Abstract: This study investigates the use of bioenergy for achieving stringent climate stabilization targets and it analyzes the economic drivers behind the choice of bioenergy technologies. We apply the integrated assessment framework REMIND-MAgPIE to show that bioenergy, particularly if combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a crucial mitigation option with high deployment levels and high technology value. If CCS is available, bioenergy is exclusively used with CCS. We find that the ability of bioenergy to provide negative emissions gives rise to a strong nexus between biomass prices and carbon prices. Ambitious climate policy could result in bioenergy prices of 70 $/GJ (or even 430 $/GJ if bioenergy potential is limited to 100 EJ/year), which indicates a strong demand for bioenergy. For low stabilization scenarios with BECCS availability, we find that the carbon value of biomass tends to exceed its pure energy value. Therefore, the driving factor behind investments into bioenergy conversion capacities for electricity and hydrogen production are the revenues generated from negative emissions, rather than from energy production. However, in REMIND modern bioenergy is predominantly used to produce low-carbon fuels, since the transport sector has significantly fewer low-carbon alternatives to biofuels than the power sector. Since negative emissions increase the amount of permissible emissions from fossil fuels, given a climate target, bioenergy acts as a complement to fossils rather than a substitute. This makes the short-term and long-term deployment of fossil fuels dependent on the long-term availability of BECCS.

Abstract: Numerous studies have concluded that deforestation of the high latitudes result in a global cooling. This is mainly because of the increased albedo of deforested land which dominates over other biogeophysical and biogeochemical mechanisms in the energy balance. This dominance, however, may be due to an underestimation of the biogeochemical response, as carbon emissions are typically at or below the lower end of estimates. Here, we use the dynamic global vegetation model LPJmL for a better estimate of the carbon cycle under such large-scale deforestation. These studies are purely theoretical in order to understand the role of vegetation in the energy balance and the earth system. They must not be mistaken as possible mitigation options, because of the devastating effects on pristine ecosystems. For realistic assumptions of land suitability, the total emissions computed in this study are higher than that of previous studies assessing the effects of boreal deforestation. The warming due to biogeochemical effects ranges from 0.12 to 0.32 degrees C, depending on the climate sensitivity. Using LPJmL to assess the mitigation potential of bioenergy plantations in the suitable areas of the deforested region, we find that the global biophysical bioenergy potential is 68.1 +/- 5.6 EJ yr(-1) of primary energy at the end of the 21st century in the most plausible scenario. The avoided combustion of fossil fuels over the time frame of this experiment would lead to further cooling. However, since the carbon debt caused by the cumulative emissions is not repaid by the end of the 21st century, the global temperatures would increase by 0.04 to 0.11 degrees C. The carbon dynamics in the high latitudes especially with respect to permafrost dynamics and long-term carbon losses, require additional attention in the role for the Earth’s carbon and energy budget.

Abstract: As a result of anthropogenic activities, ozone is produced in the surface atmosphere, causing direct damage to plants and reducing crop yields. By combining a biophysical crop model with an economic supply model we were able to predict and quantify this effect at a fine spatial resolution. We applied our approach to the very varied French case and showed that ozone has significant productivity and land-use effects. A comparison of moderate and high ozone scenarios for 2030 shows that wheat production may decrease by more than 30% and barley production may increase by more than 14% as surface ozone concentration increases. These variations are due to the direct effect of ozone on yields as well as to modifications in land use caused by a shift toward more ozone-resistant crops: our study predicts a 16% increase in the barley-growing area and an equal decrease in the wheat-growing area. Moreover, mean agricultural gross margin losses can go as high as 2.5% depending on the ozone scenario, and can reach 7% in some particularly affected regions. A rise in ozone concentration was also associated with a reduction of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions of about 2%, as a result of decreased use of nitrogen fertilizers. One noteworthy result was that major impacts, including changes in land use, do not necessarily occur in ozone high concentration zones, and may strongly depend on farm systems and their adaptation capability. Our study suggests that policy makers should view ozone pollution as a major potential threat to agricultural yields. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.