RESEARCH: Accounting for emissions from terrestrial systems and land-use change.
May 29th, 2009 by CATF,Article: M Wise et al (2009). The Implications of Limiting C02 Concentrations for Agriculture, Land Use, Land-Use Change Emissions and Bioenergy. Science. Vol. 324. no. 5931, pp. 1183 – 1186. DOI: 10.1126/science.1168475
Synopsis: Marshall A. Wise, Katherine V. Calvin, Allison M. Thomson, Leon E. Clarke, Benjamin Bond-Lamberty, Ronald D. Sands, Steven J. Smith, Anthony C, Janetos, and James A. Edmonds of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Joint Global Change Research Institute in collaboration with the University of Maryland at College Park explain that “failing to take into account the value of terrestrial carbon storage services by unmanaged ecosystems and managed forests could have disastrous consequences for unmanaged ecosystems.”
Wise et al explore the importance of including emissions from terrestrial systems and land-use change in setting and attaining CO2 emissions targets for the future. In this study, three scenarios are analyzed including a reference case, a Fossil Fuel and Industrial Emissions Carbon Tax (FFICT) regime and a Universal Carbon Tax (UCT) regime. For each scenario carbon emission targets were set ranging from 450ppm to 550ppm.
Wise et al use the Joint Global Change Research Institute’s MiniCAM model to determine changes in crop prices, land use, land cover, energy and economy. In addition, a new ecosystem component of MiniCAM is used to determine how the system will be affected under various emissions targets, given certain assumptions on population, affluence, and technology over time. The model also addresses purpose grown biofuel versus waste fuel and combining these different biofuel options with CO2 capture and storage technologies for optimal outcomes. Wise and the coauthors explain that their methods for determining crop productivity are based on available data and projections through year 2030. Post 2030, an annual .25 percent per year productivity improvement is assumed. This value is highly speculative and also has a strong influence over model results.
The reference case assumes a consistent evolution of society (population, standard of living, etc.) and environmental quality over time while excluding any methods for limiting emissions. Under the reference scenario it is determined that forests will decline, agricultural land will increase and land use change emissions will decline. Land use emissions are found to increase under the Fossil Fuel and Industrial Emissions Carbon Tax, generally leading to higher land rental rates and prices for agricultural commodities. Lastly, under the Universal Carbon Tax scenario, cropland is found to decrease relative to the reference case, bioenergy production increases relative to the reference case but decreases relative to the FFICT and there is a reduction in the price of bioenergy.
There is considerable room for improvement with respect to the availability and reliability of the existing research and data pertinent to the MiniCAM model. Wise et al explicitly mention that including full accounting of greenhouse gas emissions, the relationship between GHG concentrations and climate variability, the effects of interactions between other GHG’s such as Nitrogen, discrete and disaggregated geographical data, as well as detailed water availability and consumption models, would improve model results. In addition to more reliable data, Wise and the coauthors explain that more research must be done in the societal aspects of the model and specifically the ability of governments to enforce carbon limits through carbon taxes or other methods.
The complete article can be downloaded here.
RESEARCH: Deforestation in the Amazon may lead to a forest ‘tipping point.’
May 27th, 2008 by CATF,Article: Nepstad et al (2008). Interactions among Amazon land use, forests and climate: prospects for a near-term forest tipping point. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 363(1498): 1737–1746.
Synopsis: Researchers Daniel C. Nepstad, Claudia M. Stickler, Britaldo Soares-Filho, and Frank Merry of the Woods Hole Research Center find that if current trends continue “approximately 55% of the forests of the Amazon will be cleared, logged, damaged by drought or burned over the next 20 years, emitting 15-26 Pg of carbon to the atmosphere.”
Nepstad et al discuss the economic pressure for deforestation in the Amazon and explain that such large-scale deforestation can lead to a series of positive feedbacks involving fires, edge effects, and fragmentation that further forest degradation.
Nepstad et al explain that, “the economic, ecological and climatic systems of the Amazon may be interacting to move the forests of this region towards a near-term tipping point.” A forest dieback is defined within the article as an interaction between climate change and economic activities that results in positive feedbacks that further forest degradation. Suggestions are offered as to avoid (or at least postpone) a near-term forest dieback of this kind. Nepstad and the coauthors strongly encourage environmentally sound land use legislation as well as restrictions on further expansion of the cattle industry, the creation of incentives for greenhouse gas reductions, and the avoidance of fire as a method for land management.
