Bioenergy and climate change mitigation

an assessment

Felix Creutzig*, N. H. Ravindranath, Goran Berndes, Simon Bolwig, Ryan Bright, Francesco Cherubini, Helena Chum, Esteve Corbera, Mark Delucchi, Andre Faaij, Joseph Fargione, Helmut Haberl, Garvin Heath, Oswaldo Lucon, Richard Plevin, Alexander Popp, Carmenza Robledo-Abad, Steven Rose, Pete Smith, Anders Stromman & 2 others Sangwon Suh, Omar Masera

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalLiterature review

197 Citations (Scopus)
5 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Bioenergy deployment offers significant potential for climate change mitigation, but also carries considerable risks. In this review, we bring together perspectives of various communities involved in the research and regulation of bioenergy deployment in the context of climate change mitigation: Land-use and energy experts, land-use and integrated assessment modelers, human geographers, ecosystem researchers, climate scientists and two different strands of life-cycle assessment experts. We summarize technological options, outline the state-of-the-art knowledge on various climate effects, provide an update on estimates of technical resource potential and comprehensively identify sustainability effects. Cellulosic feedstocks, increased end-use efficiency, improved land carbon-stock management and residue use, and, when fully developed, BECCS appear as the most promising options, depending on development costs, implementation, learning, and risk management. Combined heat and power, efficient biomass cookstoves and small-scale power generation for rural areas can help to promote energy access and sustainable development, along with reduced emissions. We estimate the sustainable technical potential as up to 100EJ: high agreement; 100-300EJ: medium agreement; above 300EJ: low agreement. Stabilization scenarios indicate that bioenergy may supply from 10 to 245EJyr(-1) to global primary energy supply by 2050. Models indicate that, if technological and governance preconditions are met, large-scale deployment (>200EJ), together with BECCS, could help to keep global warming below 2 degrees degrees of preindustrial levels; but such high deployment of land-intensive bioenergy feedstocks could also lead to detrimental climate effects, negatively impact ecosystems, biodiversity and livelihoods. The integration of bioenergy systems into agriculture and forest landscapes can improve land and water use efficiency and help address concerns about environmental impacts. We conclude that the high variability in pathways, uncertainties in technological development and ambiguity in political decision render forecasts on deployment levels and climate effects very difficult. However, uncertainty about projections should not preclude pursuing beneficial bioenergy options.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)916-944
Number of pages29
JournalGlobal Change Biology. Bioenergy
Volume7
Issue number5
Early online date4 Jul 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2015

Keywords

  • climate change mitigation
  • land use
  • life-cycle analysis
  • sustainability
  • technical potential
  • technologies
  • land-use change
  • greenhouse-gas emissions
  • sugarcane-ethanol-production
  • general equilibrium-analysis
  • regional biomass chains
  • life-cycle assessment
  • biofuel carbon debt
  • crop-based biofuels
  • salt-affected soils
  • Sub-Saharan Africa

Cite this

Creutzig, F., Ravindranath, N. H., Berndes, G., Bolwig, S., Bright, R., Cherubini, F., ... Masera, O. (2015). Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment. Global Change Biology. Bioenergy, 7(5), 916-944. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12205

Bioenergy and climate change mitigation : an assessment. / Creutzig, Felix; Ravindranath, N. H.; Berndes, Goran; Bolwig, Simon; Bright, Ryan; Cherubini, Francesco; Chum, Helena; Corbera, Esteve; Delucchi, Mark; Faaij, Andre; Fargione, Joseph; Haberl, Helmut; Heath, Garvin; Lucon, Oswaldo; Plevin, Richard; Popp, Alexander; Robledo-Abad, Carmenza; Rose, Steven; Smith, Pete; Stromman, Anders; Suh, Sangwon; Masera, Omar.

In: Global Change Biology. Bioenergy, Vol. 7, No. 5, 09.2015, p. 916-944.

