Setting priorities for land management to mitigate climate change

9993 9 33150 2 70974 document 33150 art%3A10.1186%2F1750-0680-7-5.pdf application/pdf 98d347ca47c979832028ed41ee3abd6c MD5 1405021 2016-02-19 13:35:35 https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/9993/1/art%253A10.1186%252F1750-0680-7-5.pdf 9993 1 1 application/pdf text en public

art%3A10.1186%2F1750-0680-7-5.pdf

published 33176 2 71021 document 33176 lightbox.jpg image/png a3b4e1030d66b2823f4b76c7ad9b3936 MD5 53716 2016-02-19 13:45:38 https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/9993/2/lightbox.jpg 9993 2 2 image/png other Thumbnails conversion from text to thumbnail_lightbox en public

lightbox.jpg

preview.jpg

medium.jpg

small.jpg

indexcodes.txt

http://eprints.org/relation/isVersionOf https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/document/33150 http://eprints.org/relation/isVolatileVersionOf https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/document/33150 http://eprints.org/relation/isIndexCodesVersionOf https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/document/33150 archive 351 disk0/00/00/99/93 2016-01-15 08:46:50 2022-01-26 11:18:43 2016-01-15 08:46:50 article show 1 Böttcher H. 8068 Freibauer A. Scholz Y. Gitz V. Ciais P. Mund M. Wutzler T. Schulze E.-D. Setting priorities for land management to mitigate climate change pub iis_env prog_esm Carbon stock; Carbon sequestration; Carbon balance; Land management; Forestry; Agriculture; Bioenergy; Substitution; Regional modelling BACKGROUND: No consensus has been reached how to measure the effectiveness of climate change mitigation in the land-use sector and how to prioritize land use accordingly. We used the long-term cumulative and average sectorial C stocks in biomass, soil and products, C stock changes, the substitution of fossil energy and of energy-intensive products, and net present value (NPV) as evaluation criteria for the effectiveness of a hectare of productive land to mitigate climate change and produce economic returns. We evaluated land management options using real-life data of Thuringia, a region representative for central-western European conditions, and input from life cycle assessment, with a carbon-tracking model. We focused on solid biomass use for energy production. RESULTS: In forestry, the traditional timber production was most economically viable and most climate-friendly due to an assumed recycling rate of 80% of wood products for bioenergy. Intensification towards "pure bioenergy production" would reduce the average sectorial C stocks and the C substitution and would turn NPV negative. In the forest conservation (non-use) option, the sectorial C stocks increased by 52% against timber production, which was not compensated by foregone wood products and C substitution. Among the cropland options wheat for food with straw use for energy, whole cereals for energy, and short rotation coppice for bioenergy the latter was most climate-friendly. However, specific subsidies or incentives for perennials would be needed to favour this option. CONCLUSIONS: When using the harvested products as materials prior to energy use there is no climate argument to support intensification by switching from sawn-wood timber production towards energy-wood in forestry systems. A legal framework would be needed to ensure that harvested products are first used for raw materials prior to energy use. Only an effective recycling of biomaterials frees land for long-term sustained C sequestration by conservation. Reuse cascades avoid additional emissions from shifting production or intensification. 2012-03 published Springer 10.1186/1750-0680-7-5 XJ-12-050 Carbon Balance and Management; 7:5 (16 March 2012) [doi:10.1186/1750-0680-7-5] 2560 public Carbon Balance and Management 7 5 1-18 5 TRUE 1750-0680 Greenhouse gas management in European land use systems (GHG EUROPE, FP7 244122) FALSE yes info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/FP7/244122/Greenhouse gas management in European land use systems/GHG EUROPE info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess