Cargando…
Land‐based measures to mitigate climate change: Potential and feasibility by country
Land‐based climate mitigation measures have gained significant attention and importance in public and private sector climate policies. Building on previous studies, we refine and update the mitigation potentials for 20 land‐based measures in >200 countries and five regions, comparing “bottom‐up”...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9293189/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34636101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15873 |
_version_ | 1784749560832196608 |
---|---|
author | Roe, Stephanie Streck, Charlotte Beach, Robert Busch, Jonah Chapman, Melissa Daioglou, Vassilis Deppermann, Andre Doelman, Jonathan Emmet‐Booth, Jeremy Engelmann, Jens Fricko, Oliver Frischmann, Chad Funk, Jason Grassi, Giacomo Griscom, Bronson Havlik, Petr Hanssen, Steef Humpenöder, Florian Landholm, David Lomax, Guy Lehmann, Johannes Mesnildrey, Leah Nabuurs, Gert‐Jan Popp, Alexander Rivard, Charlotte Sanderman, Jonathan Sohngen, Brent Smith, Pete Stehfest, Elke Woolf, Dominic Lawrence, Deborah |
author_facet | Roe, Stephanie Streck, Charlotte Beach, Robert Busch, Jonah Chapman, Melissa Daioglou, Vassilis Deppermann, Andre Doelman, Jonathan Emmet‐Booth, Jeremy Engelmann, Jens Fricko, Oliver Frischmann, Chad Funk, Jason Grassi, Giacomo Griscom, Bronson Havlik, Petr Hanssen, Steef Humpenöder, Florian Landholm, David Lomax, Guy Lehmann, Johannes Mesnildrey, Leah Nabuurs, Gert‐Jan Popp, Alexander Rivard, Charlotte Sanderman, Jonathan Sohngen, Brent Smith, Pete Stehfest, Elke Woolf, Dominic Lawrence, Deborah |
author_sort | Roe, Stephanie |
collection | PubMed |
description | Land‐based climate mitigation measures have gained significant attention and importance in public and private sector climate policies. Building on previous studies, we refine and update the mitigation potentials for 20 land‐based measures in >200 countries and five regions, comparing “bottom‐up” sectoral estimates with integrated assessment models (IAMs). We also assess implementation feasibility at the country level. Cost‐effective (available up to $100/tCO(2)eq) land‐based mitigation is 8–13.8 GtCO(2)eq yr(−1) between 2020 and 2050, with the bottom end of this range representing the IAM median and the upper end representing the sectoral estimate. The cost‐effective sectoral estimate is about 40% of available technical potential and is in line with achieving a 1.5°C pathway in 2050. Compared to technical potentials, cost‐effective estimates represent a more realistic and actionable target for policy. The cost‐effective potential is approximately 50% from forests and other ecosystems, 35% from agriculture, and 15% from demand‐side measures. The potential varies sixfold across the five regions assessed (0.75–4.8 GtCO2eq yr(−1)) and the top 15 countries account for about 60% of the global potential. Protection of forests and other ecosystems and demand‐side measures present particularly high mitigation efficiency, high provision of co‐benefits, and relatively lower costs. The feasibility assessment suggests that governance, economic investment, and socio‐cultural conditions influence the likelihood that land‐based mitigation potentials are realized. A substantial portion of potential (80%) is in developing countries and LDCs, where feasibility barriers are of greatest concern. Assisting countries to overcome barriers may result in significant quantities of near‐term, low‐cost mitigation while locally achieving important climate adaptation and development benefits. Opportunities among countries vary widely depending on types of land‐based measures available, their potential co‐benefits and risks, and their feasibility. Enhanced investments and country‐specific plans that accommodate this complexity are urgently needed to realize the large global potential from improved land stewardship. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9293189 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92931892022-07-20 Land‐based measures to mitigate climate change: Potential and feasibility by country Roe, Stephanie Streck, Charlotte Beach, Robert Busch, Jonah Chapman, Melissa Daioglou, Vassilis Deppermann, Andre Doelman, Jonathan Emmet‐Booth, Jeremy Engelmann, Jens Fricko, Oliver Frischmann, Chad Funk, Jason Grassi, Giacomo Griscom, Bronson Havlik, Petr Hanssen, Steef Humpenöder, Florian Landholm, David Lomax, Guy Lehmann, Johannes Mesnildrey, Leah Nabuurs, Gert‐Jan Popp, Alexander Rivard, Charlotte Sanderman, Jonathan Sohngen, Brent Smith, Pete Stehfest, Elke Woolf, Dominic Lawrence, Deborah Glob Chang Biol Invited Primary Research Article Land‐based climate mitigation measures have gained significant attention and importance in public and private sector climate policies. Building on previous studies, we refine and update the mitigation potentials for 20 land‐based measures in >200 countries and five regions, comparing “bottom‐up” sectoral estimates with integrated assessment models (IAMs). We also assess implementation feasibility at the country level. Cost‐effective (available up to $100/tCO(2)eq) land‐based mitigation is 8–13.8 GtCO(2)eq yr(−1) between 2020 and 2050, with the bottom end of this range representing the IAM median and the upper end representing the sectoral estimate. The cost‐effective sectoral estimate is about 40% of available technical potential and is in line with achieving a 1.5°C pathway in 2050. Compared