Climatic Change

, Volume 112, Issue 2, pp 415–428 | Cite as

Harvesting in boreal forests and the biofuel carbon debt

Article

Abstract

Owing to the extensive critique of food-crop-based biofuels, attention has turned toward second-generation wood-based biofuels. A question is therefore whether timber taken from the vast boreal forests on an increasing scale should serve as a source of wood-based biofuels and whether this will be effective climate policy. In a typical boreal forest, it takes 70–120 years before a stand of trees is mature. When this time lag and the dynamics of boreal forests more generally are taken into account, it follows that a high level of harvest means that the carbon stock in the forest stabilizes at a lower level. Therefore, wood harvesting is not a carbon-neutral activity. Through model simulations, it is estimated that an increased harvest of a boreal forest will create a biofuel carbon debt that takes 190–340 years to repay. The length of the payback time is sensitive to the type of fossil fuels that wood energy replaces

Supplementary material

10584_2011_222_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (672 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 672 kb)

References

  1. Braastad H (1975) Yield Tables and Growth Models for Picea abies. Reports from The Norwegian Forest Research Institute 31.9Google Scholar
  2. Bright RM, Strømman AH (2009) Life cycle assessment of second generation bioethanol produced from Scandinavian boreal forest resources. J Ind Ecol 13:514–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carey EV, Sala A, Keane R, Callaway RM (2001) Are old forests underestimated as global carbon sinks? Global Change Bio 7:339–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fontaine S, Barot S, Barré P, Bdioui N, Mary B, Rumpel C (2007) Stability of organic carbon in deep soil layers controlled by fresh carbon supply. Nature 450:277–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Friedland AJ, Gillingham KT (2010) Carbon accounting a tricky business. Science 327:411–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gibbs HK, Ruesch AS, Achard F, Clayton MK, Holmgren P, Ramankutty N, Foley JA (2010) Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. P Natl Acad Sci 107:16732–16737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gurgel AJ, Reilly M, Paltsev S (2007) Potential land use implications of a global biofuels industry. J Agr Food Ind Organ 5:1–34Google Scholar
  9. Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polasky S, Tiffany D (2006) Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. P Natl Acad Sci 103:11206–11210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holmgren K, Eriksson E, Olsson O, Olsson M, Hillring B, Parikka M (2007) Biofuels and climate neutrality—system analysis of production and utilisation. Elforsk report 07:35Google Scholar
  11. Holtsmark B (2010) Use of wood fuels from boreal forests will create a biofuel carbon debt with along payback time. Discussion Paper 637. Statistics NorwayGoogle Scholar
  12. Hutchinson E, Kennedy PW, Martinez C (2010) Subsidies for the Production of Cleaner Energy: When do they Cause Emissions to Rise? The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy: Vol. 10, Iss. 1, Article 28Google Scholar
  13. IPCC (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios. Working Group III, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Kasischke ES (2000) Boreal ecosystems in the global carbon cycle. In: Kasischke ES, Stocks BJ (eds) Fire, climate and carbon cycling in the boreal forest. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Kirkinen J, Palosuo T, Holmgren K, Savolainen I (2008) Greenhouse impact due to the use of combustible fuels: life cycle viewpoint and relative radiative forcing commitment. Environ Manage 42:458–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kjønaas O, Aalde JH, Dalen LS, de Wit HA, Eldhuset T, Øyen BH (2000) Carbon stocks in Norwegian forested systems. Biotechnol Agron Soc Environ 4:311–314Google Scholar
  17. Kujanpää M, Eggers J, Verkerk H, Helin T, Lindner M, Wessman H (2010) Carbon balance of forest residue collection and combustion in Southern Finland. Proceeding paper from the 18th European Biomass Conference and ExhibitionGoogle Scholar
  18. Lapola D, Schaldach MR, Alcamo J, Bondeau A, Koch J, Koelking C, Priess JA (2010) Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. P Natl Acad Sci 103:11206–11210Google Scholar
  19. Larsson JY, Hylen G (2007) Statistics of forest conditions and forest resources in Norway. Reports from The Norwegian Forest Research Institute 1/07Google Scholar
