Chalmers University of Technology
dLUC iLUC and
dLUC,
d other
th evils...
il
Göran Berndes
Chalmers University of Technology
Göteborg Sweden
Göteborg,
Chalmers University of Technology
Historic land use change
S
Source:
Klein
l
Goldewijk,
G ld
k RIVM, The
h Netherlands
h l d
Chalmers University of Technology
Historic land use change
Year
1700
Present situation
(roughly)
300-400
300
400 Mha cropland
ca 1600 Mha cropland
400-500 Mha pastures
ca 3400 Mha pastures
Chalmers University of Technology
Historic land use change
Accumulated
A
l t d emissions
i i
to the atmosphere (Pg)
Share of emissions (%)
500
400
100
Share of annual emissions
from fossil fuel burning (right axis)
75
300
50
200
Fossil fuel burning
+ cement & gas flaring
25
100
Land use change
0
1850
1900
1950
2000
0
Year
S
Source:The
h Carbon
C b
Dioxide
d Information
f
Analysis
l
Center
C
(CDIAC) of the US Department of Energy (DOE)
Chalmers University of Technology
Biofuels
Chalmers University of Technology
What and where to produce?
Global land suitability for second-generation feedstocks
((herbaceous and woody
y lignocellulosic
g
p
plant species)
p
)ource: www
Source:
S
www.elobio.eu
elobio eu
Chalmers University of Technology
dLUC emissions for selected cases
High yield case
Source: Gibbs et al (2008)
Chalmers University of Technology
Adding iLUC emissions...
Bioenergy System
Reference System
System Boundary
Grassland with
livestock
Cropland f or
bioenergy
dLUC
Economic
Pressures
Macroeconomic
factors
Displaced actors
Re-establish elsewhere
Grassland with
livestock
Forest
iLUC
Deforestation
Source: IEA Bioenergy (2010)
‐50
50
CARB
C
CARB
C
wood
Lyw
IFPRI Trade lib. 2020
IFPRI BAU 2020
Rapeseed b d
biodiesel
l
EPA 2022
EPA 2
2017 Tipperr et al
wood
Lyw
IFPRI Trade lib. 2020
Sugarcane ethanol
IFPRI BAU 2020
Tipperr et al
wood
Lyw
IFPRI Trade lib. 2020
IFPRI BAU 2020
CARB
C
EPA 2022
Corn ethanol
EPA 2017
Tipperr et al
Lyw
wood
Searchingerr et al
Herte l et al
IFPRI Trade lib. 2020
‐150
EPA 2022
200
IFPRI BAU 2020
‐100
EPA 2
2017 Chalmers University of Technology
Adding iLUC emissions...
LUC GHG emissions
(g CO2eq/MJ)
Soybean b d
biodiesel
l
150
100
50
0
‐200
Source: IEA Bioenergy (2010)
Chalmers University of Technology
Luc emissions in a longer term
p p
perspective
Source: Melillo et al (2009)
Chalmers University of Technology
Luc emissions in the context of
climate targets
g
Business as usual (IIASA)
550 ppm was advocated as
an upper bound in Stern
review. Still small chance to
stay
t below
b l
2d
degrees C
Celcius
l i
Source: Chalmers Climate Calculator
Chalmers University of Technology
Luc emissions in the context of
climate targets
g
Business as usual (IIASA)
The BAU scenario reduces
deforestation to 10% of 2010
level by 2100. Bending the
y below
BAU curve to stay
550 ppm requires energy
system transformation
Source: Chalmers Climate Calculator
Chalmers University of Technology
Luc emissions in the context of
climate targets
g
Business as usual (IIASA)
The difference between the
two lower graphs is due to
different LUC emissions.
pp g
graph
p has constant
Upper
deforestation rate at 2010
level up to 2100. Lower
graph reduces deforestation
to 10% of 2010 level by
2100.
Source: Chalmers Climate Calculator
Chalmers University of Technology
One critical strategic question is how society should
use the remaining space for CO2 emissions.
3500
50% probability of staying below 2 °C Cum
mulative CO2 emissions
3000
75% probability of staying below 2 °C 2500
2000
Remaining emission space up to 2050
p
p
1500
Fossil fuel use 1750‐2006
Fossil fuel use since mid 1970s
1000
500
Land use change 1850‐2005
0
Source: IEA Bioenergy (2010)
Chalmers University of Technology
Some llevell off LUC emissions
S
i i
associated
i t d with
ith bi
bioenergy
expansion may be an acceptable temporary consequence of
the establishment of an industry capable of providing longlong
term renewable and climate-friendly energy services for the
world
Remaining
emission
space
Fill it up
with fossil
carbon
...or use some
space for
developing
alternatives to
fossil fuels?
LUC for bioenergy
Non-fossil fuel related
Non-fossil fuel related
Chalmers University of Technology
Quick
Q
i k summary and
d some
recommendations
Chalmers University of Technology
• Th
There are examples
l off bioenergy
bi
projects
j t that
th t
cause very large (i+d)LUC emissions. Such
projects will not contribute positively to climate
change mitigation
Chalmers University of Technology
• Th
There are examples
l off bioenergy
bi
projects
j t that
th t
cause very large (i+d)LUC emissions. Such
projects will not contribute positively to climate
change mitigation
CO2
Large C stock
Crop
growth
CO2 Biofuel production
and use
Closed loop
Smaller C stock
Dense forest
Bioenergy plantation: Annual CO2
savings much lower than the CO2
emissions from forest conversion
Chalmers University of Technology
• Establishment of bioenergy plantations can also
lead to that CO2 is assimilated into soils and
biomass This enhances the mitigation benefits
biomass.
Chalmers University of Technology
• Establishment of bioenergy plantations can also
lead to that CO2 is assimilated into soils and
biomass This enhances the mitigation benefits
biomass.
CO2
Crop
growth
CO2
Biofuel production
and use
Closed loop
p
Small C stock
Degraded pasture
Larger
g C stock
Bioenergy plantation: CO2 assimilation in
growing plantation enhances CO2
benefits
Chalmers University of Technology
Unless they are very high, near term LUC
emissions do not automatically disqualify
bi
bioenergy
options
i
ffrom b
being
i part off a llong term
solution to the climate problem.
Chalmers University of Technology
Ultimately we need to stop injecting fossil carbon
into the highly dynamic and strongly coupled
atmosphere-biosphere
atmosphere
biosphere system
system. Bioenergy is one
option of many
Atmosphere‐Biosphere System
Large &
Variable flows
Biosphere
Atmosphere
Difficult to
monitor & control
Pedosphere
Ocean
Fossil fuels
Chalmers University of Technology
Cost and benefits of LUC for bioenergy needs to be
weighted using a wider set of indicators (biodiversity,
water & soil degradation,
degradation socioeconomy
socioeconomy...).
) C price not
sufficient to protect forests
Chalmers University of Technology
Cost and benefits of LUC for bioenergy needs to be
weighted using a wider set of indicators (biodiversity,
water & soil degradation,
degradation socioeconomy
socioeconomy...).
) C price not
sufficient to protect forests
Incentives should discourage systematic decreases in
biospheric carbon stocks while encouraging that biomass
is sustainably used to substitute fossil fuels instead of
deca ing unutilized.
decaying
n tili ed
Chalmers University of Technology
Cost and benefits of LUC for bioenergy needs to be
weighted using a wider set of indicators (biodiversity,
water & soil degradation,
degradation socioeconomy
socioeconomy...).
) C price not
sufficient to protect forests
Incentives should discourage systematic decreases in
biospheric carbon stocks while encouraging that biomass
is sustainably used to substitute fossil fuels instead of
deca ing unutilized.
decaying
n tili ed
Strategies to increase agricultural productivity, especially
i d
in
developing
l i countries,
ti
will
ill b
be critical
iti l tto minimizing
i i i i LUC
impacts. Good practice minimizing N2O emissions will be
important
Chalmers University of Technology
Th k you!!
Thank