Bioenergy production and sustainable development: science base for policymaking remains limited

GCB Bioenergy

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 541-556

  Robledo Abad, Carmenza ^a,b   Althaus, Hans Jörg ^c,d   Berndes, Göran ^e   Bolwig, Simon ^f   Corbera, Esteve ^g   Creutzig, Felix ^h   Garcia Ulloa, John ^a   Geddes, Anna ^a   Gregg, Jay S ^f   Haberl, Helmut ⁱ   Hanger, Susanne ^a,j   Harper, Richard J ^k   Hunsberger, Carol ^l   Larsen, Rasmus K ^m   Lauk, Christian ⁱ   Leitner, Stefan ⁱ   Lilliestam, Johan ^a   Lotze Campen, Hermann ^n,o   Muys, Bart ^p   Nordborg, Maria ^e   Ölund, Maria ^q   Orlowsky, Boris ^r   Popp, Alexander ⁿ   Portugal Pereira, Joana ^s   Reinhard, Jürgen ^t   Scheiffle, Lena ⁿ   Smith, Pete ^u   more..

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b Intercooperation   (Switzerland)

^c Foundation for Global Sustainability (ffgs)   (Switzerland)

^d Lifecycle Consulting Althaus   (Switzerland)

^e CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

^f TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

^g INSTITUT DE CIÈNCIA I TECNOLOGIA AMBIENTALS   (Spain)

^h MERCATOR RESEARCH INSTITUTE ON GLOBAL COMMONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE   (Germany)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF KLAGENFURT   (Austria)

^j INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS   (Austria)

^k MURDOCH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^l UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^m STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

ⁿ POTSDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH   (Germany)

^o HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^p UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^q UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^r Climate Babel   (Switzerland)

^s FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF RIO DE JANEIRO   (Brazil)

^t SWISS FEDERAL LABORATORIES FOR MATERIALS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Switzerland)

^u UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

agriculture; bioenergy; food security; forestry; mitigation; sustainable development

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURE; BIOMASS; CLIMATE CHANGE; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; FOOD SUPPLY; FORESTRY; FOSSIL FUELS; GREENHOUSE GASES; PLANNING; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

BIO-ENERGY; CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION; ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS; FOOD SECURITY; METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH; MITIGATION; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS;

BIOENERGY; CROP PRODUCTION; ECONOMIC IMPACT; ENERGY CROP; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; FOOD SECURITY; FORESTRY; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; MITIGATION; POLICY APPROACH; POLICY MAKING; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 84962628854     PISSN: 17571693     EISSN: 17571707     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12338     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. Ackerman F, DeCanio SJ, Howarth RB, Sheeran K (2009) Limitations of integrated assessment models of climate change. Climatic Change, 95, 297–315.
2. Allwood JM, Bosetti V, Dubash NK, Gómez-Echeverri L, von Stechow C (2014) Glossary. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schlömer S, von Stechow C, Zwickel T, Minx JC), pp. 1249–1279. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.
3. Bartolucci AA, Hillegass WB (2010) Overview, strengths, and limitations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In: Evidence-Based Practice: Toward Optimizing Clinical Outcomes (ed. Chiappelli F), pp. 17–33. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg. (ISBN: 978-3-642-05024-4). Available at: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-05025-1_2 (accessed 05 March 2013).
4. Beringer T, Lucht W, Schaphoff S (2011) Bioenergy production potential of global biomass plantations under environmental and agricultural constraints. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 3, 299–312.
5. Brandao M, Levasseur A, Kirschbaum MUF et al. (2013) Key issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 230–240.
6. Bustamante M, Robledo-Abad C, Harper R et al. (2014) Co-benefits, trade-offs, barriers and policies for greenhouse gas mitigation in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector. Global Change Biology, 20, 3270–3290.
7. Clarke L, Jiang K, Akimoto K et al. (2014) Assessing transformation pathways. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schlömer S, von Stechow C, Zwickel T, Minx JC), pp. 413–511. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.
8. Creutzig F (2014) Economic and ecological views on climate change mitigation with bioenergy and negative emissions. GCB Bioenergy, 8, 4–10.
9. Creutzig F, Corbera E, Bolwig S, Hunsberger C (2013) Integrating place-specific livelihood and equity outcomes into global assessments of bioenergy deployment. Environmental Research Letters, 8, 035047.
10. Creutzig F, Ravindranath NH, Berndes G et al. (2014) Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment. GCB Bioenergy, 7, 916–944.
11. Dale VH, Efroymson RA, Kline KL, Davitt MS (2015) A framework for selecting indicators of bioenergy sustainability. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 9, 435–446.
12. Dauvergne P, Neville KJ (2010) Forests, food, and fuel in the tropics: the uneven social and ecological consequences of the emerging political economy of biofuels. Journal of Peasant Studies, 37, 631–660.
13. Delucchi MA (2010) Impacts of biofuels on climate change, water use, and land use. In: Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology 2010 (eds Ostfeld RS, Schlesinger WH), pp. 28–45, (ISBN: 978-1-57331-791-7). New York Academy of Sciences, Willey-Blackwell, New Jersey.
14. DeLucia EH, Gomez-Casanovas N, Greenberg JA et al. (2014) The theoretical limit to plant productivity. Environmental Science & Technology, 48, 9471–9477.
15. Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y et al. (2014) Technical summary. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schlömer S, von Stechow C, Zwickel T, Minx JC), pp. 33–11. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
16. Finkbeiner M (2013) Indirect Land Use Change (iLUC) within Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) – Scientific Robustness and Consistency with International Standards. Publication of the Association of the German Biofuel Industry, Berlin, Germany. Available at: http://www.fediol.eu/data/RZ_VDB_0030_Vorstudie_ENG_Komplett.pdf (accessed 10 August 2015).
17. Gamborg C, Anker HT, Sandøe P (2014) Ethical and legal challenges in bioenergy governance: coping with value disagreement and regulatory complexity. Energy Policy, 69, 326–333.
18. García CA, Riegelhaupt E, Ghilardi A, Skutsch M, Islas J, Manzini F, Masera O (2015) Sustainable bioenergy options for Mexico: GHG mitigation and costs. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 43, 545–552.
19. German L, Schoneveld GC, Gumbo D (2011) The Local Social and Environmental Impacts of Smallholder-Based Biofuel Investments in Zambia. Ecology and Society, 16, 12
20. Gregg JS, Smith SJ (2010) Global and regional potential for bioenergy from agricultural and forestry residue biomass. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 15, 241–262.
21. Haberl H (2015) Competition for land: a sociometabolic perspective. Ecological Economics, 111, 424–431.
22. Haberl H (2016) The growing role of biomass for future resource supply - prospects and pitfalls. In: Sustainability Assessment of Renewables-Based Products: Methods and Case Studies (eds Dewulf J, De Meester S, Alvarenga RAF), pp. 1–18. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., New Jersey.
23. Haberl H, Erb K-H, Krausmann F et al. (2011) Global bioenergy potentials from agricultural land in 2050: sensitivity to climate change, diets and yields. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, 4753–4769.
24. Haberl H, Erb K-H, Krausmann F, Running S, Searchinger TD, Smith WK (2013) Bioenergy: how much can we expect for 2050? Environmental Research Letters, 8, 031004.
25. Hejazi MI, Voisin N, Liu L et al. (2015) 21st century United States emissions mitigation could increase water stress more than the climate change it is mitigating. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 10635–10640.
26. Hertwich E (2014) Understanding the climate mitigation benefits of product systems: comment on “using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation…”. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 18, 464–465.
