Suchergebnisse

The new European Union Forest Strategy for 2030 aims to plant an additional 3 billion trees on non-forest land to mitigate climate change. However, the choice of tree species for afforestation to achieve the maximum climate benefit is unclear. We compared the climate benefit of six different species in terms of carbon (C) sequestration in biomass and the harvested wood substitution in products to avoid carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil-based materials over the 100-year period by afforesting about 1/4 of the available area in northern Europe. The highest climate benefit was observed for larch, both at a stand scale (1626 Mg CO2 eqv. ha(-1)) and at the landscape level for the studied scenario (579 million Mg CO2 eqv.). Larch was followed by Norway spruce, poplar, hybrid aspen and birch, showing a climate benefit about 40-50% lower than that for larch. The climate benefit of willow was about 70% lower than larch. Willow showed 6-14-fold lower C stocks at the landscape level after 100 years than other tree species. The major climate benefit over the 100-year period comes from wood substitution and avoided emissions, but C stock buildup at the landscape level also removes significant amounts of CO2 already present in the atmosphere. The choice of tree species is important to maximize climate change mitigation.

The new European Union Forest Strategy for 2030 aims to plant an additional 3 billion trees on non-forest land to mitigate climate change. However, the choice of tree species for afforestation to achieve the maximum climate benefit is unclear. We compared the climate benefit of six different species in terms of carbon (C) sequestration in biomass and the harvested wood substitution in products to avoid carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil-based materials over the 100-year period by afforesting about ¼ of the available area in northern Europe. The highest climate benefit was observed for larch, both at a stand scale (1626 Mg CO2 eqv. ha−1) and at the landscape level for the studied scenario (579 million Mg CO2 eqv.). Larch was followed by Norway spruce, poplar, hybrid aspen and birch, showing a climate benefit about 40–50% lower than that for larch. The climate benefit of willow was about 70% lower than larch. Willow showed 6–14-fold lower C stocks at the landscape level after 100 years than other tree species. The major climate benefit over the 100-year period comes from wood substitution and avoided emissions, but C stock buildup at the landscape level also removes significant amounts of CO2 already present in the atmosphere. The choice of tree species is important to maximize climate change mitigation.

Urban greening is an effective mitigation option for climate change in urban areas. In this contribution, a European Union (EU)-wide assessment is presented to quantify the benefits of urban greening in terms of availability of green water, reduction of cooling costs and CO(2) sequestration from the atmosphere, for different climatic scenarios. Results show that greening of 35% of the EU's urban surface (i.e. more than 26,000 km(2)) would avoid up to 55.8 Mtons year(−1) CO(2) equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions, reducing energy demand for the cooling of buildings in summer by up to 92 TWh per year, with a net present value (NPV) of more than 364 billion Euro. It would also transpire about 10 km(3) year(−1) of rain water, turning into "green" water about 17.5% of the "blue" water that is now urban runoff, helping reduce pollution of the receiving water bodies and urban flooding. The greening of urban surfaces would decrease their summer temperature by 2.5–6 °C, with a mitigation of the urban heat island effect estimated to have a NPV of 221 billion Euro over a period of 40 years. The monetized benefits cover less than half of the estimated costs of greening, having a NPV of 1323 billion Euro on the same period. Net of the monetized benefits, the cost of greening 26,000 km(2) of urban surfaces in Europe is estimated around 60 Euro year(−1) per European urban resident. The additional benefits of urban greening related to biodiversity, water quality, health, wellbeing and other aspects, although not monetized in this study, might be worth such extra cost. When this is the case, urban greening represents a multifunctional, no-regret, cost-effective solution.

Intro -- Contents -- Preface -- Summary -- Review Statement -- Introduction -- General Comments -- Conclusions -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Methodology -- 2.1 Collaborative stakeholder cooperation -- 2.2 Literature review -- 2.3 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) -- 2.4 System boundaries -- 2.4.1 Included materials -- 2.4.2 Definition of amounts -- 2.4.3 System expansion -- 2.4.4 Impact assessment -- 3. Investigation context -- 3.1 General assumptions -- 3.2 Other impact categories -- 3.3 Selected studies -- 3.3.1 Studies from Norway, Denmark and Sweden -- 3.3.2 Studies from other European countries -- 3.3.3 Studies from the United States of America -- 4. Investigated materials -- 4.1 Paper and cardboard -- 4.2 Glass -- 4.3 Plastics -- 4.4 Steel -- 4.5 Aluminium -- 4.6 Organic waste -- 4.7 Other metals -- 5. Results -- 5.1 Paper and cardboard -- 5.2 Glass -- 5.3 Plastics -- 5.4 Steel -- 5.5 Aluminium -- 5.6 Organic waste -- 5.7 Collected results -- 6. Discussion -- 6.1 Comparison with previous recommendations -- 6.2 Impact of energy use and energy mix -- Which primary and secondary processes have high energy demand for processing the materials? -- How is the relationship between renewable and fossil energy use for different materials? -- How is the relationship between the use of electricity and fuels for different materials? -- How to account for the use of waste energy from the processes in, for example, district heating? -- 6.3 Geographical differences -- 6.4 Quality of materials for secondary production -- 6.5 Data availability and uncertainty -- 7. Conclusions -- 8. Further work -- References -- Svensk sammanfattning -- Appendices -- A. Rejected studies -- B. Provisional list of materials -- C. Reference group -- University of Gävle -- Technical University of Denmark (DTU) -- Återvinningsindustrierna (Sweden) and member erpresentatives.

