Mapping feasibilities of greenhouse gas removal: Key issues,gaps and opening up assessments

Greenhouse gas removal technologies and practices are essential to bring emissions to net zero and limit global warming to 1.5 °C. To achieve this, the majority of integrated assessment models (IAMs), that generate future emissions scenarios and inform the international policy process, use large-scale afforestation and biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). The feasibility of these technologies and practices has only so far been considered from a relatively narrow techno-economic or biophysical perspective. Here, we present one of the first studies to elicit perspectives through an expert mapping process to open up and broaden the discussion around feasibility of afforestation and BECCS. Our stakeholders included business and industry, non-governmental organisations and policy makers, spanning expertise in bioenergy, forestry, CCS and climate change. Perspectives were elicited on (1) issues relating to BECCS with large-scale afforestation, and (2) specific criteria for assessing feasibility. Participants identified 12 main themes with 61 sub-themes around issues, and 11 main themes with 33 sub-themes around feasibility criteria. Our findings show important societal and governance aspects of feasibility that are currently under-represented, specifically issues around real-world complexity, competing human needs, justice and ethics. Unique to the use of these technologies for greenhouse gas removal are issues around temporal and spatial scale, and greenhouse gas accounting. Using these expert insights, we highlight where IAMs currently poorly capture these concerns. These broader, often more qualitative perspectives, issues and uncertainties must be recognised and accounted for, in order to understand the real-world feasibility of large-scale afforestation and BECCS and the role they play in limiting climate change. These considerations enable widening the scope to broader and deeper discussions about possible and desirable futures, beyond a focus on achieving net-zero emissions, attentive to the effects such decisions may have. We outline approaches that can be used to attend to the complex social and political dimensions that IAMs do not render. By complementing IAMs in this way opportunities can be created to open up considerations of future options and alternatives beyond those framings proposed by IAMs, creating opportunities for inclusion of knowledges, reflexivity and responsibility.     

The economics of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) deployment in a 1.5 °C or 2 °C world

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and afforestation are key negative emission technologies suggested in many studies under 2 °C or 1.5 °C scenarios. However, these large-scale land-based approaches have raised concerns about their economic impacts, particularly their impact on food prices, as well as their environmental impacts. Here we focus on quantifying the potential scale of BECCS and its impact on the economy, taking into account technology and economic considerations, but excluding sustainability and political aspects. To do so, we represent all major components of BECCS technology in the MIT Economic Projection and Policy Analysis model. We find that BECCS could make a substantial contribution to emissions reductions in the second half of the century under 1.5 and 2 °C climate stabilization goals, with its deployment driven by revenues from carbon dioxide permits. Results show that global economic costs and the carbon prices needed to hit the stabilization targets are substantially lower with the technology available, and BECCS acts as a true backstop technology at carbon prices around $240 per tonne of carbon dioxide. If driven by economics alone, BECCS deployment increases the use of productive land for bioenergy production, causing substantial land use changes. However, the projected impact on commodity prices is quite limited at the global scale, with global commodity price indices increasing by less than 5% on average. The effect is larger at the regional scale (up to 15% in selected regions), though significantly lower than previous estimates. While BECCS deployment is likely to be constrained for environmental and/or political reasons, this study shows that the large-scale deployment of BECCS is not detrimental to agricultural commodity prices and could reduce the costs of meeting stabilization targets. Still, it is crucial that policies consider carbon dioxide removal as a complement to drastic carbon dioxide emissions reductions, while establishing a credible accounting system and sustainable limits on BECCS.     

Selection of appropriate greenhouse gas mitigation options

Greenhouse gas mitigation options help in reducing greenhouse gas emissions so as to avoid the adverse environmental impacts due to global warming/climate change. They have different characteristics when evaluated using different criteria. For example, some options may be very cost effective, while some may have an additional advantage of reducing local pollution. Hence, selection of these options, for consideration by a national government or by a funding agency, has to incorporate multiple criteria. In this paper, some important criteria relevant to the selection are discussed, and a multi-criteria methodology is suggested for making appropriate selection. The methodology, called the Analytic Hierarchy Process, is described using two illustrations.     

