Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Cherubini, Francesco

Publications and source records attributed to Cherubini, Francesco.

Land use for bioenergy: Synergies and trade-offs between sustainable development goals

Bioenergy aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and contribute to meeting global climate change mitigation targets. Nevertheless, several sustainability concerns are associated with bioenergy, especially related to the impacts of using land for dedicated energy crop production. Cultivating energy crops can result in synergies or trade-offs between GHG emission reductions and other sustainability effects depending on context-specific conditions. Using the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework, the main synergies and trade-offs associated with land use for dedicated energy crop production were identified. Furthermore, the context-specific conditions (i.e., biomass feedstock, previous land use, climate, soil type and agricultural management) which affect those synergies and trade-offs were also identified. The most recent literature was reviewed and a pairwise comparison between GHG emission reduction (SDG 13) and other SDGs was carried out. A total of 427 observations were classified as either synergy (170), trade-off (176), or no effect (81). Most synergies with environmentally-related SDGs, such as water quality and biodiversity conservation, were observed when perennial crops were produced on arable land, pasture or marginal land in the ‘cool temperate moist’ climate zone and ‘high activity clay’ soils. Most trade-offs were related to food security and water availability. Previous land use and feedstock type are more impactful in determining synergies and trade-offs than climatic zone and soil type. This study highlights the importance of considering context-specific conditions in evaluating synergies and trade-offs and their relevance for developing appropriate policies and practices to meet worldwide demand for bioenergy in a sustainable manner.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

Bioenergy for climate change mitigation: Scale and sustainability

Many global climate change mitigation pathways presented in IPCC assessment reports rely heavily on the deployment of biomass for bioenergy, often used in conjunction with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). We review the literature on bioenergy, including the modelling of bioenergy in integrated assessment models (IAMs) and bottom-up modelling and non-modelling studies on the implications of bioenergy use. We summarise the limitations of existing modelling studies and what is known about the potential co-benefits and adverse side-effects of bioenergy systems. We find that the implications of bioenergy supply on mitigation and other sustainability criteria are context dependent and influenced by feedstock, management regime, climatic region, scale of deployment and the counterfactual land use and energy system. However, due to limitations of the existing models, and uncertainty over the future context with respect to the many variables that influence availability of biomass and land resources, it is not possible to precisely quantify the sustainability implications for different scales of bioenergy implementation. Given these uncertainties, the dependence on large-scale deployment of bioenergy in mitigation scenarios carries risks. The deployment of bioenergy technologies and the evolution of biomass supply chains at a scale that achieves significant mitigation and carbon sequestration requires integrative policies, coordinated institutions and improved governance mechanisms. As a result, bioenergy, and the use of land to produce biomass, is an essential part of many climate mitigation strategies but there are limits to its use due to trade-offs with sustainability.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

Applying a science‐based systems perspective to dispel misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy

Abstract The scientific literature contains contrasting findings about the climate effects of forest bioenergy, partly due to the wide diversity of bioenergy systems and associated contexts, but also due to differences in assessment methods. The climate effects of bioenergy must be accurately assessed to inform policy‐making, but the complexity of bioenergy systems and associated land, industry and energy systems raises challenges for assessment. We examine misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy and discuss important considerations in assessing these effects and devising measures to incentivize sustainable bioenergy as a component of climate policy. The temporal and spatial system boundary and the reference (counterfactual) scenarios are key methodology choices that strongly influence results. Focussing on carbon balances of individual forest stands and comparing emissions at the point of combustion neglect system‐level interactions that influence the climate effects of forest bioenergy. We highlight the need for a systems approach, in assessing options and developing policy for forest bioenergy that: (1) considers the whole life cycle of bioenergy systems, including effects of the associated forest management and harvesting on landscape carbon balances; (2) identifies how forest bioenergy can best be deployed to support energy system transformation required to achieve climate goals; and (3) incentivizes those forest bioenergy systems that augment the mitigation value of the forest sector as a whole. Emphasis on short‐term emissions reduction targets can lead to decisions that make medium‐ to long‐term climate goals more difficult to achieve. The most important climate change mitigation measure is the transformation of energy, industry and transport systems so that fossil carbon remains underground. Narrow perspectives obscure the significant role that bioenergy can play by displacing fossil fuels now, and supporting energy system transition. Greater transparency and consistency is needed in greenhouse gas reporting and accounting related to bioenergy.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

The impact of interventions in the global land and agri-food sectors on Nature’s Contributions to People and the UN Sustainable Development Goals

Interlocked challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss and land degradation require transformative interventions in the land management and food production sectors to reduce carbon emissions, strengthen adaptive capacity, and maintain or increase food production to 2050. However, deciding which interventions to pursue and understanding their relative synergies with and trade-offs against different social and environmental goals has been difficult without direct comparisons across a range of possible actions. This study examined a series of 40 different options, implemented through land, value chain or risk management, for their relative impacts across 18 Nature’s Contributions to People (also known as ecosystem services) and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. We find that a relatively small number of interventions show significant positive synergies with both SDGs and NCPs; these include improved cropland management, improved grazing land management, improved livestock management, agroforestry, agricultural diversification, increased soil organic carbon content, reduced soil erosion, salinization and compaction, fire management, reduced landslides and hazards, reduced pollution, management of invasive species, sustainable source, and reduced post-harvest losses. Several interventions show strong negative impacts on either SDGs, NCPs or in some cases, both; these include bioenergy and BECCS, afforestation, and some risk sharing measures, like commercial crop insurance. Our results demonstrate that a better understanding of benefits and trade-offs of comparative policy approaches can help decision-makers choose the most effective, or at the very minimum, benign interventions for implementation in specific contexts.

Mcelwee, Pam↗