The ClimWood2030 study, commissioned by DG CLIMA of the European Commission, quantifies the five ways in which the EU forest sector contributes to climate change mitigation: carbon sequestration and storage in EU forests, carbon storage in harvested wood products in the EU, substitution of wood products for functionally equivalent materials and substitution of wood for other sources of energy, and displacement of emissions from forests outside the EU. It also explores through scenario analysis, based on a series of interlocking models (GLOBIOM, G4M and WoodCarbonMonitor), along with detailed analysis of Forest Based Functional Units, based on life cycle assessment (LCA), the consequences for GHG balances of policy choices at present under consideration. The focus is on the EU-28, but GHG balances for other parts of the world are also considered, notably to assess consequences of EU policy choices for other regions. The five scenarios are (I) The ClimWood2030 reference scenario, (II) Increase carbon stock in existing EU forests, (III) Cascade use - increase recovery of solid wood products, (IV) Cascade use - prevent first use of biomass for energy and (V) Strongly increase material wood use. The study presents detailed scenario results for key parameters, the policy instruments linked to the scenarios, and main conclusions. The ClimWood2030 study, commissioned by DG CLIMA of the European Commission, quantifies the five ways in which the EU forest sector contributes to climate change mitigation: carbon sequestration and storage in EU forests, carbon storage in harvested wood products in the EU, substitution of wood products for functionally equivalent materials and substitution of wood for other sources of energy, and displacement of emissions from forests outside the EU. It also explores through scenario analysis, based on a series of interlocking models (GLOBIOM, G4M and WoodCarbonMonitor), along with detailed analysis of Forest Based Functional Units, based on life cycle assessment (LCA), the consequences for GHG balances of policy choices at present under consideration. The focus is on the EU-28, but GHG balances for other parts of the world are also considered, notably to assess consequences of EU policy choices for other regions. The five scenarios are (I) The ClimWood2030 reference scenario, (II) Increase carbon stock in existing EU forests, (III) Cascade use - increase recovery of solid wood products, (IV) Cascade use - prevent first use of biomass for energy and (V) Strongly increase material wood use. The study presents detailed scenario results for key parameters, the policy instruments linked to the scenarios, and main conclusions.

The ClimWood2030 study, commissioned by DG CLIMA of the European Commission, quantifies the five ways in which the EU forest sector contributes to climate change mitigation: carbon sequestration and storage in EU forests, carbon storage in harvested wood products in the EU, substitution of wood products for functionally equivalent materials and substitution of wood for other sources of energy, and displacement of emissions from forests outside the EU. It also explores through scenario analysis, based on a series of interlocking models (GLOBIOM, G4M and WoodCarbonMonitor), along with detailed analysis of Forest Based Functional Units, based on life cycle assessment (LCA), the consequences for GHG balances of policy choices at present under consideration. The focus is on the EU-28, but GHG balances for other parts of the world are also considered, notably to assess consequences of EU policy choices for other regions. The five scenarios are (I) The ClimWood2030 reference scenario, (II) Increase carbon stock in existing EU forests, (III) Cascade use – increase recovery of solid wood products, (IV) Cascade use – prevent first use of biomass for energy and (V) Strongly increase material wood use. The study presents detailed scenario results for key parameters, the policy instruments linked to the scenarios, and main conclusions.

The ClimWood2030 study, commissioned by DG CLIMA of the European Commission, quantifies the five ways in which the EU forest sector contributes to climate change mitigation: carbon sequestration and storage in EU forests, carbon storage in harvested wood products in the EU, substitution of wood products for functionally equivalent materials and substitution of wood for other sources of energy, and displacement of emissions from forests outside the EU. It also explores through scenario analysis, based on a series of interlocking models (GLOBIOM, G4M and WoodCarbonMonitor), along with detailed analysis of Forest Based Functional Units, based on life cycle assessment (LCA), the consequences for GHG balances of policy choices at present under consideration. The focus is on the EU-28, but GHG balances for other parts of the world are also considered, notably to assess consequences of EU policy choices for other regions. The five scenarios are (I) The ClimWood2030 reference scenario, (II) Increase carbon stock in existing EU forests, (III) Cascade use – increase recovery of solid wood products, (IV) Cascade use – prevent first use of biomass for energy and (V) Strongly increase material wood use. The study presents detailed scenario results for key parameters, the policy instruments linked to the scenarios, and main conclusions.