The role of negative CO2 emissions for reaching 2 °C—insights from integrated assessment modelling

Limiting climate change to 2 °C with a high probability requires reducing cumulative emissions to about 1600 GtCO₂ over the 2000–2100 period. This requires unprecedented rates of decarbonization even in the short-run. The availability of the option of net negative emissions, such as bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) or reforestation/afforestation, allows to delay some of these emission reductions. In the paper, we assess the demand and potential for negative emissions in particular from BECCS. Both stylized calculations and model runs show that without the possibility of negative emissions, pathways meeting the 2 °C target with high probability need almost immediate emission reductions or simply become infeasible. The potential for negative emissions is uncertain. We show that negative emissions from BECCS are probably limited to around 0 to 10 GtCO₂/year in 2050 and 0 to 20 GtCO₂/year in 2100. Estimates on the potential of afforestation options are in the order of 0–4 GtCO₂/year. Given the importance and the uncertainty concerning BECCS, we stress the importance of near-term assessments of its availability as today’s decisions has important consequences for climate change mitigation in the long run.     

Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation?

The ability to directly remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere allows the decoupling of emissions and emissions control in space and time. We ask the question whether this unique feature of carbon dioxide removal technologies fundamentally alters the dynamics of climate mitigation pathways. The analysis is performed in the coupled energy-economy-climate model ReMIND using the bioenergy with CCS route as an application of CDR technology. BECCS is arguably the least cost CDR option if biomass availability is not a strongly limiting factor. We compare mitigation pathways with and without BECCS to explore the impact of CDR technologies on the mitigation portfolio. Effects are most pronounced for stringent climate policies where BECCS is a key technology for the effectiveness of carbon pricing policies. The decoupling of emissions and emissions control allows prolonging the use of fossil fuels in sectors that are difficult to decarbonize, particularly in the transport sector. It also balances the distribution of mitigation costs across future generations. CDR is not a silver bullet technology. The largest part of emissions reductions continues to be provided by direct mitigation measures at the emissions source. The value of CDR lies in its flexibility to alleviate the most costly constraints on mitigating emissions.     

The impact of technology availability on the timing and costs of emission reductions for achieving long-term climate targets

While most long-term mitigation scenario studies build on a broad portfolio of mitigation technologies, there is quite some uncertainty about the availability and reduction potential of these technologies. This study explores the impacts of technology limitations on greenhouse gas emission reductions using the integrated model IMAGE. It shows that the required short-term emission reductions to achieve long-term radiative forcing targets strongly depend on assumptions on the availability and potential of mitigation technologies. Limited availability of mitigation technologies which are relatively important in the long run implies that lower short-term emission levels are required. For instance, limited bio-energy availability reduces the optimal 2020 emission level by more than 4 GtCO₂eq in order to compensate the reduced availability of negative emissions from bioenergy and carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in the long run. On the other hand, reduced mitigation potential of options that are used in 2020 can also lead to a higher optimal level for 2020 emissions. The results also show the critical role of BECCS for achieving low radiative forcing targets in IMAGE. Without these technologies achieving these targets become much more expensive or even infeasible.     

Can radiative forcing be limited to 2.6 Wm−2 without negative emissions from bioenergy AND CO2 capture and storage?