Research output: Contribution to journalLiterature review

Creutzig, F, Ravindranath, NH, Berndes, G, Bolwig, S, Bright, R, Cherubini, F, Chum, H, Corbera, E, Delucchi, M, Faaij, A, Fargione, J, Haberl, H, Heath, G, Lucon, O, Plevin, R, Popp, A, Robledo-Abad, C, Rose, S, Smith, P, Stromman, A, Suh, S & Masera, O 2015, 'Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment', Global Change Biology. Bioenergy, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 916-944. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12205
Creutzig F, Ravindranath NH, Berndes G, Bolwig S, Bright R, Cherubini F et al. Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment. Global Change Biology. Bioenergy. 2015 Sep;7(5):916-944. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12205
Creutzig, Felix ; Ravindranath, N. H. ; Berndes, Goran ; Bolwig, Simon ; Bright, Ryan ; Cherubini, Francesco ; Chum, Helena ; Corbera, Esteve ; Delucchi, Mark ; Faaij, Andre ; Fargione, Joseph ; Haberl, Helmut ; Heath, Garvin ; Lucon, Oswaldo ; Plevin, Richard ; Popp, Alexander ; Robledo-Abad, Carmenza ; Rose, Steven ; Smith, Pete ; Stromman, Anders ; Suh, Sangwon ; Masera, Omar. / Bioenergy and climate change mitigation : an assessment. In: Global Change Biology. Bioenergy. 2015 ; Vol. 7, No. 5. pp. 916-944.
@article{3fe2a0ebc926414d96448b2902dc5090,
title = "Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment",
abstract = "Bioenergy deployment offers significant potential for climate change mitigation, but also carries considerable risks. In this review, we bring together perspectives of various communities involved in the research and regulation of bioenergy deployment in the context of climate change mitigation: Land-use and energy experts, land-use and integrated assessment modelers, human geographers, ecosystem researchers, climate scientists and two different strands of life-cycle assessment experts. We summarize technological options, outline the state-of-the-art knowledge on various climate effects, provide an update on estimates of technical resource potential and comprehensively identify sustainability effects. Cellulosic feedstocks, increased end-use efficiency, improved land carbon-stock management and residue use, and, when fully developed, BECCS appear as the most promising options, depending on development costs, implementation, learning, and risk management. Combined heat and power, efficient biomass cookstoves and small-scale power generation for rural areas can help to promote energy access and sustainable development, along with reduced emissions. We estimate the sustainable technical potential as up to 100EJ: high agreement; 100-300EJ: medium agreement; above 300EJ: low agreement. Stabilization scenarios indicate that bioenergy may supply from 10 to 245EJyr(-1) to global primary energy supply by 2050. Models indicate that, if technological and governance preconditions are met, large-scale deployment (>200EJ), together with BECCS, could help to keep global warming below 2 degrees degrees of preindustrial levels; but such high deployment of land-intensive bioenergy feedstocks could also lead to detrimental climate effects, negatively impact ecosystems, biodiversity and livelihoods. The integration of bioenergy systems into agriculture and forest landscapes can improve land and water use efficiency and help address concerns about environmental impacts. We conclude that the high variability in pathways, uncertainties in technological development and ambiguity in political decision render forecasts on deployment levels and climate effects very difficult. However, uncertainty about projections should not preclude pursuing beneficial bioenergy options.",
keywords = "climate change mitigation, land use, life-cycle analysis, sustainability, technical potential, technologies, land-use change, greenhouse-gas emissions, sugarcane-ethanol-production, general equilibrium-analysis, regional biomass chains, life-cycle assessment, biofuel carbon debt, crop-based biofuels, salt-affected soils, Sub-Saharan Africa",
author = "Felix Creutzig and Ravindranath, {N. H.} and Goran Berndes and Simon Bolwig and Ryan Bright and Francesco Cherubini and Helena Chum and Esteve Corbera and Mark Delucchi and Andre Faaij and Joseph Fargione and Helmut Haberl and Garvin Heath and Oswaldo Lucon and Richard Plevin and Alexander Popp and Carmenza Robledo-Abad and Steven Rose and Pete Smith and Anders Stromman and Sangwon Suh and Omar Masera",
note = "Acknowledgements The authors are indebted to Julia R{\"o}mer for assisting with editing several hundred references. Helmut Haberl gratefully acknowledges funding by the Austrian Academy of Sciences (Global Change Programme), the Austrian Ministry of Science and Research (BMWF, proVision programme) as well as by the EU-FP7 project VOLANTE. Carmenza Robledo-Abad received financial support from the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs.",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1111/gcbb.12205",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "916--944",
journal = "Global Change Biology. Bioenergy",
issn = "1757-1693",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bioenergy and climate change mitigation

T2 - an assessment

AU - Creutzig, Felix

AU - Ravindranath, N. H.

AU - Berndes, Goran

AU - Bolwig, Simon

AU - Bright, Ryan

AU - Cherubini, Francesco

AU - Chum, Helena

AU - Corbera, Esteve

AU - Delucchi, Mark

AU - Faaij, Andre

AU - Fargione, Joseph

AU - Haberl, Helmut

AU - Heath, Garvin

AU - Lucon, Oswaldo

AU - Plevin, Richard

AU - Popp, Alexander

AU - Robledo-Abad, Carmenza

AU - Rose, Steven

AU - Smith, Pete

AU - Stromman, Anders

AU - Suh, Sangwon

AU - Masera, Omar

N1 - Acknowledgements The authors are indebted to Julia Römer for assisting with editing several hundred references. Helmut Haberl gratefully acknowledges funding by the Austrian Academy of Sciences (Global Change Programme), the Austrian Ministry of Science and Research (BMWF, proVision programme) as well as by the EU-FP7 project VOLANTE. Carmenza Robledo-Abad received financial support from the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs.

