Quantifying the effectiveness of climate change mitigation through forest plantations and carbon sequestration with an integrated land-use model

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Carbon plantations are introduced in climate change policy as an option to slow the build-up of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations. Here we present a methodology to evaluate the potential effectiveness of carbon plantations. The methodology explicitly considers future long-term land-use change around the world and all relevant carbon (C) fluxes, including all natural fluxes. Both issues have generally been ignored in earlier studies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Two different baseline scenarios up to 2100 indicate that uncertainties in future land-use change lead to a near 100% difference in estimates of carbon sequestration potentials. Moreover, social, economic and institutional barriers preventing carbon plantations in natural vegetation areas decrease the physical potential by 75–80% or more.</p> <p>Nevertheless, carbon plantations can still considerably contribute to slowing the increase in the atmospheric CO₂concentration but only in the long term. The most conservative set of assumptions lowers the increase of the atmospheric CO₂concentration in 2100 by a 27 ppm and compensates for 5–7% of the total energy-related CO₂emissions. The net sequestration up to 2020 is limited, given the short-term increased need for agricultural land in most regions and the long period needed to compensate for emissions through the establishment of the plantations. The potential is highest in the tropics, despite projections that most of the agricultural expansion will be in these regions. Plantations in high latitudes as Northern Europe and Northern Russia should only be established if the objective to sequester carbon is combined with other activities.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Carbon sequestration in plantations can play an important role in mitigating the build-up of atmospheric CO₂. The actual magnitude depends on natural and management factors, social barriers, and the time frame considered. In addition, there are a number of ancillary benefits for local communities and the environment. Carbon plantations are, however, particularly effective in the long term. Furthermore, plantations do not offer the ultimate solution towards stabilizing CO₂concentrations but should be part of a broader package of options with clear energy emission reduction measures.</p

How do trade, poverty and climate policies affect biodiversity?

Over the past 50 years humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history. However, the changes that have been made to ecosystems have contributed to substantial gains in human well-being and economic development. For the coming 50 years, the degradation of ecosystem services could grow significantly worse. In this paper, we selected a number of policy options initiated. The options considered in this paper are: (1) Liberalization of agricultural markets, (2) Alleviation of extreme poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa and (3) Limiting climate change by stabilizing greenhouse gas concentration levels that coincide with the target of 2°C stabilization compared to pre-industrial levels. The impacts of these policy interventions on biodiversity and economic performance are assessed. The quantitative analysis shows that most options are too little or too late to significantly decline the further loss of biodiversity. For limiting climate change (bio-energy) and poverty alleviation (increasing GDP) initial losses in the medium term (2010 -2030) of biodiversity seem to be inevitable but improvements are foreseen in the much longer term. In the long run can demographic transitions and poverty reduction be expected to ease this pressure. Implementation of full trade liberalization leads to an additional biodiversity loss until due to a global increase of land used for agriculture. All options have an economic impact or ‘costs’. In most cases there is a trade-off between biodiversity and economic growth. In the case of trade liberalization and poverty reduction higher economic growth comes at the expense of global biodiversity. However, on the regional, national and local scales there may be biodiversity and economic gains due to safeguarding a variety of functions from which –eventually- humanity entirely depends (see also the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). Economic costs and biodiversity gains may be spread over time. Climate change policy will decrease economic growth, while beneficial effects on biodiversity and the economy (or avoided cost) can only be expected in the long run

Effects of changes in CO2, climate, and land use on the carbon balance of the land biosphere during the 21st century

International audienc

Research, part of a Special Feature on Landscape Scenarios and Multifunctionality -Making Land Use Assessment Operational Global Impacts of European Agricultural and Biofuel Policies

ABSTRACT. Food supply and food distribution have been and are important issues in the global political arena. The recent emergence of biofuel policies has increased the influence of the policy arena on agricultural production. In this paper we show the regional impact of changes in the European Common Agricultural Policy and biofuel policy. Shifting trade patterns, changes in agricultural production, and expansion of agricultural area or intensification of agriculture result in changes in land use and land use emissions. Higher prices for agricultural crops on the world market together with changing production raise agricultural income. Brazil is the region the most affected. The results show that arrangements or policies will be needed to avoid negative impacts in other regions of changing agricultural or biofuel policies in the European Union

Physical (top) and social (bottom) potential distribution of permanent carbon plantations in 2100 using the A1b scenario

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Quantifying the effectiveness of climate change mitigation through forest plantations and carbon sequestration with an integrated land-use model"</p><p>http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/3/1/3</p><p>Carbon Balance and Management 2008;3():3-3.</p><p>Published online 15 Apr 2008</p><p>PMCID:PMC2359746.</p><p></p