Combining bioenergy and carbon dioxide (CO₂) capture and storage (CCS) technologies (BECCS) has the potential to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere while producing useful energy. BECCS has played a central role in scenarios that reduce climate forcing to low levels such as 2.6 Wm^?2. In this paper we consider whether BECCS is essential to limiting radiative forcing (RF) to 2.6 Wm^?2 by 2100 using the Global Change Assessment Model, a closely coupled model of biogeophysical and human Earth systems. We show that BECCS can potentially reduce the cost of limiting RF to 2.6 Wm^?2 by 2100 but that a variety of technology combinations that do not include BECCS can also achieve this goal, under appropriate emissions mitigation policies. We note that with appropriate supporting land-use policies terrestrial sequestration could deliver carbon storage ranging from 200 to 700 PgCO₂-equiavalent over the 21st century. We explore substantial delays in participation by some geopolitical regions. We find that the value of BECCS is substantially higher under delay and that delay results in higher transient RF and climate change. However, when major regions postponed mitigation indefinitely, it was impossible to return RF to 2.6 Wm^?2 by 2100. Neither finite land resources nor finite potential geologic storage capacity represented a meaningful technical limit on the ability of BECCS to contribute to emissions mitigation in the numerical experiments reported in this paper.     

1.5℃温控目标下地球工程问题剖析和应对政策建议

《巴黎协定》引入了全球应对气候变化的1.5℃温控目标,但是没有就其实现路径做出清晰安排。实现1.5℃目标对全球减排提出更高要求,各国自主贡献目标距离该目标有较大差距,常规减排技术和政策也很难完成任务。在此背景下,国际上有关地球工程的讨论日渐升温。《巴黎协定》实际上已经包含了人工造林,碳捕获与封存/碳捕获与利用技术（CCS/CCUS),生物质能利用加CCS（BECCS）等负排放技术,这些都是地球工程范畴的碳移除技术（CDR),除此之外,更具争议性的太阳辐射管理（SRM）技术也引起更多关注。地球工程作为非常规技术选项,在1.5℃目标下的影响评估、技术选择、伦理学和国际治理等一系列问题的研究和探讨都十分必要。本文在分析和探讨上述问题的基础上,就中国应重视和加强地球工程研究与应对提出一些政策建议,指出要将地球工程纳入中国应对气候变化战略大框架,围绕1.5℃目标加强地球工程科学研究,并积极参与地球工程国际治理,合理发出中国声音。     

Carbon capture and storage, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, and the escape from the fossil-fuel lock-in

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is increasingly depicted as an important element of the carbon dioxide mitigation portfolio. However, critics have warned that CCS might lead to “reinforced fossil fuel lock-in”, by perpetuating a fossil fuel based energy provision system. Due to large-scale investments in CCS infrastructure, the fossil fuel based ‘regime’ would be perpetuated to at least the end of this century.In this paper we investigate if and how CCS could help to avoid reinforcing fossil fuel lock-in. First we develop a set of criteria to estimate the degree of technological lock-in. We apply these criteria to assess the lock-in reinforcement effect of adding CCS to the fossil fuel socio-technical regime (FFR).In principle, carbon dioxide could be captured from any carbon dioxide point source. In the practice of present technological innovations, business strategies, and policy developments, CCS is most often coupled to coal power plants. However, there are many point sources of carbon dioxide that are not directly related to coal or even fossil fuels. For instance, many forms of bio-energy or biomass-based processes generate significant streams of carbon dioxide emissions. Capturing this carbon dioxide which was originally sequestered in biomass could lead to negative carbon dioxide emissions.We use the functional approach of technical innovations systems (TIS) to estimate in more detail the strengths of the “niches” CCS and Bio-Energy with CCS (BECCS). We also assess the orientation of the CCS niche towards the FFR and the risk of crowding out BECCS. Next we develop pathways for developing fossil energy carbon capture and storage, BECCS, and combinations of them, using transition pathways concepts. The outcome is that a large-scale BECCS development could be feasible under certain conditions, thus largely avoiding the risk of reinforced fossil fuel lock-in.     

