Advertisement

A global strategy for forest utilization: mitigating climate change without unduly constraining utilization

  • Paterson McKeough
Original Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

The objective of the study was to outline a global scheme for furthering mitigation of climate change in the Managed Forest subsector of the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry sector. The core of the study is an analysis of the emissions associated with the start-up of steady-state utilization of previously unutilized forest areas. Example forest growth curves are employed to demonstrate the dependence of the start-up emissions on the forest characteristics. In the case of fiber production, the start-up leads to an effective step-like increase in cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) emission. In the case of biofuel production, a significant level of CO2 removal is attainable in the longer term, but, because of the start-up emission, there is usually an initial period of effective CO2 emission. The duration of this initial period has a strong dependence on the growth rate of the forest and the type of fossil fuel replaced. The results of the analysis were exploited in the compilation of a proposal for a global scheme aimed at mitigating climate change without unduly constraining forest utilization. In the scheme, increased forest utilization for the production of solid-wood products and fiber products would be penalized on the basis of the consumption of such products, while, in certain cases, increased forest utilization for biofuel production would be rewarded. Acceptable biofuel options were identified in the study. An example is the replacement of coal by wood chips originating from forest which has a growth rate at least as great as that of a typical boreal forest.

Keywords

Climate change Mitigation Forest utilization Pulp Biofuel 

Notes

References

  1. Äijälä O, Koistinen A, Sved J, Vanhatalo K, Väisänen P (eds.) (2014) Recommendations for forest management, (in Finnish). Tapio report, Metsäkustannus, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  2. Banfield G, Bhatti J, Jiang H, Apps M (2002) Variability in regional scale estimates of carbon stocks in boreal forest ecosystems: results from West-Central Alberta. For Ecol Manag 169:15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. EC (2016) European Commission Proposal COM (2016) 479 finalGoogle Scholar
  4. Eriksson E, Gillespie AR, Gustavsson L, Langvall O, Olsson M, Sathre R, Stendahl J (2007) Integrated carbon analysis of forest management practices and wood substitution. Can J For Res 37:671–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. IPCC (2003) Good practice guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, [Penman J et al. (eds.)]. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, JapanGoogle Scholar
  6. IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Vol. 4 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, [Eggleston H, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds.)]. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, JapanGoogle Scholar
  7. IPCC (2013a) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Stocker T, Qin D, Plattner G, Tignor M, Allen S, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley P (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. IPCC (2013b) Annex II: climate system scenario tables [Prather M, Flato G, Friedlingstein P, Jones C, Lamarque J, Liao H, Rasch P (eds.)]. In: Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Stocker T, Qin D, Plattner G, Tignor M, Allen S, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley P (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Jenkins J, Chojnacky D, Heath L, Birdsey R (2003) National-scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. For Sci 49(1):12–35Google Scholar
  10. Liski J, Repo A, Känkänen R, Vanhala P, Seppälä J, Antikainen R, Grönroos J, Karvosenoja N, Lähtinen K, Leskinen P, Paunu V, Tuovinen J (2011) Forest bioenergy: greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts in Finland (in Finnish). Report 5/2011, Finnish Environment Institute, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  11. Liu J, Yu G, Wang Q, Zhang Y (2012) Huge carbon sequestration potential in global forests. J Resour Ecol 3(3):193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mäkinen H, Hynynen J, Siitonen J, Sievänen R (2006) Predicting the decomposition of Scots pine, Norway spruce, and birch stems in Finland. Ecol Appl 16(5):1865–1879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Malhi Y, Baldocchi D, Jarvis P (1999) The carbon balance of tropical, temperate and boreal forests. Plant Cell Environ 22:715–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Matala J, Hynynen J, Miina J, Ojansuu R, Peltola H, Sievänen R, Väisänen H, Kellomäki S (2003) Comparison of a physiological model and a statistical model for prediction of growth and yield in boreal forests. Ecol Model 161:95–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McKechnie J, Colombo S, Chen J, Mabee W, MacLean HL (2011) Forest bioenergy or forest carbon? Assessing trade-offs in greenhouse gas mitigation with woodbased fuels. Environ Sci Technol 45:789–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McKeough P, Kurkela E (2008) Process evaluations and design studies in the UCG project 2004-2007. VTT Research Notes 2434, VTT, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  17. Mika A, Keeton W (2015) Net carbon fluxes at stand and landscape scales from wood bioenergy harvests in the US Northeast. GCB Bioenergy 7:438–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Palosuo T, Wihersaaari M, Liski J (2001) Net greenhouse gas emissions due to energy use of forest residues—impacts of soil carbon balance. In: Woody biomass as an energy source challenges in Europe. EFI proceedings 39:115–122. Joensuu, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  19. Pretzsch H (2009) Forest dynamics, growth and yield: from measurement to model. Springer-Verlag, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schlamadinger B, Spitzer J (1994) CO2 mitigation through bioenergy from forestry substituting fossil energy. Proceedings of the 8th European Biomass Conference. 3–5 Oct 1994, Vol 1 (ed. Chartier P, Beenackers A, Grassi G), 310–321. Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  21. Schlamadinger B, Canella L, Marland G, Spitzer J (1997) Bioenergy strategies and the global carbon cycle. Sci Géol Bull 50(1–4):157–182Google Scholar
  22. Stocker T et al. (2013) Technical summary. In: Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker T, Qin D, Plattner G, Tignor M, Allen S, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley P (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. Tuomainen T, Regina K, Ollila P, Haakana M, Salminen O (2017) Land use sector in the EU 2030 climate and energy framework. Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 56/2017. Natural Resources Institute, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  24. Uotila A (2004) Vegetation patterns in managed and semi-natural boreal forests in Eastern Finland and Russian Karelia. Dissertation, University of Joensuu, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  25. UPM Metsä (2011) Natural tree species of Finland, (in Finnish). UPM Company, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  26. Zanchi G, Pena N, Bird N (2012) Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? A comparative assessment of emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel. GCB Bioenergy 4:761–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TähteläFinland

Personalised recommendations