to technical potentials, cost‐effective estimates represent a more realistic and actionable target for policy. The cost‐effective potential is approximately 50% from forests and other ecosystems, 35% from agriculture, and 15% from demand‐side measures. The potential varies sixfold across the five regions assessed (0.75–4.8 GtCO2eq yr(−1)) and the top 15 countries account for about 60% of the global potential. Protection of forests and other ecosystems and demand‐side measures present particularly high mitigation efficiency, high provision of co‐benefits, and relatively lower costs. The feasibility assessment suggests that governance, economic investment, and socio‐cultural conditions influence the likelihood that land‐based mitigation potentials are realized. A substantial portion of potential (80%) is in developing countries and LDCs, where feasibility barriers are of greatest concern. Assisting countries to overcome barriers may result in significant quantities of near‐term, low‐cost mitigation while locally achieving important climate adaptation and development benefits. Opportunities among countries vary widely depending on types of land‐based measures available, their potential co‐benefits and risks, and their feasibility. Enhanced investments and country‐specific plans that accommodate this complexity are urgently needed to realize the large global potential from improved land stewardship. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-10-11 2021-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9293189/ /pubmed/34636101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15873 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Global Change Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Invited Primary Research Article Roe, Stephanie Streck, Charlotte Beach, Robert Busch, Jonah Chapman, Melissa Daioglou, Vassilis Deppermann, Andre Doelman, Jonathan Emmet‐Booth, Jeremy Engelmann, Jens Fricko, Oliver Frischmann, Chad Funk, Jason Grassi, Giacomo Griscom, Bronson Havlik, Petr Hanssen, Steef Humpenöder, Florian Landholm, David Lomax, Guy Lehmann, Johannes Mesnildrey, Leah Nabuurs, Gert‐Jan Popp, Alexander Rivard, Charlotte Sanderman, Jonathan Sohngen, Brent Smith, Pete Stehfest, Elke Woolf, Dominic Lawrence, Deborah Land‐based measures to mitigate climate change: Potential and feasibility by country |
title | Land‐based measures to mitigate climate change: Potential and feasibility by country |
title_full | Land‐based measures to mitigate climate change: Potential and feasibility by country |
title_fullStr | Land‐based measures to mitigate climate change: Potential and feasibility by country |
title_full_unstemmed | Land‐based measures to mitigate climate change: Potential and feasibility by country |
title_short | Land‐based measures to mitigate climate change: Potential and feasibility by country |
title_sort | land‐based measures to mitigate climate change: potential and feasibility by country |
topic | Invited Primary Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9293189/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34636101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15873 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT roestephanie landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT streckcharlotte landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT beachrobert landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT buschjonah landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT chapmanmelissa landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT daioglouvassilis landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT deppermannandre landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT doelmanjonathan landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT emmetboothjeremy landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT engelmannjens landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT frickooliver landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT frischmannchad landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT funkjason landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT grassigiacomo landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT griscombronson landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT havlikpetr landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT hanssensteef landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT humpenoderflorian landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT landholmdavid landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT lomaxguy landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT lehmannjohannes landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT mesnildreyleah landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT nabuursgertjan landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT poppalexander landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT rivardcharlotte landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT sandermanjonathan landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT sohngenbrent landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT smithpete landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT stehfestelke landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT woolfdominic landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry AT lawrencedeborah landbasedmeasurestomitigateclimatechangepotentialandfeasibilitybycountry |