Governance of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): accounting,rewarding, and the Paris agreement

Studies show that the ‘well below 2°C’ target from the Paris Agreement will be hard to meet without large negative emissions from mid-century onwards, which means removing CO₂ from the atmosphere and storing the carbon dioxide in biomass, soil, suitable geological formations, deep ocean sediments, or chemically bound to certain minerals. Biomass energy combined with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is the negative emission technology (NET) given most attention in a number of integrated assessment model studies and in the latest IPCC reports. However, less attention has been given to governance aspects of NETs. This study aims to identify pragmatic ways forward for BECCS, through synthesizing the literature relevant to accounting and rewarding BECCS, and its relation to the Paris Agreement. BECCS is divided into its two elements: biomass and CCS. Calculating net negative emissions requires accounting for sustainability and resource use related to biomass energy production, processing and use, and interactions with the global carbon cycle. Accounting for the CCS element of BECCS foremost relates to the carbon dioxide capture rate and safe underground storage. Rewarding BECCS as a NET depends on the efficiency of biomass production, transport and processing for energy use, global carbon cycle feedbacks, and safe storage of carbon dioxide, which together determine net carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere. Sustainable biomass production is essential, especially with regard to trade-offs with competing land use. Negative emissions have an added value compared to avoided emissions, which should be reflected in the price of negative emission ‘credits’, but must be discounted due to global carbon cycle feedbacks. BECCS development will depend on linkages to carbon trading mechanisms and biomass trading.

Key policy insights

• A standardized framework for sustainable biomass should be adopted.

• Countries should agree on a standardized framework for accounting and rewarding BECCS and other negative emission technologies.

• Early government support is indispensable to enable BECCS development, scale-up and business engagement.

• BECCS projects should be designed to maximize learning across various applications and across other NETs.

• BECCS development should be aligned with modalities of the Paris Agreement and market mechanisms.

     

Soil Carbon Sequestration and the CDM: Opportunities and Challenges for Africa

This paper examines soil carbon sequestration in developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa as part of regional and global attempts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and the possibility that the development of greenhouse gas mitigation projects will offer local ancillary benefits. The paper documents the improvements in agricultural practices and land-use management in sub-Saharan Africa that could increase agricultural productivity and sequester soil carbon. During the first five-year commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, only afforestation and reforestation projects will be eligible for crediting under the Clean Development Mechanism, but soil carbon sequestration and broader sink activities could become eligible during subsequent commitment periods. However, very few cost estimates of soil carbon sequestration strategies exist, and available data are not readily comparable. It is uncertain how large amounts of carbon could be sequestered, and it is unclear how well site-specific studies represent wider areas. It is concluded that there presently is a need to launch long-term (>10 years) field experiments and demonstration and pilot projects for soil carbon sequestration in Africa. It will be important to monitor all environmental effects and carbon `costs' as well as estimate all economic benefits and costs of projects.     

《巴黎协定》与国际减缓气候变化合作模式的变迁

由于温室气体排放的全球外部性属性,减缓气候变化必须通过国际合作实现,必须体现一定程度的中央集权,考虑参与主体广泛性、减缓行动的范围和行动力度三大要素。《联合国气候变化框架公约》《京都议定书》及其“多哈修正案”“坎昆协议”等方案,对中央集权程度和三大要素各有取舍,构建了不同的国际减缓气候变化合作模式,但从实践看都未能解决国际减缓合作的问题。《巴黎协定》构建了“承诺+审评”的新模式,有望实现参与主体和行动范围的全覆盖,并通过透明度、遵约和全球盘点机制鼓励各参与方提高行动力度。然而要实现公约目标和科学应对气候变化的要求,《巴黎协定》下的国际减缓合作必须通过强化资金、技术、能力建设机制来保障,并通过进一步明确中长期量化目标来促进各方提高行动力度。     