  20. Liski TP, Peltoniemi M, Sievänen R (2005) Carbon and decomposition model Yasso for forest soils. Ecol Model 189:168–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luyssaert S, Schulze ED, Börner A, Knohl A, Hessenmöller D, Law BE, Ciais P, Grace J (2008) Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455:213–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences (2010) Massachusetts Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study: Report to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. In Walker T (ed) Natural Capital Initiative Report NCI-2010-03. Brunswick, ME, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. McKechnie J, Colombo S, Chen J, Mabee W, Maclean HL (2011) Forest bioenergy of forest carbon? Assessing trade-offs in greenhouse gas mitigation with wood-based fuels. Environ Sci Technol 45:789–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Melillo JM, Reilly JM, Kicklighter DW et al (2009) Indirect emissions from biofuels: how important? Science 326:1397–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nakane K, Lee NJ (1995) Simulation of soil carbon cycling and carbon balance following clear-cutting in a mid-temperate forest and contribution to the sink of atmospheric CO2. Vegetatio 121:147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. NCPA (2010) Tiltak og virkemidler for å nå norske klimamål mot 2020 (Efforts and policies for Norwegian climate goals toward 2020). The Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency (NCPA), Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Statistics Norway, The Norwegian Public Road Administration. Report TA2590Google Scholar
  27. NCPA (2011) Skog som biomasseressurs (Forests as biomass resources). Report from The Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency. Report TA 2762Google Scholar
  28. Nilsen P, Hobbelstad K, Clarke N (2008) Opptak og utslipp av CO2 i skog (Capture and Emission of CO2 from Norwegian Forests). Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute, report no. 06/2008Google Scholar
  29. Palosuo T, Wihersaari M, Liski J (2001) Net greenhouse gas emissions due to energy use of forest residues—impact of soil carbon balance. EFI Proceedings no 39, Wood biomass as an energy source challenge in Europe. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, 115–130Google Scholar
  30. Petersen AK, Solberg B (2005) Environmental and economic impacts of substitution between wood products and alternative materials: a review of micro-level analyses from Norway and Sweden. Forest Policy Econ 7:249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pregitzer KS, Euskirchen ES (2004) Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: biome patterns related to forest age. Glob Change Biol 10:2052–2077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raymer AKP (2006) A comparison of avoided greenhouse gas emissions when using different kinds of wood energy. Biomass Bioenerg 30:605–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Repo A, Tuomi M, Liski J (2011) Indirect carbon dioxide emissions from producing bioenergy from forest harvest residues. GCB Bioenergy 3:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schlamadinger B, Spitzer J, Kohlmaier GH, Lüdeke M (1995) Carbon balance of bioenergy from logging residues. Biomass Bioenerg 8:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Searchinger TD, Heimlich TD, Houghton RA et al (2008) Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gas through emissions from land-use change. Science 319:1238–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Searchinger TD, Hamburg SP, Melillo J et al (2009) Fixing a critical climate accounting error. Science 326:527–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seely B, Welham C, Kimmins H (2002) Carbon sequestration in a boreal forest ecosystem: results from the ecosystem simulation model, FORECAST. Forest Ecol Manag 169:123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sjølie HK, Solberg B (2009) Greenhouse Gas Implications by Production of Wood Pellets at the BioWood Norway plant at Averøy, Norway. Report drawn up for BioWood Norway. Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life SciencesGoogle Scholar
  39. Sjølie HK, Trømborg E, Solberg B, Bolkesjø TF (2010) Effects and costs of policies to increase bioenergy use and reduce GHG emissions from heating in Norway. Forest Policy Econ 12:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Storaunet KO, Rolstad J (2002) Time since death and fall of Norway spruce logs in old-growth and selectively cut boreal forest. Can J For Res 32:1801–1812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weisser D (2007) A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies. Energy 32:1453–1559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wise M, Calvin K, Thomson A, Clarke L, Bond-Lamberty B, Sands R, Smith SJ, Janetos A, Edmonds J (2009) Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324:1183–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang Y, McKechnie J, Cormier D, Lyng R, Mabee W, Ogino A, MacLean HI (2010) Life cycle emissions and cost of producing electricity from coal, natural gas, and wood pellets in Ontario, Canada. Environ Sci Technol 44:538–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Statistics NorwayOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations