|
|
Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Dietrich, J. P., Klein, D., Lotze-Campen, H., Bonsch, M., et al. (2014). Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies. Environ. Res. Lett., 9(6), 064029.
Abstract: 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 GtCO(2)), 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 GtCO(2)) 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.
|
|
|
|
Popp, A., Humpenöder, F., Weindl, I., Bodirsky, B. L., Bonsch, M., Lotze-Campen, H., et al. (2014). Land-use protection for climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change, 4(12), 1095–1098.
Abstract: Land-use change, mainly the conversion of tropical forests to agricultural land, is a massive source of carbon emissions and contributes substantially to global warming(1-3). Therefore, mechanisms that aim to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation are widely discussed, A central challenge is the avoidance of international carbon leakage if forest conservation is not implemented globally’’, Here, We show that forest conservation schemes, even if implemented globally, could lead to another type of carbon leakage by driving cropland expansion in non-forested areas that are not subject to forest conservation schemes (non-forest leakage). These areas have a smaller. but still considerable potential to store carbon(5,6). We show that a global forest policy could reduce carbon emissions by 77 Gt CO2, but would still allow for decreases in carbon stocks of non-forest land by 96 Gt CO2, until 2100 due to non-forest leakage effects. Furthermore; abandonment of agricultural hand and associated carbon uptake through vegetation regrowth is hampered. Effective mitigation measures thus require financing structures and conservation investments that cover the full range of carbon-rich ecosystems. However, our analysis indicates that greater agricultural productivity increases would be needed to compensate for such restrictions on agricultural expansion.
|
|
|
|
Rusu, T. (2014). Energy efficiency and soil conservation in conventional, minimum tillage and no-tillage. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 2(4), 42–49.
Abstract: The objective of this research was to determine the capacity of a soil tillage system in soil conservation, in productivity and in energy efficiency. The minimum tillage and no-tillage systems represent good alternatives to the conventional (plough) system of soil tillage, due to their conservation effects on soil and to the good production of crops (Maize, 96%-98% of conventional tillage for minimum tillage, and 99.8% of conventional tillage for no till; Soybeans, 103%-112% of conventional tillage for minimum tillage and 117% of conventional tillage for no till; Wheat, 93%-97% of conventional tillage for minimum tillage and 117% of conventional tillage for no till. The choice of the right soil tillage system for crops in rotation help reduce energy consumption, thus for maize: 97%-98% energy consumption of conventional tillage when using minimum tillage and 91% when using no-tillage; for soybeans: 98% energy consumption of conventional tillage when using minimum tillage and 93 when using no-tillage; for wheat: 97%-98% energy consumption of conventional tillage when using minimum tillage and 92% when using no-tillage. Energy efficiency is in relation to reductions in energy use, but also might include the efficiency and impact of the tillage system on the cultivated plant. For all crops in rotation, energy efficiency (energy produced from 1 MJ consumed) was the best in no-tillage — 10.44 MJ ha− 1 for maize, 6.49 MJ ha− 1 for soybean, and 5.66 MJ ha− 1 for wheat. An analysis of energy-efficiency in agricultural systems includes the energy consumed-energy produced-energy yield comparisons, but must be supplemented by soil energy efficiency, based on the conservative effect of the agricultural system. Only then will the agricultural system be sustainable, durable in agronomic, economic and ecological terms. The implementation of minimum and no-tillage soil systems has increased the organic matter content from 2% to 7.6% and water stable aggregate content from 5.6% to 9.6%, at 0–30 cm depth, as compared to the conventional system. Accumulated water supply was higher (with 12.4%-15%) for all minimum and no-tillage systems and increased bulk density values by 0.01%-0.03% (no significant difference) While the soil fertility and the wet aggregate stability have initially been low, the effect of conservation practices on the soil characteristics led to a positive impact on the water permeability in the soil. Availability of soil moisture during the crop growth period led to a better plant watering condition. Subsequent release of conserved soil water regulated the plant water condition and soil structure.
|
|
