Indirect land use change - a view from IEA Bioenergy

Göran BerndesIEA Bioenergy Task 43

Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

(presented by Uwe R. Fritsche, IEA Bioenergy Task 40 National Team Leader, Öko-Institut, Germany)

• Need to discuss bioenergy/LUC with regard to– longer term perspectives – 2o C target for 2050 (G8 and UNFCCC)– need for radical energy system transformation

• Incentive schemes and regulation mainly concerned with iLUC favor bioenergy systems with low iLUC risks but which are in other respects inferior (e.g. overall CO2 reduction)

• Strict focus on climate benefits from ecosystem protection may lead to increased conversion pressure on valuable ecosystems that have low C density

One critical strategic question is how society should use the ”remaining space” for GHG emissions

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Cum

ulati

ve C

O2

emis

sion

s

Fossil fuel use 1750-2006

Land use change 1850-2005

50% probability of staying below 2 °C

75% probability of staying below 2 °C

Remaining emission space up to 2050

Fossil fuel use since mid 1970s

• One critical strategic question is how society should use the ”remaining space” for GHG emissions– Some of the emission space might be required to develop

a biomass industry capable of providing renewable energy & material services for the world in the long-term

Remaining emission

space

Fill it up with fossil

carbon

...or use some space for

developing alternatives to fossil fuels?

LUC for bioenergy

Non-fossil fuel related Non-fossil fuel related

• Forest bioenergy systems are associated with carbon emissions and sequestration that are not in temporal balance with each other.

• Evaluation systems that rely on narrow accounting and short time horizons fail to detect important features of forest bioenergy systems

• Active forest management can ensure that increased biomass output need not take place at the cost of reduced forest carbon stocks (but biodiversity is an issue)

Forest bioenergy

Stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at levels proposed in relation to the 2-degree target requires drastic changes in the way the global energy system functions.

Source: Chalmers Climate Calculator

Business as usual

Scenarios where the atmospheric CO2 concentrations stabilize somewhat above 450 ppm. Even lower levels needed for high likelihood of staying below 2 degree warming

900

800

700

600

500

400

3001960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

Atm

osph

eric

CO

2 con

cent

ratio

n(p

arts

per

mill

ion,

ppm

)

Stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at levels proposed in relation to the 2-degree target requires drastic changes in the way the global energy system functions.

The BAU scenario reduces deforestation to 10% of 2010 level by 2100. Bending the BAU curve to stay below 450 ppm requires drastic energy system transformation

Business as usual900

800

700

600

500

400

3001960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

Atm

osph

eric

CO

2 con

cent

ratio

n(p

arts

per

mill

ion,

ppm

)

Source: Chalmers Climate Calculator

900

800

700

600

500

400

3001960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

Atm

osph

eric

CO

2 con

cent

ratio

n(p

arts

per

mill

ion,

ppm

)

The effect of strongly reduced LUC emissions is relatively small compared to what is required for reaching such stabilization targets. But the lower the target the more important will LUC emissions be

The difference between the two lower graphs is due to different LUC emissions. • The upmost graph corresponds to a

scenario that has constant deforestation rate equal to the 2010 level up to 2100.

• The lowest graph corresponds to a scenario where the deforestation rate is reduced linearly to reach 10% of the 2010 level by 2100 (same as the BAU case).

Source: Chalmers Climate Calculator