Research ArticleBIOENERGY

Forests: Carbon sequestration, biomass energy, or both?

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science Advances  25 Mar 2020:
Vol. 6, no. 13, eaay6792
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aay6792
  • Fig. 1 Global impacts for increased wood-based bioenergy demand, 2010–2100.

    (A) Timber prices, (B) total forest area, (C) natural unmanaged forest area, (D) plantation forest area, (E) total forest carbon stock (includes all the four carbon pools presented in fig S3), and (F) management investment relative to the baseline (no bioenergy demand). Black, RCP 1.9; red, RCP 2.6; green, RCP 3.4; blue, RCP 4.5; orange, RCP 6.0.

  • Fig. 2 Mean change in total regional harvests relative to the baseline, 2010–2100.

  • Fig. 3 Global impacts for alternative wood-based bioenergy policies, 2010–2100.

    (A) Timber price and changes in (B) total forest area, (C) natural forest area, (D) forest plantation area, (E) total forest carbon stock, and (F) management investment relative to the baseline (no bioenergy demand). Dashed, carbon penalty; solid, forest carbon rental; black, RCP 1.9; red, RCP 2.6; green, RCP 3.4; blue, RCP 4.5; orange, RCP 6.0.

  • Fig. 4 Changes in global forest area by major ecosystem relative to baseline case under alternative wood-based bioenergy policies.

    Square, carbon penalty; circle, forest carbon rental; black, RCP 1.9; red, RCP 2.6; green, RCP 3.4; blue, RCP 4.5; orange, RCP 6.0.

  • Fig. 5 Regional changes in forest area relative to 2010 for forest carbon rental and carbon penalty scenarios.

  • Fig. 6 Estimated impacts for alternative land constraint scenarios under all RCPs.

    (A) Total forest area; (B) natural forestland and (C) forest carbon sequestration versus woody biomass production relative to the baseline (no bioenergy demand) for alternative land constrained scenarios and policy scenarios under all the RCPs. Diamond, 1.6 billion ha additional forestland limit; plus, 0.9 billion ha additional forestland limit; gray, carbon penalty; pink, forest carbon rental. Trend lines: dashed, 1.6 billion ha; solid, 0.9 billion ha additional forestland limit.

Supplementary Materials

  • Supplementary material for this article is available at http://advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/6/13/eaay6792/DC1

    Supplementary Materials and Methods

    Model estimates

    Fig. S1. GTM—Regional Aggregation.

    Fig. S2. Global assumptions for alternative RCP scenarios.

    Fig. S3. Yield for representative species in the GTM.

    Fig. S4. Estimated changes in global forest carbon stock pools in GtCO2 relative to the baseline scenario under each RCP.

    Fig. S5. Changes in global forest area by major ecosystem versus woody biomass supply under the bioenergy demand scenario relative to the baseline scenario.

    Fig. S6. IAMs’ estimates of forest areas and crop areas (2010–2100) under the RCP 1.9 and RCP 2.6 from the IIASA SSP database.

    Fig. S7. Estimated changes in global forest carbon stock pools in GtCO2 relative to the baseline scenario under each RCP and the two policy approaches.

    Fig. S8. Key parameter sensitivity impacts relative to 2010 for RCP 2.6 Forest Carbon Rental scenario.

    Table S1. GTM parameter values.

    Table S2. Baseline key GTM estimates, 2010–2100.

    Table S3. Baseline global forest area (Mha) by major ecosystem, 2010–2100.

    Table S4. Baseline global total forest carbon stocks by major ecosystem, 2010–2100.

  • Supplementary Materials

    This PDF file includes:

    • Supplementary Materials and Methods
    • Model estimates
    • Fig. S1. GTM—Regional Aggregation.
    • Fig. S2. Global assumptions for alternative RCP scenarios.
    • Fig. S3. Yield for representative species in the GTM.
    • Fig. S4. Estimated changes in global forest carbon stock pools in GtCO2 relative to the baseline scenario under each RCP.
    • Fig. S5. Changes in global forest area by major ecosystem versus woody biomass supply under the bioenergy demand scenario relative to the baseline scenario.
    • Fig. S6. IAMs’ estimates of forest areas and crop areas (2010–2100) under the RCP 1.9 and RCP 2.6 from the IIASA SSP database.
    • Fig. S7. Estimated changes in global forest carbon stock pools in GtCO2 relative to the baseline scenario under each RCP and the two policy approaches.
    • Fig. S8. Key parameter sensitivity impacts relative to 2010 for RCP 2.6 Forest Carbon Rental scenario.
    • Table S1. GTM parameter values.
    • Table S2. Baseline key GTM estimates, 2010–2100.
    • Table S3. Baseline global forest area (Mha) by major ecosystem, 2010–2100.
    • Table S4. Baseline global total forest carbon stocks by major ecosystem, 2010–2100.

    Download PDF

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Stay Connected to Science Advances

Navigate This Article