The ClimWood2030 study, commissioned by DG CLIMA of the European Commission, quantifies the five ways in which the EU forest sector contributes to climate change mitigation: carbon sequestration and storage in EU forests, carbon storage in harvested wood products in the EU, substitution of wood products for functionally equivalent materials and substitution of wood for other sources of energy, and displacement of emissions from forests outside the EU. It also explores through scenario analysis, based on a series of interlocking models (GLOBIOM, G4M and WoodCarbonMonitor), along with detailed analysis of Forest Based Functional Units, based on life cycle assessment (LCA), the consequences for GHG balances of policy choices at present under consideration. The focus is on the EU-28, but GHG balances for other parts of the world are also considered, notably to assess consequences of EU policy choices for other regions. The five scenarios are (I) The ClimWood2030 reference scenario, (II) Increase carbon stock in existing EU forests, (III) Cascade use – increase recovery of solid wood products, (IV) Cascade use – prevent first use of biomass for energy and (V) Strongly increase material wood use. The study presents detailed scenario results for key parameters, the policy instruments linked to the scenarios, and main conclusions.

The coal-dominated electricity system poses major challenges for India to tackle air pollution and climate change. Although the government has issued a series of clean air policies and low-carbon energy targets, a key barrier remains enforcement. Here, we quantify the importance of policy implementation in India's electricity sector using an integrated assessment method based on emissions scenarios, air quality simulations, and health impact assessments. We find that limited enforcement of air pollution control policies leads to worse future air quality and health damages (e.g., 14 200 to 59 000 more PM2.5-related deaths in 2040) than when energy policies are not fully enforced (5900 to 8700 more PM2.5-related deaths in 2040), since coal power plants with end-of-pipe controls already emit little air pollution. However, substantially more carbon dioxide will be emitted if low-carbon and clean coal policies are not successfully implemented (e.g., 400 to 800 million tons more CO2 in 2040). Thus, our results underscore the important role of effectively implementing existing air pollution and energy policy to simultaneously achieve air pollution, health, and carbon mitigation goals in India.

The coal-dominated electricity system poses major challenges for India to tackle air pollution and climate change. Although the government has issued a series of clean air policies and low-carbon energy targets, a key barrier remains enforcement. Here, we quantify the importance of policy implementation in India's electricity sector using an integrated assessment method based on emissions scenarios, air quality simulations, and health impact assessments. We find that limited enforcement of air pollution control policies leads to worse future air quality and health damages (e.g., 14 200 to 59 000 more PM2.5-related deaths in 2040) than when energy policies are not fully enforced (5900 to 8700 more PM2.5-related deaths in 2040), since coal power plants with end-of-pipe controls already emit little air pollution. However, substantially more carbon dioxide will be emitted if low-carbon and clean coal policies are not successfully implemented (e.g., 400 to 800 million tons more CO2 in 2040). Thus, our results underscore the important role of effectively implementing existing air pollution and energy policy to simultaneously achieve air pollution, health, and carbon mitigation goals in India.

AbstractAlthough a carbon value has often been integrated in the frameworks established to guide public decision-making, benefit-cost analysis (BCA) has played no more than a minor role in the design of climate policies. It is urgently necessary to promote BCA in this area, and there is currently a unique opportunity for doing so. Major countries are designing new packages in order to meet their commitments, as illustrated by the European Green Deal, recent decisions on the part of the Biden Administration, and the creation of a Chinese national carbon market. These constructive processes must be based on BCA. BCA is absolutely necessary in order to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 at a reasonable cost. Indeed, abatement costs across and within sectors, and across and within countries, are extremely heterogeneous, and many of the policy instruments in use (subsidies, feed-in tariffs, technical standards, etc.) overlap inefficiently. The instrumental debate between carbon pricing and other instruments is sterile if it merely remains at the level of stating principles. BCA can help on this point too, by specifying comparisons between alternatives, identifying complementarities, and selecting the most relevant combinations of instruments. Its scope should therefore range from setting benchmarks for carbon pricing to assessing, e.g., green investments or measures to enhance carbon sinks. When applied to decarbonization policies, BCA requires firstly the selection of a carbon value, in order to monetize the climate benefits of investments and policies. However, the whole assessment framework must be updated, including the time horizon, the discount rate, the cobenefits of climate mitigation actions, and the pricing of climate risks. We show that such an updated framework leads to an upward revision in the assessment of the climate benefits of mitigation actions, and that combining the valuation of damages and cost-effectiveness approaches is necessary in order to meet the needs of policy assessment. Finally, there is a need to extend analysis beyond the efficiency criterion in order to deal with other dimensions of climate policies, particularly their distributive impacts. This requires specific analyses, which should be articulated with BCA and carried out at an early stage for a better implementation of climate policies than we have seen to date.