Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?
View through CrossRef
AbstractShort rotation plantations are often considered as holding vast potentials for future global bioenergy supply. In contrast to raising biomass harvests in forests, purpose‐grown biomass does not interfere with forest carbon (C) stocks. Provided that agricultural land can be diverted from food and feed production without impairing food security, energy plantations on current agricultural land appear as a beneficial option in terms of renewable, climate‐friendly energy supply. However, instead of supporting energy plantations, land could also be devoted to natural succession. It then acts as a long‐term C sink which also results in C benefits. We here compare the sink strength of natural succession on arable land with the C saving effects of bioenergy from plantations. Using geographically explicit data on global cropland distribution among climate and ecological zones, regionally specific C accumulation rates are calculated with IPCC default methods and values. C savings from bioenergy are given for a range of displacement factors (DFs), acknowledging the varying efficiency of bioenergy routes and technologies in fossil fuel displacement. A uniform spatial pattern is assumed for succession and bioenergy plantations, and the considered timeframes range from 20 to 100 years. For many parameter settings—in particular, longer timeframes and high DFs—bioenergy yields higher cumulative C savings than natural succession. Still, if woody biomass displaces liquid transport fuels or natural gas‐based electricity generation, natural succession is competitive or even superior for timeframes of 20–50 years. This finding has strong implications with climate and environmental policies: Freeing land for natural succession is a worthwhile low‐cost natural climate solution that has many co‐benefits for biodiversity and other ecosystem services. A considerable risk, however, is C stock losses (i.e., emissions) due to disturbances or land conversion at a later time.
Title: Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?
Description:
AbstractShort rotation plantations are often considered as holding vast potentials for future global bioenergy supply.
In contrast to raising biomass harvests in forests, purpose‐grown biomass does not interfere with forest carbon (C) stocks.
Provided that agricultural land can be diverted from food and feed production without impairing food security, energy plantations on current agricultural land appear as a beneficial option in terms of renewable, climate‐friendly energy supply.
However, instead of supporting energy plantations, land could also be devoted to natural succession.
It then acts as a long‐term C sink which also results in C benefits.
We here compare the sink strength of natural succession on arable land with the C saving effects of bioenergy from plantations.
Using geographically explicit data on global cropland distribution among climate and ecological zones, regionally specific C accumulation rates are calculated with IPCC default methods and values.
C savings from bioenergy are given for a range of displacement factors (DFs), acknowledging the varying efficiency of bioenergy routes and technologies in fossil fuel displacement.
A uniform spatial pattern is assumed for succession and bioenergy plantations, and the considered timeframes range from 20 to 100 years.
For many parameter settings—in particular, longer timeframes and high DFs—bioenergy yields higher cumulative C savings than natural succession.
Still, if woody biomass displaces liquid transport fuels or natural gas‐based electricity generation, natural succession is competitive or even superior for timeframes of 20–50 years.
This finding has strong implications with climate and environmental policies: Freeing land for natural succession is a worthwhile low‐cost natural climate solution that has many co‐benefits for biodiversity and other ecosystem services.
A considerable risk, however, is C stock losses (i.
e.
, emissions) due to disturbances or land conversion at a later time.
Related Results
Climate and Culture
Climate and Culture
Climate is, presently, a heatedly discussed topic. Concerns about the environmental, economic, political and social consequences of climate change are of central interest in academ...
Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? A comparative assessment of emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel
Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? A comparative assessment of emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel
AbstractUnder the current accounting systems, emissions produced when biomass is burnt for energy are accounted as zero, resulting in what is referred to as the ‘carbon neutrality’...
Should China subsidize cofiring to meet its 2020 bioenergy target? A spatio‐techno‐economic analysis
Should China subsidize cofiring to meet its 2020 bioenergy target? A spatio‐techno‐economic analysis
AbstractChina has developed ambitious bioenergy installation targets as part of its broader goals to increase its renewable energy‐generating capacity and decarbonize its economy. ...
Synergy effect of the research and educational center - unesco chair "environmental dynamics and global climate change" as a driver of yugra educational environment
Synergy effect of the research and educational center - unesco chair "environmental dynamics and global climate change" as a driver of yugra educational environment
The Strategy of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation with low greenhouse gas emissions until 2050 sets the task of including individual subjects of the Russian Fede...
Applications of artificial intelligence‐based modeling for bioenergy systems: A review
Applications of artificial intelligence‐based modeling for bioenergy systems: A review
AbstractBioenergy is widely considered a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. However, large‐scale applications of biomass‐based energy products are limited due to challenges r...
A Synergistic Imperative: An Integrated Policy and Education Framework for Navigating the Climate Nexus
A Synergistic Imperative: An Integrated Policy and Education Framework for Navigating the Climate Nexus
Climate change acts as a systemic multiplier of threats, exacerbating interconnected global crises that jeopardize food security, biodiversity, and environmental health. These chal...
Evaluating the Effectiveness of the European Union’s 2040 Climate Target: Policy Ambitions versus Implementation Challenges
Evaluating the Effectiveness of the European Union’s 2040 Climate Target: Policy Ambitions versus Implementation Challenges
As the level of ambition was increased, in July 2025, the European Commission set out a new binding greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction objective of - 90% by 2040 with respect to 1990, ...
Prospects of Bioenergy Cropping Systems for A More Social-Ecologically Sound Bioeconomy
Prospects of Bioenergy Cropping Systems for A More Social-Ecologically Sound Bioeconomy
The growing bioeconomy will require a greater supply of biomass in the future for both bioenergy and bio-based products. Today, many bioenergy cropping systems (BCS) are suboptimal...