27. Hodbod J, Tomei J (2013) Demystifying the Social Impacts of Biofuels at Local Levels: where is the Evidence? Geography Compass, 7, 478–488.
28. Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, de Vries B, Turkenburg W (2009) Exploration of regional and global cost–supply curves of biomass energy from short-rotation crops at abandoned cropland and rest land under four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33, 26–43.
29. Hunsberger C, Bolwig S, Corbera E, Creutzig F (2014) Livelihood impacts of biofuel crop production: implications for governance. Geoforum, 54, 248–260.
30. IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of the Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schlömer S, von Stechow C, Zwickel T, Minx JC) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.
31. Krausmann F, Erb K-H, Gingrich S et al. (2013) Global human appropriation of net primary production doubled in the 20th century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 10324–10329.
32. Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P (2011) Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 3465–3472.
33. Larsen RK, Jiwan N, Rompas A, Jenito J, Osbeck M, Tarigan A (2014) Towards “hybrid accountability” in EU biofuels policy? Community grievances and competing water claims in the Central Kalimantan oil palm sector. Geoforum, 54, 295–305.
34. Lotze-Campen H, von Lampe M, Kyle P et al. (2014) Impacts of increased bioenergy demand on global food markets: an AgMIP economic model intercomparison. Agricultural Economics, 45, 103–116.
35. Lubowski RN, Rose SK (2013) The potential for REDD+: key economic modeling insights and issues. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 7, 67–90.
36. Mandaloufas M, de Q, Lamas W, Brown S, Irizarry Quintero A (2015) Energy balance analysis of the Brazilian alcohol for flex fuel production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 43, 403–414.
37. Mendes Souza G, Victoria RL, Joly CA, Vedade L (Eds) (2015) Bioenergy & Sustainability: Bridging the Gaps. SCOPE Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment, Paris Cedex, France.
38. Muñoz I, Schmidt JH, Brandão M, Weidema BP (2015) Rebuttal to “Indirect land use change (iLUC) within life cycle assessment (LCA) – scientific robustness and consistency with international standards”. GCB Bioenergy, 7, 565–566.
39. Muys B (2013) Sustainable Development within Planetary Boundaries: A Functional Revision of the Definition Based on the Thermodynamics of Complex Social-Ecological Systems. Available at: http://librelloph.com/ojs/index.php/challengesinsustainability/article/view/22 (accessed 16 December 2014).
40. Nijsen M, Smeets E, Stehfest E, van Vuuren DP (2012) An evaluation of the global potential of bioenergy production on degraded lands. GCB Bioenergy, 4, 130–147.
41. Odlare M, Arthurson V, Pell M, Svensson K, Nehrenheim E, Abubaker J (2011) Land application of organic waste - effects on the soil ecosystem. Applied Energy, 88, 2210–2218.
42. Persson UM (2014) The impact of biofuel demand on agricultural commodity prices: a systematic review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 4, 410–428.
43. Petticrew M, Roberts H (2008) Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. (ISBN: 978-1-4051-2110-1). Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9780470754887 (accessed 05 March 2013).
44. Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014a) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 18, 73–83.
45. Plevin R, Delucchi M, Creutzig F (2014b) Response to comments on “using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation …”. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 18, 468–470.
46. Popp A, Lotze-Campen H, Leimbach M, Knopf B, Beringer T, Bauer N, Bodirsky B (2011) On sustainability of bioenergy production: integrating co-emissions from agricultural intensification. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, 4770–4780.
47. R Core Team (2014) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
48. Ravnborg HM, Larsen RK, Vilsen JL, Funder M (2013) Environmental Governance and Development Cooperation – Achievements and Challenges. Danish Institute of International Studies, Copenhagen, Denmark. Available at: https://www.diis.dk/files/media/publications/import/extra/rp2013-15-environmental-governance_web_1.pdf (accessed 10 December 2015).
49. Scharlemann JPW, Laurence WF (2014) How Green Are Biofuels? Animal Science Blogs. Available at: http://sites.psu.edu/tetherton/2008/02/28/how-green-are-biofuels/ (accessed 19 August 2015).
50. Smeets EMW, Faaij APC (2010) The impact of sustainability criteria on the costs and potentials of bioenergy production - Applied for case studies in Brazil and Ukraine. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34, 319–333.
51. Smeets EMW, Faaij APC, Lewandowski IM, Turkenburg WC (2007) A bottom-up assessment and review of global bio-energy potentials to 2050. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 33, 56–106.
52. Smith P, Bustamante M, Ahammad H et al. (2014) Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schlömer S, von Stechow C, Zwickel T, Minx JC), pp. 811–922. Chapter 11. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.
53. Sneddon C, Howarth RB, Norgaard RB (2006) Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world. Ecological Economics, 57, 253–268.
54. Sorda G, Banse M, Kemfert C (2010) An overview of biofuel policies across the world. Energy Policy, 38, 6977–6988.
55. von Stechow C, McCollum D, Riahi K et al. (2015) Integrating global climate change mitigation goals with other sustainability objectives: a synthesis. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 40, 363–394.
56. Tilman D, Socolow R, Foley JA et al. (2009) Beneficial biofuels—the food, energy, and environment trilemma. Science, 325, 270–271.
57. Tribe LH, Schelling CS, Voss J (Eds.) (1976) When Values Conflict. Essays on Environmental Analysis, Discourse, and Decision. published for the American Academy of Arts and Science by Ballinger Publishing Co, Cambridge, MA.