scholarly journals GHG displacement factors of harvested wood products: the myth of substitution

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe LETURCQ
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Steady State ◽  
Climate Change Mitigation ◽  
Fossil Fuels ◽  
Forest Carbon ◽  
Wood Products ◽  
Material Substitution ◽  
Carbon Neutrality ◽  
Time Horizons ◽  
Change Mitigation

Abstract Abstract Background: A currently held idea is that substituting wood for fossil fuels and energy intensive materials reduces greenhouse gas emissions. This is supported by the values usually attributed to the displacement factors that normalise the emission reduction to the wood carbon mass (typically, 0.5 tC/tC for fossil fuel substitution, 2 tC/tC for building material substitution). These values are based on the “carbon neutrality” assumption of harvested wood, which is claimed valid as long as forests are sustainably managed, but holds true in static conditions only. Harvesting disturbs forest growth and wood carbon storage for a long term. Therefore, the carbon footprint of harvested wood and related displacement factors must be assessed as time-dependant quantities, and the effect of substitutions should be appreciated relatively to specific time horizons. In this study, the meaning, values and use of the displacement factors are reconsidered according to this new line of thinking. Results: When taking into account the forest carbon dynamics, the presumed values of the displacement factors under the carbon neutrality assumption are achieved only in steady-state conditions, a very long time after harvest. Shortly after harvest, and even for time horizons comparable with climatic deadlines, the transient values of these factors appear much less than the steady-state values, and may even be negative. This is especially the case for the substitution of wood for fossil fuels which first increases the carbon emission for the same energy released. An additional weakness of the ordinary concept of displacement lies in possible misevaluations of carbon benefits from substitution, especially when large sectors of wood products are concerned or when the market conditions are disregarded. Corrective measures are proposed for this. Conclusions: The use of inadequate constant values of displacement factors under the carbon neutrality assumption and the supposition that wood substitution for other fuels or materials is always possible and effective leads to overestimations of carbon benefits. These overestimations erroneously incite the increase in harvesting and wood utilisation, which may be counter-productive for climate change mitigation objectives, especially when wood is used as a fuel. Keywords: Forest carbon, Harvested wood products, Carbon accounting, Carbon neutrality, Sequestration parity, Energy and material substitution, Displacement factors, Climate change mitigation.

scholarly journals GHG displacement factors of harvested wood products: the myth of substitution

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Leturcq
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Fossil Fuels ◽  
Wood Products ◽  
Substitution Effects ◽  
Carbon Footprints ◽  
Carbon Neutrality ◽  
Product Consumption ◽  
Wood Harvest ◽  
Change Mitigation ◽  
Global Reduction

AbstractA common idea is that substituting wood for fossil fuels and energy intensive materials is a better strategy in mitigating climate change than storing more carbon in forests. This opinion remains highly questionable for at least two reasons. Firstly, the carbon footprints of wood-products are underestimated as far as the “biomass carbon neutrality” assumption is involved in their determination, as it is often the case. When taking into account the forest carbon dynamics consecutive to wood harvest, and the limited lifetime of products, these carbon footprints are time-dependent and their presumed values under the carbon neutrality assumption are achieved only in steady-state conditions. Secondly, even if carbon footprints are correctly assessed, the benefit of substitutions is overestimated when all or parts of the wood products are supposed to replace non-wood products whatever the market conditions. Indeed, substitutions are effective only if an increase in wood product consumption implies verifiably a global reduction in non-wood productions. When these flaws in the evaluation of wood substitution effects are avoided, one must conclude that increased harvesting and wood utilization may be counter-productive for climate change mitigation objectives, especially when wood is used as a fuel.

scholarly journals GHG displacement factors of harvested wood products: the myth of substitution

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe LETURCQ
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Fossil Fuels ◽  
Forest Carbon ◽  
Wood Products ◽  
Carbon Footprints ◽  
Carbon Neutrality ◽  
Forest Carbon Storage ◽  
Wood Harvesting ◽  
Carbon Mass ◽  
Wood Harvest

Abstract Background A commonly held idea is that substituting wood for fossil fuels and energy intensive materials is a better strategy in mitigating climate change than storing more carbon in forests. This opinion, although ratified by the forest and energy policies of many countries, especially in Europe, remains highly questionable for at least two reasons. Results Firstly, the carbon footprints of wood-products are underestimated as far as the “carbon neutrality” assumption is involved in their life cycle analysis, as it is most often the case. As a matter of fact, when taking into account the forest carbon dynamics consecutive to wood harvest and the limited lifetime of products, these carbon footprints are time-dependant and their presumed values under the carbon neutrality assumption are achieved only in steady-state conditions. For time horizons comparable with the climatic deadlines, the values to apply may be of the same order as the carbon mass in the harvested wood from which the products originate. Secondly, even if carbon footprints are correctly estimated, the benefit of substitutions is overestimated when all or part of the wood products are supposed to replace non-wood products whatever the market conditions. Indeed, substitutions can be considered as effective only if an increase in wood harvesting implies verifiably a global reduction in production of non-wood products. Conclusions Most studies that advocate energy or material substitutions lack rigour to these respects and incite the increase in wood harvesting. Such an increase impedes forest carbon storage and could be counter-productive for climate change mitigation objectives.

