Exploring temporal aspects of climate-change effects due to bioenergy

The greenhouse gas emissions associated with bioenergy are often temporally dispersed and can be a mixture of long-term forcers (such as carbon dioxide) and short-term forcers (such as methane). These factors affect the timing and magnitude of climate-change impacts associated with bioenergy in ways that cannot be clearly communicated with a single metric. This is critical as key comparisons that determine incentives and policy for bioenergy are based upon climate-change impacts expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent calculated with GWP100. This paper explores these issues further and presents a spreadsheet tool to facilitate quick assessment of these temporal effects. The potential effect of (i) a mix of GHGs and (ii) emissions that change with time are illustrated through two case studies. In case study 1, variations in the mix of greenhouse gases mean that apparently similar impacts after 100-years, mask radically different impacts before then. In case study 2, variations in the timing of emissions cause their climate-change impacts (integrated radiative-forcing and temperature change) to differ from the impacts that an emissions-balance would suggest. The effect of taking alternative approaches to considering “CO2-equivalence” are also assessed. In both cases, a single metric for climate-change effects was found to be wanting. A simple tool has been produced to help practitioners evaluate whether this is the case for any given system. If complex dynamics are apparent, it is recommended that additional metrics, more detailed inventory, or full time-series impact results are used in order to accurately communicate these climate-change effects.</p

The state of the Martian climate

60°N was +2.0°C, relative to the 1981–2010 average value (Fig. 5.1). This marks a new high for the record. The average annual surface air temperature (SAT) anomaly for 2016 for land stations north of starting in 1900, and is a significant increase over the previous highest value of +1.2°C, which was observed in 2007, 2011, and 2015. Average global annual temperatures also showed record values in 2015 and 2016. Currently, the Arctic is warming at more than twice the rate of lower latitudes

Sustainability of Bioenergy – Mapping the Risks & Benefits to Inform Future Bioenergy Systems

Bioenergy is widely included in energy strategies for its GHG mitigation potential. Bioenergy technologies will likely have to be deployed at scale to meet decarbonisation targets, and consequently biomass will have to be increasingly grown/mobilised. Sustainability risks associated with bioenergy may intensify with increasing deployment and where feedstocks are sourced through international trade. This research applies the Bioeconomy Sustainability Indicator Model (BSIM) to map and analyse the performance of bioenergy across 126 sustainability issues, evaluating 16 bioenergy case studies that reflect the breadth of biomass resources, technologies, energy vectors and bio-products. The research finds common trends in sustainability performance across projects that can inform bioenergy policy and decision making. Potential sustainability benefits are identified for People (jobs, skills, income, energy access); for Development (economy, energy, land utilisation); for Natural Systems (soil, heavy metals), and; for Climate Change (emissions, fuels). Also, consistent trends of sustainability risks where focus is required to ensure the viability of bioenergy projects, including for infrastructure, feedstock mobilisation, techno-economics and carbon stocks. Emission mitigation may be a primary objective for bioenergy, this research finds bioenergy projects can provide potential benefits far beyond emissions - there is an argument for supporting/promoting/replicating projects based on the ecosystem services and/or economic stimulation they may deliver. Also given the broad dynamics and characteristics of bioenergy projects, a rigid approach of assessing sustainability may be incompatible. Awarding ‘credit’ across a broader range of sustainability indicators in addition to requiring minimum performances in key areas, may be more effective at ensuring bioenergy sustainability