Big brand sustainability: Governance prospects and environmental limits

This article introduces and evaluates the implications for global environmental change of the rising power and authority of big brand companies as global environmental governors. Contributing to the private governance literature and, in particular, addressing the gap in this research with respect to the political implications of individual firm ‘buyer power’, the article provides evidence and analysis of how big brand sustainability is altering the power relations within global supply chains, and the governance prospects and limits of this trend. The authors argue that recent brand company efforts through their global supply chains, while still a long way off from their goals, are achieving environmental gains in product design and production. Yet, these advances are also fundamentally limited. Total environmental impacts of consumption are increasing as brand companies leverage corporate sustainability for competitive advantage, business growth, and increased sales. Big brand sustainability, while important, will not on its own resolve the problems of global environmental change. In conclusion, the article highlights the importance of a co-regulatory governance approach that includes stronger state regulations, sustained advocacy, more responsible individual consumerism, and tougher international legal constraints to go beyond the business gains from big brand sustainability to achieve more transformational, ‘absolute’ global environmental progress.     

China’s rising influence on climate governance: Forging a path for the global South

China’s influence on climate governance has been steadily increasing since the adoption of the Paris Agreement on climate change in 2015. Much of this influence, this article argues, has come from China forging a path for climate adaptation and mitigation for the global South. This is having far-reaching consequences, the article further argues, for the politics of global climate governance. China’s discursive and diplomatic power in climate politics is growing as China builds alliances across the global South. China is leveraging this enhanced soft power to elevate the importance of adaptation in multilateral climate negotiations, advance a technocentric approach to climate mitigation, export its development model, and promote industrial-scale afforestation as a nature-based climate solution. China’s strategy is enhancing climate financing, technology transfers, renewable power, and adaptation infrastructure across the global South. To some extent, this is helping with a transition to a low-carbon world economy. Yet China’s leadership is also reinforcing incremental, technocratic, and growth-oriented solutions in global climate governance. These findings advance the understanding of China’s role in global environmental politics, especially its growing influence on climate governance in the global South.     

Role of the Tibetan plateau glaciers in the Asian summer monsoon

The expected growth in the demand for passenger and freight services exacerbates the challenges of reducing transport GHG emissions, especially as commercial low-carbon alternatives to petroleum fuels are limited for shipping, air and long-distance road travel. Biofuels can offer a pathway to significantly reduce emissions from these sectors, as they can easily substitute for conventional liquid fuels in internal combustion engines. In this paper, we assess the potential of bioenergy to reduce transport GHG emissions through an analysis leveraging various integrated assessment models and scenarios, as part of the 33rd Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF-33). We find that bioenergy can contribute a significant, albeit not dominant, proportion of energy supply to the future transport sector: in scenarios aiming to keep the temperature increase below 2 °C by the end of the twenty-first century, models project that in 2100 bioenergy can provide on average 42 EJ/yr (ranging from 5 to 85 EJ/yr) for transport (compared to 3.7 EJ in 2018), mainly through lignocellulosic fuels. This makes up 9–62% of final transport energy use. Only a small amount of bioenergy is projected to be used in transport through electricity and hydrogen pathways, with a larger role for biofuels in road passenger transport than in freight. The association of carbon capture and storage (CCS) with bioenergy technologies (BECCS) is a key determinant in the role of biofuels in transport, because of the competition for biomass feedstock to provide other final energy carriers along with carbon removal. Among models that consider CCS in the biofuel conversion process the average market share of biofuels is 21% in 2100 (ranging from 2 to 44%), compared to 10% (0–30%) for models that do not. Cumulative direct emissions from the transport sector account for half of the emission budget (from 306 to 776 out of 1,000 GtCO₂). However, the carbon intensity of transport decreases as much as other energy sectors in 2100 when accounting for process emissions, including carbon removal from BECCS. Lignocellulosic fuels become more attractive for transport decarbonization if BECCS is not feasible for any energy sectors. Since global transport service demand increases and biomass supply is limited, its allocation to and within the transport sector is uncertain and sensitive to assumptions about political as well as technological and socioeconomic factors.

     

Cutting with both arms of the scissors: the economic and political case for restrictive supply-side climate policies

Proponents of climate change mitigation face difficult choices about which types of policy instrument(s) to pursue. The literature on the comparative evaluation of climate policy instruments has focused overwhelmingly on economic analyses of instruments aimed at restricting demand for greenhouse gas emissions (especially carbon taxes and cap-and-trade schemes) and, to some extent, on instruments that support the supply of or demand for substitutes for emissions-intensive goods, such as renewable energy. Evaluation of instruments aimed at restricting the upstream supply of commodities or products whose downstream consumption causes greenhouse gas emissions—such as fossil fuels—has largely been neglected in this literature. Moreover, analyses that compare policy instruments using both economic and political (e.g. political “feasibility” and “feedback”) criteria are rare. This article aims to help bridge both of these gaps. Specifically, the article demonstrates that restrictive supply-side policy instruments (targeting fossil fuels) have numerous characteristic economic and political advantages over otherwise similar restrictive demand-side instruments (targeting greenhouse gases). Economic advantages include low administrative and transaction costs, higher abatement certainty (due to the relative ease of monitoring, reporting and verification), comprehensive within-sector coverage, some advantageous price/efficiency effects, the mitigation of infrastructure “lock-in” risks, and mitigation of the “green paradox”. Political advantages include the superior potential to mobilise public support for supply-side policies, the conduciveness of supply-side policies to international policy cooperation, and the potential to bring different segments of the fossil fuel industry into a coalition supportive of such policies. In light of these attributes, restrictive supply-side policies squarely belong in the climate policy “toolkit”.     

Demand vs supply-side approaches to mitigation: What final energy demand assumptions are made to meet 1.5 and 2 °C targets?

Today’s climate policies will shape the future trajectory of emissions. Consumption is the main driver behind recent increases in global greenhouse gas emissions, outpacing savings through improved technologies, and therefore its representation in the evidence base will impact on the success of policy interventions. The IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR1.5) summarises global evidence on pathways for meeting below-2 °C targets, underpinned by a suite of scenarios from integrated assessment models (IAMs). We explore how final energy demand is framed within these, with the aim to making demand-related assumptions more transparent, and evaluating their significance, feasibility, and use or underutilisation as a mitigation lever. We investigate how the integrated assessment models compensate for higher and lower levels of final energy demand across scenarios, and how this varies when mitigating for 2 °C and 1.5 °C temperature targets through an analysis of (1) final energy demand projections, (2) energy-economy relationships and (3) differences between energy system decarbonisation and carbon dioxide removal in the highest and lowest energy demand pathways. We look across the full suite of mitigation pathways and assess the consequences of achieving different global carbon budgets. We find that energy demand in 2100 in the highest energy demand scenarios is approximately three to four times higher than the lowest demand pathways, but we do not find strong evidence that 1.5 °C-consistent pathways cluster on the lower end of demand levels, particularly when they allow for overshoot. The majority of demand reductions happen pre-2040, which assumes absolute decoupling from economic growth in the near-term; thereafter final energy demand levels generally grow to 2100. Lower energy demand pathways moderately result in lower renewable energy supply and lower energy system investment, but do not necessarily reduce reliance on carbon dioxide removal. In this sense, there is more scope for IAMs to implement energy demand reduction as a longer-term mitigation lever and to reduce reliance on negative emissions technologies. We demonstrate the need for integrated assessments to play closer attention to how final energy demand interacts with, relates to, and can potentially offset supply-side characteristics, alongside a more diverse evidence base.     

Shared Socio-Economic Pathways of the Energy Sector – Quantifying the Narratives

Energy is crucial for supporting basic human needs, development and well-being. The future evolution of the scale and character of the energy system will be fundamentally shaped by socioeconomic conditions and drivers, available energy resources, technologies of energy supply and transformation, and end-use energy demand. However, because energy-related activities are significant sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other environmental and social externalities, energy system development will also be influenced by social acceptance and strategic policy choices. All of these uncertainties have important implications for many aspects of economic and environmental sustainability, and climate change in particular. In the Shared-Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) framework these uncertainties are structured into five narratives, arranged according to the challenges to climate change mitigation and adaptation. In this study we explore future energy sector developments across the five SSPs using Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), and we also provide summary output and analysis for selected scenarios of global emissions mitigation policies. The mitigation challenge strongly corresponds with global baseline energy sector growth over the 21st century, which varies between 40% and 230% depending on final energy consumer behavior, technological improvements, resource availability and policies. The future baseline CO₂-emission range is even larger, as the most energy-intensive SSP also incorporates a comparatively high share of carbon-intensive fossil fuels, and vice versa. Inter-regional disparities in the SSPs are consistent with the underlying socioeconomic assumptions; these differences are particularly strong in the SSPs with large adaptation challenges, which have little inter-regional convergence in long-term income and final energy demand levels. The scenarios presented do not include feedbacks of climate change on energy sector development. The energy sector SSPs with and without emissions mitigation policies are introduced and analyzed here in order to contribute to future research in climate sciences, mitigation analysis, and studies on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.     

Ecological limits to terrestrial biological carbon dioxide removal

Terrestrial biological atmospheric carbon dioxide removal (BCDR) through bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECS), afforestation/reforestation, and forest and soil management is a family of proposed climate change mitigation strategies. Very high sequestration potentials for these strategies have been reported, but there has been no systematic analysis of the potential ecological limits to and environmental impacts of implementation at the scale relevant to climate change mitigation. In this analysis, we identified site-specific aspects of land, water, nutrients, and habitat that will affect local project-scale carbon sequestration and ecological impacts. Using this framework, we estimated global-scale land and resource requirements for BCDR, implemented at a rate of 1 Pg C y^?1. We estimate that removing 1 Pg C y^?1 via tropical afforestation would require at least 7?×?10⁶ ha y^?1 of land, 0.09 Tg y^?1 of nitrogen, and 0.2 Tg y^?1 of phosphorous, and would increase evapotranspiration from those lands by almost 50 %. Switchgrass BECS would require at least 2?×?10⁸ ha of land (20 times U.S. area currently under bioethanol production) and 20 Tg y^?1 of nitrogen (20 % of global fertilizer nitrogen production), consuming 4?×?10¹²?m³ y^?1 of water. While BCDR promises some direct (climate) and ancillary (restoration, habitat protection) benefits, Pg C-scale implementation may be constrained by ecological factors, and may compromise the ultimate goals of climate change mitigation.     

The biogeophysical effects of extreme afforestation in modeling future climate

Afforestation has been deployed as a mitigation strategy for global warming due to its substantial carbon sequestration, which is partly counterbalanced with its biogeophysical effects through modifying the fluxes of energy, water, and momentum at the land surface. To assess the potential biophysical effects of afforestation, a set of extreme experiments in an Earth system model of intermediate complexity, the McGill Paleoclimate Model-2 (MPM-2), is designed. Model results show that latitudinal afforestation not only has a local warming effect but also induces global and remote warming over regions beyond the forcing originating areas. Precipitation increases in the northern hemisphere and decreases in southern hemisphere in response to afforestation. The local surface warming over the forcing originating areas in northern hemisphere is driven by decreases in surface albedo and increases in precipitation. The remote surface warming in southern hemisphere is induced by decreases in surface albedo and precipitation. The results suggest that the potential impact of afforestation on regional and global climate depended critically on the location of the forest expansion. That is, afforestation in 0°–15°N leaves a relatively minor impact on global and regional temperature; afforestation in 45°–60°N results in a significant global warming, while afforestation in 30°–45°N results in a prominent regional warming. In addition, the afforestation leads to a decrease in annual mean meridional oceanic heat transport with a maximum decrease in forest expansion of 30°–45°N. These results can help to compare afforestation effects and find areas where afforestation mitigates climate change most effectively combined with its carbon drawdown effects.