Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 123, Issue 3–4, pp 495–509 | Cite as

Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options

  • Alexander Popp
  • Steven K. Rose
  • Katherine Calvin
  • Detlef P. Van Vuuren
  • Jan Phillip Dietrich
  • Marshall Wise
  • Elke Stehfest
  • Florian Humpenöder
  • Page Kyle
  • Jasper Van Vliet
  • Nico Bauer
  • Hermann Lotze-Campen
  • David Klein
  • Elmar Kriegler
Article

Abstract

In this article, we evaluate and compare results from three integrated assessment models (GCAM, IMAGE, and ReMIND/MAgPIE) regarding the drivers and impacts of bioenergy production on the global land system. The considered model frameworks employ linked energy, economy, climate and land use modules. By the help of these linkages the direct competition of bioenergy with other energy technology options for greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, based on economic costs and GHG emissions from bioenergy production, has been taken into account. Our results indicate that dedicated bioenergy crops and biomass residues form a potentially important and cost-effective input into the energy system. At the same time, however, the results differ strongly in terms of deployment rates, feedstock composition and land-use and greenhouse gas implications. The current paper adds to earlier work by specific looking into model differences with respect to the land-use component that could contribute to the noted differences in results, including land cover allocation, land use constraints, energy crop yields, and non-bioenergy land mitigation options modeled. In scenarios without climate change mitigation, bioenergy cropland represents 10–18 % of total cropland by 2100 across the different models, and boosts cropland expansion at the expense of carbon richer ecosystems. Therefore, associated emissions from land-use change and agricultural intensification as a result of bio-energy use range from 14 and 113 Gt CO2-eq cumulatively through 2100. Under climate policy, bioenergy cropland increases to 24–36 % of total cropland by 2100.

Keywords

Climate Change Mitigation Bioenergy Production Bioenergy Crop Integrate Assessment Model Mitigation Scenario 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research described in this paper received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Program FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement n° 282846 (LIMITS). Katherine Calvin, Marshall Wise, and Page Kyle were supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy as part of the Integrated Assessment Research Program.

Supplementary material

10584_2013_926_MOESM1_ESM.docx (5 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 5090 kb)

