Implications of emissions timing on the cost-effectiveness of greenhouse gas mitigation strategies: Application to forest bioenergy systems

GCB Bioenergy

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 414-424

  Mckechnie, Jon ^a   Maclean, Heather L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bioenergy; Biomass co firing; Cogeneration; Cost effectiveness; Forest carbon; Greenhouse gas emissions; Radiative forcing

Indexed keywords

ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION; BIOMASS; COST EFFECTIVENESS; COST REDUCTION; COSTS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; EMISSION CONTROL; FORESTRY; GAS EMISSIONS; GREENHOUSE GASES; INVESTMENTS; TIMING CIRCUITS;

BIO-ENERGY; CO-FIRING; COGENERATION; FOREST CARBONS; RADIATIVE FORCINGS;

CLIMATE CHANGE;

EID: 84901922161     PISSN: 17571693     EISSN: 17571707     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12063     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Aldey JE, Pizer WA (2009) The competitiveness impacts of climate change mitigation policies. World Resources Institute Report. Washington, DC, 56 pp.
2. Arrow KJ, Cropper ML, Eads GC et al. (1996) Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation? Science, 272, 221-222.
3. Baker DJ, Richards G, Grainger A et al. (2010) Achieving forest carbon information with higher certainty: a five-part plan. Environmental Science & Policy, 3, 249-260.
4. California Air Resources Board (2009) Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Vol I. Sacramento, CA.
5. 2 emissions from biomass combustion for bioenergy: atmospheric decay and contribution to global warming. GCB Bioenergy, 3, 413-426.
6. Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P et al. (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL), pp. 129-234. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
7. Hammitt JK (2012) Discounting health and cost-effectiveness analysis: a response to Nord. Health Economics, 21, 878-882.
8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2006) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (ed. Eggleston S). Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan.
9. Johnson T (2009) Economic challenges for climate change policy, Council on Foreign Relations. Available at: http://www.cfr.org/economics/economic-challenges-climate-change-policy/p16009 (accessed 4 March 2013).
10. Joos F, Prentice IC, Sitch S et al. (2001) Global warming feedbacks on terrestrial carbon uptake under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emission scenarios. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 15, 891-907.
11. Kayo C, Aramaki T, Hanake K (2011) Effect of change of forest carbon storage on net carbon dioxide balance of wood use for energy in Japan. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 15, 122-136.
12. Kirschbaum MUF (2003) Can trees buy time? An assessment of the role of vegetation sinks as part of the global carbon cycle. Climatic Change, 58, 47-71.
13. Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Deschenes L, Samson R (2010) Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. Environmental Science & Technology, 44, 3169-3174.
14. Lobell DB, Burke MB, Tebaldi C, Mastrandrea MD, Falcon WP, Nalyor RL (2008) Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Science, 319, 607-610.
15. MacMynowski DG, Keith DW, Caldeira K, Shin H (2011) Can we test geoengineering? Energy and Environmental Science, 4, 5044-5052.
16. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences (2010) Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study. Available at: http://www.manomet.org/sites/manomet.org/files/Manomet_Biomass_Report_Full_LoRez.pdf (accessed 4 March 2013).
17. Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources (2012) Renewable energy portfolio standard - Class I. 225 CMR 14.00. Available at: http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/renewables/biomass/225-cmr-14-00-final-reg-doer-081712-clean-copy.pdf (accessed 4 March 2013).
18. Matthews HD, Gillett NP, Stott PA, Zickfeld K (2009) The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature, 459, 829-832.
19. McKechnie J, Colombo S, Chen J, Mabee W, MacLean HL (2011) Forest bioenergy or forest carbon? Assessing trade-offs in greenhouse gas mitigation with wood-based fuels. Environmental Science & Technology, 45, 789-795.
20. McKinsey & Company (2009) Pathways to a Low Carbon Economy: Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve. Available at: https://solutions.mckinsey.com/climatedesk/default.aspx (accessed 4 March 2013).
21. Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) (2007) Climate Change 2007: Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
22. Morris J, Paltsev S, Reilly J (2012) Marginal abatement costs and marginal welfare costs for greenhouse gas emissions reductions: results from the EPPA model. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 17, 325-336.
23. Naidoo R, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ, Polasky S, Ricketts TH, Rouget M (2006) Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, 21, 681-687.
24. Nordhaus W (2007) Critical assumptions in the Stern Review on Climate Change. Science, 317, 201-202.
25. O'Hare M, Plevin RJ, Martin JI, Jones AD, Kendall A, Hopson E (2009) Proper accounting for time increases crop-based biofuels' greenhouse gas deficit versus petroleum. Environmental Research Letters, 4, 7.
26. Plevin R, O'Hare M, Jones AD, Torn MS, Gibbs HK (2010) The greenhouse gas emissions from market-mediated land use change are uncertain, but potentially much greater than previously estimated. Environmental Science and Technology, 44, 8015-8021.
27. Porter K, Wiser R (2000) Biomass power and state renewable energy policies under electric industry restructuring, Report NREL/CP-620-28747. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.
28. Rubin ES, Cooper RN, Frosch RA, Lee TH, Marland G, Rosenfeld AH, Stine DD (1992) Realistic mitigation options for global warming. Science, 256, 148-149.
29. Samson R, Stamler B, Dooper J, Mulder S, Ingram T, Clark K, Lem H (2008) Analysing Ontario Biofuel Options: Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Efficiency and Costs. BIOCAP Canada Foundation. Available at: http://www.biocap.ca/reports/BIOCAP-REAP_bioenergy_policy_incentives.pdf (accessed 4 March 2013).
30. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA et al. (2008) Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science, 319, 1238-1240.
31. Stern N (2006) The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
32. US Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Carbon dioxide accounting for emissions from biogenic sources. Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/2F9B572C712AC52E8525783100704886 (accessed 4 March 2013).
33. Visser ME (2008) Keeping up with a warming world: assessing the rate of adaptation to climate change. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 275, 649-659.
34. Yuan CY, Simon R, Mady N, Dornfeld D (2009) Embedded temporal difference in Life Cycle Assessment: Case study on VW Golf A4 CAR. IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology, May 18-20, Phoenix, AZ, Curran Associates, Red Hook, NY.
35. Zhang Y, McKechnie J, Cormier D, Lyng R, Mabee W, Ogino A, MacLean HL (2010) Life cycle emissions and cost of producing electricity from coal, natural gas, and wood pellets in Ontario, Canada. Environmental Science and Technology, 44, 538-544.