scholarly journals Projecting Climate Change Potential of Harvested Wood Products under Different Scenarios of Wood Production and Utilization: Study of Slovakia

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 2510
Author(s):  
Hubert Paluš ◽  
Ján Parobek ◽  
Martin Moravčík ◽  
Miroslav Kovalčík ◽  
Michal Dzian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Climate Change Mitigation ◽  
Age Distribution ◽  
Wood Products ◽  
Mitigation Strategies ◽  
Tree Species Composition ◽  
Mitigation Potential ◽  
Harvested Wood Products ◽  
Wood Utilization ◽  
Change Mitigation

The forestry and forest-based sector play a significant role in climate change mitigation strategies and can contribute to the achievement of a climate-neutral economy. In this context, the ability of harvested wood products (HWP) to sequester carbon is of significant importance. The objective of this work is to make a projection of climate change mitigation potential of HWP, under different scenarios of wood utilization in Slovakia. This study builds on the comparison of different scenarios of industrial wood utilization till 2035 and presents the resulting impacts on the national carbon balance. The results suggest that the development of timber supplies after 2020 in Slovakia will be influenced, in particular, by the future changes in the age distribution and tree species composition as well as the extent of future accidental felling. Consequently, a predicted structure and availability of wood resources in Slovakia will be reflected in a higher share of the production of products with shorter life cycle and thus will negatively affect the carbon pool in HWP. By comparing the results of the four designed scenarios, it follows that the scenario with the greatest mitigation potential, is the one assuming the optimal use of wood assortments and limitation of industrial roundwood foreign trade.

scholarly journals Under What Circumstances Do Wood Products from Native Forests Benefit Climate Change Mitigation?

PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e0139640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Keith ◽  
David Lindenmayer ◽  
Andrew Macintosh ◽  
Brendan Mackey
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Climate Change Mitigation ◽  
Wood Products ◽  
Native Forests ◽  
Change Mitigation

scholarly journals Wood product carbon substitution benefits: a critical review of assumptions

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Howard ◽  
Caren C. Dymond ◽  
Verena C. Griess ◽  
Darius Tolkien-Spurr ◽  
G. Cornelis van Kooten
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Climate Change Mitigation ◽  
Wood Products ◽  
Carbon Accounting ◽  
Life Cycle Assessments ◽  
Modelling Framework ◽  
Sophisticated Model ◽  
Carbon Substitution ◽  
Displacement Factor ◽  
Change Mitigation

Abstract Background There are high estimates of the potential climate change mitigation opportunity of using wood products. A significant part of those estimates depends on long-lived wood products in the construction sector replacing concrete, steel, and other non-renewable goods. Often the climate change mitigation benefits of this substitution are presented and quantified in the form of displacement factors. A displacement factor is numerically quantified as the reduction in emissions achieved per unit of wood used, representing the efficiency of biomass in decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. The substitution benefit for a given wood use scenario is then represented as the estimated change in emissions from baseline in a study’s modelling framework. The purpose of this review is to identify and assess the central economic and technical assumptions underlying forest carbon accounting and life cycle assessments that use displacement factors or similar simple methods. Main text Four assumptions in the way displacement factors are employed are analyzed: (1) changes in harvest or production rates will lead to a corresponding change in consumption of wood products, (2) wood building products are substitutable for concrete and steel, (3) the same mix of products could be produced from increased harvest rates, and (4) there are no market responses to increased wood use. Conclusions After outlining these assumptions, we conclude suggesting that many studies assessing forest management or products for climate change mitigation depend on a suite of assumptions that the literature either does not support or only partially supports. Therefore, we encourage the research community to develop a more sophisticated model of the building sectors and their products. In the meantime, recognizing these assumptions has allowed us to identify some structural, production, and policy-based changes to the construction industry that could help realize the climate change mitigation potential of wood products.

scholarly journals Market-Level Implications of Regulating Forest Carbon Storage and Albedo for Climate Change Mitigation

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aapo Rautiainen ◽  
Jussi Lintunen ◽  
Jussi Uusivuori
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Climate Change Mitigation ◽  
Forest Carbon ◽  
Climate Forcing ◽  
Land Allocation ◽  
Forest Carbon Storage ◽  
Welfare Losses ◽  
Level Model ◽  
Equilibrium Market ◽  
Change Mitigation

We explore the optimal regulation of forest carbon and albedo for climate change mitigation. We develop a partial equilibrium market-level model with socially optimal carbon and albedo pricing and characterize optimal land allocation and harvests. We numerically assess the policy's market-level impacts on land allocation, harvests, and climate forcing, and evaluate how parameter choices (albedo strength, productivity of forest land, and carbon and albedo prices) affect the outcomes. Carbon pricing alone leads to an overprovision of climate benefits at the expense of food and timber production. Complementing the policy with albedo pricing reduces these welfare losses.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document