes
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: No consensus has been reached how to measure the effectiveness of climate change mitigation in the land-use sector and how to prioritize land use accordingly. We used the long-term cumulative and average sectorial C stocks in biomass, soil and products, C stock changes, the substitution of fossil energy and of energy-intensive products, and net present value (NPV) as evaluation criteria for the effectiveness of a hectare of productive land to mitigate climate change and produce economic returns. We evaluated land management options using real-life data of Thuringia, a region representative for central-western European conditions, and input from life cycle assessment, with a carbon-tracking model. We focused on solid biomass use for energy production. RESULTS: In forestry, the traditional timber production was most economically viable and most climate-friendly due to an assumed recycling rate of 80% of wood products for bioenergy. Intensification towards "pure bioenergy production" would reduce the average sectorial C stocks and the C substitution and would turn NPV negative. In the forest conservation (non-use) option, the sectorial C stocks increased by 52% against timber production, which was not compensated by foregone wood products and C substitution. Among the cropland options wheat for food with straw use for energy, whole cereals for energy, and short rotation coppice for bioenergy the latter was most climate-friendly. However, specific subsidies or incentives for perennials would be needed to favour this option. CONCLUSIONS: When using the harvested products as materials prior to energy use there is no climate argument to support intensification by switching from sawn-wood timber production towards energy-wood in forestry systems. A legal framework would be needed to ensure that harvested products are first used for raw materials prior to energy use. Only an effective recycling of biomaterials frees land for long-term sustained C sequestration by conservation. Reuse cascades avoid additional emissions from shifting production or intensification.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3386023
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33860232012-06-29 Setting priorities for land management to mitigate climate change Böttcher, Hannes Freibauer, Annette Scholz, Yvonne Gitz, Vincent Ciais, Philippe Mund, Martina Wutzler, Thomas Schulze, Ernst-Detlef Carbon Balance Manag Research BACKGROUND: No consensus has been reached how to measure the effectiveness of climate change mitigation in the land-use sector and how to prioritize land use accordingly. We used the long-term cumulative and average sectorial C stocks in biomass, soil and products, C stock changes, the substitution of fossil energy and of energy-intensive products, and net present value (NPV) as evaluation criteria for the effectiveness of a hectare of productive land to mitigate climate change and produce economic returns. We evaluated land management options using real-life data of Thuringia, a region representative for central-western European conditions, and input from life cycle assessment, with a carbon-tracking model. We focused on solid biomass use for energy production. RESULTS: In forestry, the traditional timber production was most economically viable and most climate-friendly due to an assumed recycling rate of 80% of wood products for bioenergy. Intensification towards "pure bioenergy production" would reduce the average sectorial C stocks and the C substitution and would turn NPV negative. In the forest conservation (non-use) option, the sectorial C stocks increased by 52% against timber production, which was not compensated by foregone wood products and C substitution. Among the cropland options wheat for food with straw use for energy, whole cereals for energy, and short rotation coppice for bioenergy the latter was most climate-friendly. However, specific subsidies or incentives for perennials would be needed to favour this option. CONCLUSIONS: When using the harvested products as materials prior to energy use there is no climate argument to support intensification by switching from sawn-wood timber production towards energy-wood in forestry systems. A legal framework would be needed to ensure that harvested products are first used for raw materials prior to energy use. Only an effective recycling of biomaterials frees land for long-term sustained C sequestration by conservation. Reuse cascades avoid additional emissions from shifting production or intensification. BioMed Central 2012-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC3386023/ /pubmed/22423646 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-7-5 Text en Copyright ©2012 Böttcher et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Böttcher, Hannes
Freibauer, Annette
Scholz, Yvonne
Gitz, Vincent
Ciais, Philippe
Mund, Martina
Wutzler, Thomas
Schulze, Ernst-Detlef
Setting priorities for land management to mitigate climate change
title Setting priorities for land management to mitigate climate change
title_full Setting priorities for land management to mitigate climate change
title_fullStr Setting priorities for land management to mitigate climate change
title_full_unstemmed Setting priorities for land management to mitigate climate change
title_short Setting priorities for land management to mitigate climate change
title_sort setting priorities for land management to mitigate climate change
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3386023/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423646
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-7-5
work_keys_str_mv AT bottcherhannes settingprioritiesforlandmanagementtomitigateclimatechange
AT freibauerannette settingprioritiesforlandmanagementtomitigateclimatechange
AT scholzyvonne settingprioritiesforlandmanagementtomitigateclimatechange
AT gitzvincent settingprioritiesforlandmanagementtomitigateclimatechange
AT ciaisphilippe settingprioritiesforlandmanagementtomitigateclimatechange
AT mundmartina settingprioritiesforlandmanagementtomitigateclimatechange
AT wutzlerthomas settingprioritiesforlandmanagementtomitigateclimatechange
AT schulzeernstdetlef settingprioritiesforlandmanagementtomitigateclimatechange