References

  1. Azar C, Lindgren K, Obersteiner M, Riahi K, van Vuuren D, den Elzen K, Möllersten K, Larson E (2010) The feasibility of low concentration targets and the role of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Clim Change 100:195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beringer T, Lucht W, Schaphoff S (2011) Bioenergy production potential of global biomass plantations under environmental and agricultural constraints. Gcb Bioenergy 3:299–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bondeau A, Smith PC, Zaehle S, Schaphoff S, Lucht W, Cramer W, Gerten D, Lotze-Campen H, Müller C, Reichstein M et al (2007) Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance. Glob Chang Biol 13:679–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouwman AF, Kram T, Klein Goldewijk K (eds.) (2006) Integrated Modelling of Global Environmental Change: An Overview of IMAGE 2.4. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  5. Chum H et al. (2011) in IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (eds Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y & Seyboth K) 209–332 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011)Google Scholar
  6. Creutzig F, Popp A, Plevin R, Luderer G, Minx J, Edenhofer O (2012) Reconciling top-down and bottom-up modelling on future bioenergy deployment. Nat Clim Chang 2:320–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke L et al. (2007) Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations. Sub-report 2.1 A of Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1 by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research, Washington, D.C., USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Ercoli L, Mariotti M, Masoni A, Bonari E (1999) Effect of irrigation and nitrogen fertilization on biomass yield and efficiency of energy use in crop production of Miscanthus. Field Crop Res 63:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fischer G, Prieler S, van Velthuizen H (2005) Biomass potentials of miscanthus, willow and poplar: results and policy implications for Eastern Europe, Northern and Central Asia. Biomass Bioenergy 28:119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hong C, Fang J, Jin A, Cai J, Guo H, Ren J, Shao Q, Zheng B (2011) Comparative growth, biomass production and fuel properties among different perennial plants, bamboo and miscanthus. Bot Rev 77:197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Klein D, Luderer G, Kreigler E, Strefler J, Bauer N, Popp A, Dietrich JP, Humpenöder F, Lotze-Campen H, Edenhofer O (2013) The value of bioenergy in long-term low- stabilization scenarios: an assessment with ReMIND-MAgPIE. Clim Chang. This volumeGoogle Scholar
  12. Kriegler E, Weyant J, Blanford G, Krey V, Clarke L, Edmonds J, Fawcett A, Luderer G, Riahi K, Richels R, Rose S, Tavoni M, van Vuuren D (2013) The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of EMF27 study on technology and climate policy strategies. Clim Chang. This issueGoogle Scholar
  13. Kyle P G et al. (2011) GCAM 3.0 Agriculture and Land Use: Data Sources and Methods. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. PNNL-21025. http://wiki.umd.edu/gcam/images/2/25/GCAM_AgLU_Data_Documentation.pdf
  14. Leimbach M, Bauer N, Baumstark L, Edenhofer O (2010) Mitigation costs in a globalized world: climate policy analysis with ReMIND-R. Environ Model Assess 15:155–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewandowski I, Clifton-Brown JC, Scurlock JMO, Huisman W (2000) Miscanthus: European experience with a novel energy crop. Biomass Bioenergy 19:209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lotze-Campen H, Müller C, Bondeau A, Rost S, Popp A, Lucht W (2008) Global food demand, productivity growth, and the scarcity of land and water resources: a spatially explicit mathematical programming approach. Agric Econ 39:325–338Google Scholar
  17. Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) (2007) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE, eds. (2007) Climate Change 2007: Impacts Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressGoogle Scholar
  19. Popp A, Dietrich JP, Lotze-Campen H, Klein D, Bauer N, Krause M, Beringer T, Gerten D, Edenhofer O (2011a) The economic potential of bioenergy for climate change mitigation with special attention given to implications for the land system. Environ Res Lett 6:034017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Popp A, Lotze-Campen H, Leimbach M, Knopf B, Beringer T, Bauer N, Bodirsky B (2011b) On sustainability of bio-energy production: integrating co-emissions from agricultural intensification. Biomass Bioenergy 35:4770–4780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Popp A, Krause M, Dietrich JP, Lotze-Campen H, Leimbach M, Beringer T, Bauer N (2012) Additional CO2 emissions from land use change — Forest conservation as a precondition for sustainable production of second generation bioenergy. Ecol Econ 74:64–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Popp A, Lotze-Campen H, Bodirsky B (2010) Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Glob Environ Chang 20:451–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ramankutty N, Evan AT, Monfreda C, and Foley JA (2008) Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 22Google Scholar
  24. Rose SK, Ahammad H, Eickhout B, Fisher B, Kurosawa A, Rao S, Riahi K, van Vuuren DP (2012) Land-based mitigation in climate stabilization. Energy Econ 34:365–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rose S, Kriegler E, Bibas R, Calvin K, Popp A, van Vuuren D, Weyant J (2013) Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management. Clim Chang. This issueGoogle Scholar
  26. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Tokgoz S, Hayes D, Yu T-H (2008) Use of U.S. Croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319:1238–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van Vuuren DP, van Vliet J, Stehfest E (2009) Future bioenergy potential under various natural constraints. Energy Policy 37:4220–4230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wise M, Calvin K, Thomson A, Clarke L, Bond-Lamberty B, Sands R, Smith SJ, Janetos A, Edmonds J (2009) Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324:1183–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wise M and Calvin K (2011) GCAM 3.0 Agriculture and Land Use: Technical Description of Modeling Approach. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. PNNL-20971. Available at http://wiki.umd.edu/gcam/images/2/25/GCAM_AgLU_Documentation.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Popp
    • 1
  • Steven K. Rose
    • 2
  • Katherine Calvin
    • 3
  • Detlef P. Van Vuuren
    • 4
    • 5
  • Jan Phillip Dietrich
    • 1
  • Marshall Wise
    • 3
  • Elke Stehfest
    • 4
  • Florian Humpenöder
    • 1
  • Page Kyle
    • 3
  • Jasper Van Vliet
    • 4
  • Nico Bauer
    • 1
  • Hermann Lotze-Campen
    • 1
  • David Klein
    • 1
  • Elmar Kriegler
    • 1
  1. 1.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)PotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Energy and Environmental Analysis Research GroupElectric Power Research Institute (EPRI)WashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryJoint Global Change Research Institute at the University of Maryland–College ParkCollege ParkUSA
  4. 4.PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyBilthovenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of GeosciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations