How can land-use modelling tools inform bioenergy policies?

被引:19
作者
Davis, Sarah C. [1 ,2 ]
House, Joanna I. [3 ]
Diaz-Chavez, Rocio A. [4 ]
Molnar, Andras [5 ]
Valin, Hugo [6 ,7 ]
DeLucia, Evan H. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Illinois, Energy Biosci Inst, Urbana, IL 61801 USA
[2] Univ Illinois, Dept Plant Biol, Urbana, IL 61801 USA
[3] Univ Bristol, Dept Earth Sci, QUEST, Bristol, Avon, England
[4] Univ London Imperial Coll Sci Technol & Med, Ctr Environm Policy, London, England
[5] Res Inst Agr Econ, Budapest, Hungary
[6] Int Inst Appl Syst Anal, Forestry Program, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
[7] INRA, UMR Econ Publ Publ Econ Res Unit, Paris, France
关键词
indirect land-use change; biofuels; greenhouse gas; ecosystem services; environmental economics; feedstocks; GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; ORGANIC-CARBON; CLIMATE-CHANGE; BIOFUELS; ENERGY; AGRICULTURE; AGAVE;
D O I
10.1098/rsfs.2010.0023
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Targets for bioenergy have been set worldwide to mitigate climate change. Although feedstock sources are often ambiguous, pledges in European nations, the United States and Brazil amount to more than 100 Mtoe of biorenewable fuel production by 2020. As a consequence, the biofuel sector is developing rapidly, and it is increasingly important to distinguish bioenergy options that can address energy security and greenhouse gas mitigation from those that cannot. This paper evaluates how bioenergy production affects land-use change (LUC), and to what extent land-use modelling can inform sound decision-making. We identified local and global internalities and externalities of biofuel development scenarios, reviewed relevant data sources and modelling approaches, identified sources of controversy about indirect LUC (iLUC) and then suggested a framework for comprehensive assessments of bioenergy. Ultimately, plant biomass must be managed to produce energy in a way that is consistent with the management of food, feed, fibre, timber and environmental services. Bioenergy production provides opportunities for improved energy security, climate mitigation and rural development, but the environmental and social consequences depend on feedstock choices and geographical location. The most desirable solutions for bioenergy production will include policies that incentivize regionally integrated management of diverse resources with low inputs, high yields, co-products, multiple benefits and minimal risks of iLUC. Many integrated assessment models include energy resources, trade, technological development and regional environmental conditions, but do not account for biodiversity and lack detailed data on the location of degraded and underproductive lands that would be ideal for bioenergy production. Specific practices that would maximize the benefits of bioenergy production regionally need to be identified before a global analysis of bioenergy-related LUC can be accomplished.
引用
收藏
页码:212 / 223
页数:12
相关论文
共 68 条
  • [41] Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets
    Havlik, Petr
    Schneider, Uwe A.
    Schmid, Erwin
    Boettcher, Hannes
    Fritz, Steffen
    Skalsky, Rastislav
    Aoki, Kentaro
    De Cara, Stephane
    Kindermann, Georg
    Kraxner, Florian
    Leduc, Sylvain
    McCallum, Ian
    Mosnier, Aline
    Sauer, Timm
    Obersteiner, Michael
    [J]. ENERGY POLICY, 2011, 39 (10) : 5690 - 5702
  • [42] Meeting US biofuel goals with less land: the potential of Miscanthus
    Heaton, Emily A.
    Dohleman, Frank G.
    Long, Stephen P.
    [J]. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 2008, 14 (09) : 2000 - 2014
  • [43] Effects of US Maize Ethanol on Global Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Estimating Market-mediated Responses
    Hertel, Thomas W.
    Golub, Alla A.
    Jones, Andrew D.
    O'Hare, Michael
    Plevin, Richard J.
    Kammen, Daniel M.
    [J]. BIOSCIENCE, 2010, 60 (03) : 223 - 231
  • [44] A comparison of canopy evapotranspiration for maize and two perennial grasses identified as potential bioenergy crops
    Hickman, George C.
    Vanloocke, Andy
    Dohleman, Frank G.
    Bernacchi, Carl J.
    [J]. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY BIOENERGY, 2010, 2 (04): : 157 - 168
  • [45] Agave as a biofuel feedstock in Australia
    Holtum, Joseph A. M.
    Chambers, Don
    Morgan, Terry
    Tan, Daniel K. Y.
    [J]. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY BIOENERGY, 2011, 3 (01): : 58 - 67
  • [46] Utilization of byproducts from the tequila industry:: part 1:: agave bagasse as a raw material for animal feeding and fiberboard production
    Iñiguez-Covarrubias, G
    Lange, SE
    Rowell, RM
    [J]. BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2001, 77 (01) : 25 - 32
  • [47] Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security
    Lal, R
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2004, 304 (5677) : 1623 - 1627
  • [48] Indirect Emissions from Biofuels: How Important?
    Melillo, Jerry M.
    Reilly, John M.
    Kicklighter, David W.
    Gurgel, Angelo C.
    Cronin, Timothy W.
    Paltsev, Sergey
    Felzer, Benjamin S.
    Wang, Xiaodong
    Sokolov, Andrei P.
    Schlosser, C. Adam
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2009, 326 (5958) : 1397 - 1399
  • [49] Anaerobic treatment of Tequila vinasses in a CSTR-type digester
    Mendez-Acosta, Hugo Oscar
    Snell-Castro, Raul
    Alcaraz-Gonzalez, Victor
    Gonzalez-Alvarez, Victor
    Pelayo-Ortiz, Carlos
    [J]. BIODEGRADATION, 2010, 21 (03) : 357 - 363
  • [50] MNP, 2006, EXP M FEED WORLD 205