Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies

Video thumbnail (Frame 0) Video thumbnail (Frame 1006) Video thumbnail (Frame 2513) Video thumbnail (Frame 2770) Video thumbnail (Frame 2951) Video thumbnail (Frame 3456) Video thumbnail (Frame 5812)
Video in TIB AV-Portal: Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies

Formal Metadata

Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies
Title of Series
CC Attribution 3.0 Unported:
You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
Release Date

Content Metadata

Subject Area
The land-use sector can contribute to climate change mitigation not only by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also by increasing carbon uptake from the atmosphere and thereby creating negative CO2 emissions. In this paper, we investigate two land-based climate change mitigation strategies for carbon removal: (1) afforestation and (2) bioenergy in combination with carbon capture and storage technology (bioenergy CCS). In our approach, a global tax on GHG emissions aimed at ambitious climate change mitigation incentivizes land-based mitigation by penalizing positive and rewarding negative CO2 emissions from the land-use system. We analyze afforestation and bioenergy CCS as standalone and combined mitigation strategies. We find that afforestation is a cost-efficient strategy for carbon removal at relatively low carbon prices, while bioenergy CCS becomes competitive only at higher prices. According to our results, cumulative carbon removal due to afforestation and bioenergy CCS is similar at the end of 21st century (600–700 GtCO2), while land-demand for afforestation is much higher compared to bioenergy CCS. In the combined setting, we identify competition for land, but the impact on the mitigation potential (1000 GtCO2) is partially alleviated by productivity increases in the agricultural sector. Moreover, our results indicate that early-century afforestation presumably will not negatively impact carbon removal due to bioenergy CCS in the second half of the 21st century. A sensitivity analysis shows that land-based mitigation is very sensitive to different levels of GHG taxes. Besides that, the mitigation potential of bioenergy CCS highly depends on the development of future bioenergy yields and the availability of geological carbon storage, while for afforestation projects the length of the crediting period is crucial.

Related Material

Climate change Video Electric power distribution Refractive index Spare part Stationery TARGET2 Video Nanotechnology Climate Climate Model building
Aerodynamics Climate change Trajectory Perturbation theory Refractive index Emissionsvermögen Command-line interface Membrane potential Thermodynamic equilibrium Model building
Combined cycle Snow
Greenhouse gas Buick Century Stationery Nanotechnology Climate Model building Energy level LEAR <Physik>
Hi this is for the a PhD student the parts of the Institute for Quantum decreases in Germany I invite you to watch this short video answered for study in which the gaze after station and bioenergy CCS as climate change indications strategies the motivation of this study is that forestation and bioenergy of carbon capture and storage are likely to play a key role for achieving ambitious climate targets such as the two-degree target in this study we use the model of agriculture production and
index only wine and met prior to assess the potentials and trade-offs of I forestation and bioenergy CCS for the 1st time with a common methodological approach make is a partial equilibrium model of agriculture sector with because dynamic optimization and the objective function of cost minimization therefore in tax on CO 2 emissions from ladies change provides an incentive for carbon dioxide removal the CIA to price trajectory in our study is aimed at ambitious climate change mitigation if the revenues of the costs associated with when carbon dioxide removal the model has an economic incentive to deploy forestation or bioenergy CCS as mitigation strategies we investigate for
scenarios in business as usual scenario with hot carbon text and carbon dioxide removal option and forestation only scenario a
bioenergy CCS only
scenario and the combination of both in general we find the
land demand for an forestation is much higher compared to bioenergy CCS large-scale land-based mitigation would require considerable productivity increases in the agriculture sector at station which in our
model is a managed or us is the regrowth of natural vegetation predominantly takes place in sub-Saharan Africa Latin America China Europe and the USA in the business as usual scenario he the carbon emissions throughout the centuries are positive while they are negative in the climate policies in areas forestation emerges as a cost-efficient strategy for carbon removal had allegedly known price while bioenergy C the S becomes competitive only at higher prices according to our results accumulated carbon removal due to forestation and bioenergy C C S is similar at the end of the 21st century ranging between 670 get on C O 2 in the combined that accumulated carbon emissions and 1 thousand gigatons you 2 which indicates that forestation been bioenergy CCS compete for land however Our results suggest that the early century of forestation presumably will not negatively impact the long-term potential of bioenergy CCS it sensitivity study else shows that land-based mitigation it's very sensitive to different levels of greenhouse gas texts