PY - 2015/9

Y1 - 2015/9

N2 - Bioenergy deployment offers significant potential for climate change mitigation, but also carries considerable risks. In this review, we bring together perspectives of various communities involved in the research and regulation of bioenergy deployment in the context of climate change mitigation: Land-use and energy experts, land-use and integrated assessment modelers, human geographers, ecosystem researchers, climate scientists and two different strands of life-cycle assessment experts. We summarize technological options, outline the state-of-the-art knowledge on various climate effects, provide an update on estimates of technical resource potential and comprehensively identify sustainability effects. Cellulosic feedstocks, increased end-use efficiency, improved land carbon-stock management and residue use, and, when fully developed, BECCS appear as the most promising options, depending on development costs, implementation, learning, and risk management. Combined heat and power, efficient biomass cookstoves and small-scale power generation for rural areas can help to promote energy access and sustainable development, along with reduced emissions. We estimate the sustainable technical potential as up to 100EJ: high agreement; 100-300EJ: medium agreement; above 300EJ: low agreement. Stabilization scenarios indicate that bioenergy may supply from 10 to 245EJyr(-1) to global primary energy supply by 2050. Models indicate that, if technological and governance preconditions are met, large-scale deployment (>200EJ), together with BECCS, could help to keep global warming below 2 degrees degrees of preindustrial levels; but such high deployment of land-intensive bioenergy feedstocks could also lead to detrimental climate effects, negatively impact ecosystems, biodiversity and livelihoods. The integration of bioenergy systems into agriculture and forest landscapes can improve land and water use efficiency and help address concerns about environmental impacts. We conclude that the high variability in pathways, uncertainties in technological development and ambiguity in political decision render forecasts on deployment levels and climate effects very difficult. However, uncertainty about projections should not preclude pursuing beneficial bioenergy options.

AB - Bioenergy deployment offers significant potential for climate change mitigation, but also carries considerable risks. In this review, we bring together perspectives of various communities involved in the research and regulation of bioenergy deployment in the context of climate change mitigation: Land-use and energy experts, land-use and integrated assessment modelers, human geographers, ecosystem researchers, climate scientists and two different strands of life-cycle assessment experts. We summarize technological options, outline the state-of-the-art knowledge on various climate effects, provide an update on estimates of technical resource potential and comprehensively identify sustainability effects. Cellulosic feedstocks, increased end-use efficiency, improved land carbon-stock management and residue use, and, when fully developed, BECCS appear as the most promising options, depending on development costs, implementation, learning, and risk management. Combined heat and power, efficient biomass cookstoves and small-scale power generation for rural areas can help to promote energy access and sustainable development, along with reduced emissions. We estimate the sustainable technical potential as up to 100EJ: high agreement; 100-300EJ: medium agreement; above 300EJ: low agreement. Stabilization scenarios indicate that bioenergy may supply from 10 to 245EJyr(-1) to global primary energy supply by 2050. Models indicate that, if technological and governance preconditions are met, large-scale deployment (>200EJ), together with BECCS, could help to keep global warming below 2 degrees degrees of preindustrial levels; but such high deployment of land-intensive bioenergy feedstocks could also lead to detrimental climate effects, negatively impact ecosystems, biodiversity and livelihoods. The integration of bioenergy systems into agriculture and forest landscapes can improve land and water use efficiency and help address concerns about environmental impacts. We conclude that the high variability in pathways, uncertainties in technological development and ambiguity in political decision render forecasts on deployment levels and climate effects very difficult. However, uncertainty about projections should not preclude pursuing beneficial bioenergy options.

KW - climate change mitigation

KW - land use

KW - life-cycle analysis

KW - sustainability

KW - technical potential

KW - technologies

KW - land-use change

KW - greenhouse-gas emissions

KW - sugarcane-ethanol-production

KW - general equilibrium-analysis

KW - regional biomass chains

KW - life-cycle assessment

KW - biofuel carbon debt

KW - crop-based biofuels

KW - salt-affected soils

KW - Sub-Saharan Africa

U2 - 10.1111/gcbb.12205

DO - 10.1111/gcbb.12205

M3 - Literature review

VL - 7

SP - 916

EP - 944

JO - Global Change Biology. Bioenergy

JF - Global Change Biology. Bioenergy

SN - 1757-1693

IS - 5

ER -