Applying a science‐based systems perspective to dispel misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy

The scientific literature contains contrasting findings about the climate effects of forest bioenergy, partly due to the wide diversity of bioenergy systems and associated contexts, but also due to differences in assessment methods. The climate effects of bioenergy must be accurately assessed to inform policy-making, but the complexity of bioenergy systems and associated land, industry and energy systems raises challenges for assessment. We examine misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy and discuss important considerations in assessing these effects and devising measures to incentivize sustainable bioenergy as a component of climate policy. The temporal and spatial system boundary and the reference (counterfactual) scenarios are key methodology choices that strongly influence results. Focussing on carbon balances of individual forest stands and comparing emissions at the point of combustion neglect system-level interactions that influence the climate effects of forest bioenergy. We highlight the need for a systems approach, in assessing options and developing policy for forest bioenergy that: (1) considers the whole life cycle of bioenergy systems, including effects of the associated forest management and harvesting on landscape carbon balances; (2) identifies how forest bioenergy can best be deployed to support energy system transformation required to achieve climate goals; and (3) incentivizes those forest bioenergy systems that augment the mitigation value of the forest sector as a whole. Emphasis on short-term emissions reduction targets can lead to decisions that make medium- to long-term climate goals more difficult to achieve. The most important climate change mitigation measure is the transformation of energy, industry and transport systems so that fossil carbon remains underground. Narrow perspectives obscure the significant role that bioenergy can play by displacing fossil fuels now, and supporting energy system transition. Greater transparency and consistency is needed in greenhouse gas reporting and accounting related to bioenergy

The effect of carbon pricing on technological change for full energy decarbonization: A review of empirical ex‐post evidence

In order to achieve the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement, the world must reach net‐zero carbon emissions around mid‐century, which calls for an entirely new energy system. Carbon pricing, in the shape of taxes or emissions trading schemes, is often seen as the main, or only, necessary climate policy instrument, based on theoretical expectations that this would promote innovation and diffusion of the new technologies necessary for full decarbonization. Here, we review the empirical knowledge available in academic ex‐post analyses of the effectiveness of existing, comparatively high‐price carbon pricing schemes in the European Union, New Zealand, British Columbia, and the Nordic countries. Some articles find short‐term operational effects, especially fuel switching in existing assets, but no article finds mentionable effects on technological change. Critically, all articles examining the effects on zero‐carbon investment found that existing carbon pricing scheme have had no effect at all. We conclude that the effectiveness of carbon pricing in stimulating innovation and zero‐carbon investment remains a theoretical argument. So far, there is no empirical evidence of its effectiveness in promoting the technological change necessary for full decarbonization. This article is categorized under: Climate Economics > Economics of MitigationISSN:1757-7780ISSN:1757-779

The ethics of carbon offsetting

Carbon offsetting can be loosely characterized as a mechanism by which an organization or individual contributes to a scheme that is projected either to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or to deliver carbon dioxide emission reductions on the part of other organizations or individuals. An activity that has been offset therefore purports to make no long-term net contribution to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The ethical basis for using carbon offsetting as an approach to tackling climate change is very much contested. We seek to expose some of the underlying reasons for these ethical disagreements. We show that they relate both to empirical disagreements about what the likely benefits of offsetting are and, more fundamentally, to principled disagreements about the right way to discharge duties to deliver carbon reductions

Where did the time (series) go? Estimation of marginal emission factors with autoregressive components

This paper offers a novel contribution to the literature on Marginal Emission Factors (MEF) by proposing a robust empirical methodology for their estimation across both time and space. Our Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average models with time-effects not only outperforms the established models in the economics literature but it also proves more reliable than variations adopted in the field of engineering. Utilising half-hourly data on carbon emissions and generation in Great Britain, the results allow us to identify a more stable path of MEFs than obtained with existing methodologies. We also estimate marginal emission effects over subsequent time periods (intra-day), rather than focussing only on individual settlement periods (inter-day). This allows us to evaluate the annual cycle of emissions as a result of changes in the economic and social activity which drives demand. Moreover, the reliability of our approach is further confirmed upon exploring the cross-country context. Indeed, our methodology proves reliable when applied to the case of Italy, which is characterised by a different data generation process. Crucially, we provide a more robust basis for valuing actual carbon emission reductions, especially in electricity systems with high penetration of intermittent renewable technologies

Reducing the European Union’s environmental footprint through “territorial extension”

Recent advances in environmental accounting have allowed us to establish a better understanding of the environmental footprints of countries. There are different kinds of environmental footprints, including prominently a material footprint, carbon footprint, water footprint and land footprint. The EU’s environmental footprint is considerably larger than the global average and is unsustainable when compared with indicative targets that aim to ensure that planetary limits are respected. The EU is also more heavily dependent upon embodied imports of environmental resources than any other world region. Among other tools to tackle its environmental footprint, the EU has started to enact legislative measures in the environmental domain that give rise to ‘territorial extension’ in that they seek to regulate the way in which imported products have been harvested or produced in third countries. This includes measures relating to forests, fisheries, climate change and waste. Although one hears frequent claims to the contrary, an analysis of the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU and of the Word Trade Organizations’s Appellate Body, shows that if carefully designed, measures of this kind may be lawful. This chapter argues that they may also be justified in order to prevent the EU from being complicit in environmental wrongdoing in third countries and that environmental footprint studies using multi-regional input-output analysis can contribute to this by ensuring that the knowledge conditions for complicity are met