Greenhouse Gas Balance of Sphagnum Farming on Highly Decomposed Peat at Former Peat Extraction Sites

For two years, we quantified the exchange of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) at two different large-scale Sphagnum farming sites. At both, peat extraction left a shallow layer of highly decomposed peat and low hydraulic conductivities. One site was characterized by preceding multi-annual inundation and irrigated by ditches, while the other one was inoculated directly after peat extraction and irrigated by ditches and drip irrigation. Further, GHG emissions from an irrigation polder and the effect of harvesting Sphagnum donor material at a near-natural reference site were determined. GHG mitigation potentials lag behind the results of less decomposed sites, although our results were also affected by the extraordinary hot and dry summer 2018. CO2 exchanges ranged between -0.6 and 2.2 t CO2-C ha−1 y−1 and were mainly influenced by low water table depths. CH4 emissions were low with the exception of plots with higher Eriophorum covers, while fluctuating water tables and poorly developing plant covers led to considerable N2O emissions at the ditch irrigation site. The removal of the upper vegetation at the near-natural site resulted in increased CH4 emissions and, on average, lowered CO2 emissions. Overall, best plant growth and lowest GHG emissions were measured at the previously inundated site. At the other site, drip irrigation provided more favourable conditions than ditch irrigation. The size of the area needed for water management (ditches, polders) strongly affected the areal GHG balances. We conclude that Sphagnum farming on highly decomposed peat is possible but requires elaborate water management.

Low-carbon pathways for the booming express delivery sector in China

Express delivery services are booming in both developed and emerging economies due to their low cost, convenience, and the fast growth in online shopping. The increasing environmental impacts of express delivery services and mitigation potentials, however, remain largely unexplored. Here we addressed such a gap for China, a country which is expanding online retail sales and express delivery rapidly. We found a total of 8.8 Mt of scrap packaging materials were generated by the express delivery sector in China in 2018. Its transportation-related GHG emissions surged from 0.3 Mt in 2007 to 13.7 Mt of CO2-equivalent (CO2e) in 2018, with an average of 0.27 kgCO2e per piece. Over 80% from online shopping deliveries. We predict these emissions will reach 75 MtCO2e by 2035. Nevertheless, it is possible to mitigate such GHG emissions by 102~134 MtCO2e between 2020 and 2035 if a suite of policies is adopted, including a slowdown of delivery speed, fuel system upgrades, packaging materials reduction, logistics optimization, and carbon pricing.

Afforestation for climate change mitigation: Potentials, risks and trade-offs, and the role of biophysical climate effects

<p>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 GtCO<sub>2</sub>/yr at 200 US$/tCO<sub>2</sub> in 2050 leading to large-scale application in an SSP2 scenario aiming for 2°C (410 GtCO<sub>2 </sub>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.</p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>References</p><p>Alkama, R., & Cescatti, A. (2016). Biophysical climate impacts of recent changes in global forest cover. Science, 351(6273), 600-604.</p><p>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 Biology</p><p>Duveiller, 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. </p>