Nepstad et al explain that the methods mentioned above may only serve to prevent a near-term forest dieback and that the prevention of a dieback in the future will require large-scale global greenhouse gas reduction efforts.
The full article can be downloaded here.
CATF Op-Ed on “Ethanol’s Failed Promise” in the Washington Post
April 22nd, 2008 by CATF,“Food to Fuel” mandates have fallen short of their objectives and have proven to be detrimental to climate and the environment. Energy consumption for biofuel production, inflated food prices and deforestation are some of the negative indirect impacts of this type of policy. In addition food to fuel mandates have fallen short of meeting direct objectives such as reducing dependence on foreign oil.
Click here for complete article.
CATF Position Paper on Biofuels Policy Development
December 31st, 2007 by CATF,The adverse indirect effects of biofuel policies likely exceed any direct benefits. In theory, biofuels have much positive potential, however, in practice the push for biofuel production has inflated global food prices, contributed to deforestation and ecosystem destruction abroad and has likely exacerbated global climate change effects. Going forward, the development of analytical tools to conduct accurate life cycle analyses that account for the negative indirect impacts of biofuels must be implemented. In addition, policies must be carefully devised and subject to careful cost-benefit analysis. Lastly, policy makers are encouraged to implement “niche biofuel policies” that are specifically designed to protect the climate.
Click here for the complete position paper.
CATF Op-Ed on the “Biodiesel Fallacy” in the Boston Globe
November 26th, 2007 by CATF,The “carbon neutral” bioenergy fallacy leads to policies that may have detrimental impacts on the environment. Growing feedstocks for fuel may displace food crop production and detract from available land for natural ecosystem services. In addition, the proposed biodiesel mandate in Massachusetts fails to account for the indirect land use change impacts associated with the conversion of agricultural and natural ecosystem lands to feedstock production.
Click here for complete article.
Leaping Before They Looked: Lessons from Europe’s Experience with the 2003 Biofuels Directive
October 1st, 2007 by CATF,Although the current U.S. focus on boosting biofuel production and usage may be well-intentioned, caution regarding unintended consequences of these policies is warranted. In 2003 the EU issued a Directive promoting the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels for transport. The Directive sought/seeks to have biofuels account for 2% of EU transport fuels by 2005, 5.75% by 2010, and in a 2007 addendum, 10% by 2020.
The EU mandate was primarily driven by farm policy, to create new outlets for agricultural and forestry products, and to diversify rural economies. Reduced emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), energy security, and improved environmental impacts were cited as ancillary benefits of the policies. However, due in part to global market forces and economic efficiencies in developing countries, the result is that the Directive has exacerbated some of the very problems it was designed to solve, driving up food prices, leading to increased deforestation in tropical countries, worsening global warming, and increasing imports of bio-oils.
The developing world offers both cheap land and inexpensive labor for bioenergy crop production, and tropical energy crops such as palm oil offer greater energy yields and lower production costs than traditional oil seeds and grains. The impact of the EU Directive has been to increase competition for food, water, land, and other resources in developed and developing countries, and to increase GHG emissions, tropical deforestation, and biodiversity loss. Biofuel production also encourages large-scale land-clearing and monoculture cropping, with attendant poverty, human rights abuses, and ecological degradation.
Importantly, while tropical deforestation is occurring at a staggering rate in many countries seeking to produce biofuels for the new and growing markets, the destruction of boggy peatlands in Southeast Asia now represents one of the leading sources of global warming emissions worldwide. The process of draining, clearing, and burning peatlands for palm oil plantations releases the equivalent of 8% of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel use, making Indonesia the 3rd ranking emitter of CO2 emissions in the world, behind only the US and China.
EU member countries are also now realizing that the climate benefits of even those biofuels produced within the EU are in many cases overstated. Some life-cycle analyses (LCAs) of biofuel production cite increased use of nitrogen-based fertilizers as negating much of the climate benefits associated with biofuels, and a new batch of research indicates that the benefits may be erased altogether by climate-harmful deforestation caused by displaced food production.
These unintended consequences – though not all unanticipated – highlight the need for updated, comprehensive tools to analyze the true net impacts of policies that increase biofuels use, particularly as the US contemplates following the same path that the EU has traversed. Current LCAs do not account for GHG emissions and other impacts to global warming that may be caused by changes in land use; food, fuel, and materials markets; and impacts and demand for natural resources such as water. Until we develop these tools to inform policy development, we should exhibit great caution in regards to biofuels production and use, and should take heed of lessons being learned elsewhere.
Click here to read the full report.
