TY - CONF
T1 - Afforestation for climate change mitigation: Potentials, risks and trade-offs, and the role of biophysical climate effects
AU - Doelman, Jonathan
AU - Stehfest, Elke
AU - van Vuuren, Detlef
AU - Tabeau, Andrzej
AU - Hof, Andries
AU - Braakhekke, Maarten
AU - Gernaat, David
AU - van den Berg, Maarten
AU - van Zeist, Willem-Jan
AU - Daioglou, Vassilis
AU - van Meijl, Hans
AU - Lucas, Paul
N1 - Conference code: 22
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - Afforestation is considered a cost-effective and readily available
climate change mitigation option. In recent studies afforestation is
presented as a major solution to limit climate change. However,
estimates of afforestation potential vary widely. Moreover, the risks in
global mitigation policy and the negative trade-offs with food security
are often not considered. Here, we present a new approach to assess the
economic potential of afforestation with the IMAGE 3.0 integrated
assessment model framework (Doelman et al., 2019). In addition, we
discuss the role of afforestation in mitigation pathways and the effects
of afforestation on the food system under increasingly ambitious climate
targets. We show that afforestation has a mitigation potential of 4.9
GtCO2/yr at 200 US/tCO2 in 2050 leading to large-scale application in an
SSP2 scenario aiming for 2°C (410 GtCO2 cumulative up to 2100).
Afforestation reduces the overall costs of mitigation policy. However,
it may lead to lower mitigation ambition and lock-in situations in other
sectors. Moreover, it bears risks to implementation and permanence as
the negative emissions are increasingly located in regions with high
investment risks and weak governance, for example in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Our results confirm that afforestation has substantial potential for
mitigation. At the same time, we highlight that major risks and
trade-offs are involved. Pathways aiming to limit climate change to
2°C or even 1.5°C need to minimize these risks and trade-offs in
order to achieve mitigation sustainably.The afforestation study
published as Doelman et al. (2019) excluded biophysical climate effects
of land use and land cover change on climate, even though this is shown
to have a substantial effect especially locally (Alkama & Cescatti,
2016). As a follow-up to this study we implement the grid-specific
temperature effects as derived by Duveiller et al. (2020) to the
mitigation scenarios with large-scale afforestation to assess the
effectiveness of afforestation for climate change mitigation as
increased or reduced effectiveness may change cost-optimal climate
policy. Notably in the boreal regions this can have a major effect, as
transitions from agricultural land to forest are shown to have a
substantial warming effect due to reduced albedo limiting the mitigation
potential in these regions. Conversely, in the tropical areas the
already high mitigation potential of afforestation could be even more
efficient, as increased evapotranspiration from forests leads to
additional cooling. However, it is uncertain whether the high efficiency
of afforestation in tropical regions can be utilized as these are also
the regions with high risks to implementation and permanence.
ReferencesAlkama, R., & Cescatti, A. (2016). Biophysical climate
impacts of recent changes in global forest cover. Science, 351(6273),
600-604.Doelman, J. C., Stehfest, E., van Vuuren, D. P., Tabeau, A.,
Hof, A. F., Braakhekke, M. C., . . . Lucas, P. L. (2019). Afforestation
for climate change mitigation: Potentials, risks and trade-offs. Global
Change BiologyDuveiller, G., Caporaso, L., Abad-Viñas, R.,
Perugini, L., Grassi, G., Arneth, A., & Cescatti, A. (2020). Local
biophysical effects of land use and land cover change: towards an
assessment tool for policy makers. Land Use Policy, 91, 104382.
AB - Afforestation is considered a cost-effective and readily available
climate change mitigation option. In recent studies afforestation is
presented as a major solution to limit climate change. However,
estimates of afforestation potential vary widely. Moreover, the risks in
global mitigation policy and the negative trade-offs with food security
are often not considered. Here, we present a new approach to assess the
economic potential of afforestation with the IMAGE 3.0 integrated
assessment model framework (Doelman et al., 2019). In addition, we
discuss the role of afforestation in mitigation pathways and the effects
of afforestation on the food system under increasingly ambitious climate
targets. We show that afforestation has a mitigation potential of 4.9
GtCO2/yr at 200 US/tCO2 in 2050 leading to large-scale application in an
SSP2 scenario aiming for 2°C (410 GtCO2 cumulative up to 2100).
Afforestation reduces the overall costs of mitigation policy. However,
it may lead to lower mitigation ambition and lock-in situations in other
sectors. Moreover, it bears risks to implementation and permanence as
the negative emissions are increasingly located in regions with high
investment risks and weak governance, for example in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Our results confirm that afforestation has substantial potential for
mitigation. At the same time, we highlight that major risks and
trade-offs are involved. Pathways aiming to limit climate change to
2°C or even 1.5°C need to minimize these risks and trade-offs in
order to achieve mitigation sustainably.The afforestation study
published as Doelman et al. (2019) excluded biophysical climate effects
of land use and land cover change on climate, even though this is shown
to have a substantial effect especially locally (Alkama & Cescatti,
2016). As a follow-up to this study we implement the grid-specific
temperature effects as derived by Duveiller et al. (2020) to the
mitigation scenarios with large-scale afforestation to assess the
effectiveness of afforestation for climate change mitigation as
increased or reduced effectiveness may change cost-optimal climate
policy. Notably in the boreal regions this can have a major effect, as
transitions from agricultural land to forest are shown to have a
substantial warming effect due to reduced albedo limiting the mitigation
potential in these regions. Conversely, in the tropical areas the
already high mitigation potential of afforestation could be even more
efficient, as increased evapotranspiration from forests leads to
additional cooling. However, it is uncertain whether the high efficiency
of afforestation in tropical regions can be utilized as these are also
the regions with high risks to implementation and permanence.
ReferencesAlkama, R., & Cescatti, A. (2016). Biophysical climate
impacts of recent changes in global forest cover. Science, 351(6273),
600-604.Doelman, J. C., Stehfest, E., van Vuuren, D. P., Tabeau, A.,
Hof, A. F., Braakhekke, M. C., . . . Lucas, P. L. (2019). Afforestation
for climate change mitigation: Potentials, risks and trade-offs. Global
Change BiologyDuveiller, G., Caporaso, L., Abad-Viñas, R.,
Perugini, L., Grassi, G., Arneth, A., & Cescatti, A. (2020). Local
biophysical effects of land use and land cover change: towards an
assessment tool for policy makers. Land Use Policy, 91, 104382.
U2 - 10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-18838
DO - 10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-18838
M3 - Abstract
T2 - EGU General Assembly 2020
Y2 - 4 May 2020 through 8 May 2020
ER -