IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/jhtire/42.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

ClimWood2030 - Climate benefits of material substitution by forest biomass and harvested wood products: Perspective 2030. Final report

Author

Listed:
  • Rüter, Sebastian
  • Werner, Frank
  • Forsell, Nicklas
  • Prins, Christopher
  • Vial, Estelle
  • Levet, Anne-Laure

Abstract

The ClimWood2030 study, commissioned by DG CLIMA of the European Commission, quantifies the five ways in which the EU forest sector contributes to climate change mitigation: carbon sequestration and storage in EU forests, carbon storage in harvested wood products in the EU, substitution of wood products for functionally equivalent materials and substitution of wood for other sources of energy, and displacement of emissions from forests outside the EU. It also explores through scenario analysis, based on a series of interlocking models (GLOBIOM, G4M and WoodCarbonMonitor), along with detailed analysis of Forest Based Functional Units, based on life cycle assessment (LCA), the consequences for GHG balances of policy choices at present under consideration. The focus is on the EU-28, but GHG balances for other parts of the world are also considered, notably to assess consequences of EU policy choices for other regions. The five scenarios are (I) The ClimWood2030 reference scenario, (II) Increase carbon stock in existing EU forests, (III) Cascade use - increase recovery of solid wood products, (IV) Cascade use - prevent first use of biomass for energy and (V) Strongly increase material wood use. The study presents detailed scenario results for key parameters, the policy instruments linked to the scenarios, and main conclusions. The ClimWood2030 study, commissioned by DG CLIMA of the European Commission, quantifies the five ways in which the EU forest sector contributes to climate change mitigation: carbon sequestration and storage in EU forests, carbon storage in harvested wood products in the EU, substitution of wood products for functionally equivalent materials and substitution of wood for other sources of energy, and displacement of emissions from forests outside the EU. It also explores through scenario analysis, based on a series of interlocking models (GLOBIOM, G4M and WoodCarbonMonitor), along with detailed analysis of Forest Based Functional Units, based on life cycle assessment (LCA), the consequences for GHG balances of policy choices at present under consideration. The focus is on the EU-28, but GHG balances for other parts of the world are also considered, notably to assess consequences of EU policy choices for other regions. The five scenarios are (I) The ClimWood2030 reference scenario, (II) Increase carbon stock in existing EU forests, (III) Cascade use - increase recovery of solid wood products, (IV) Cascade use - prevent first use of biomass for energy and (V) Strongly increase material wood use. The study presents detailed scenario results for key parameters, the policy instruments linked to the scenarios, and main conclusions.

Suggested Citation

  • Rüter, Sebastian & Werner, Frank & Forsell, Nicklas & Prins, Christopher & Vial, Estelle & Levet, Anne-Laure, 2016. "ClimWood2030 - Climate benefits of material substitution by forest biomass and harvested wood products: Perspective 2030. Final report," Thünen Reports 42, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:jhtire:42
    DOI: 10.3220/REP1468328990000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/144794/1/863171028.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3220/REP1468328990000?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard York, 2012. "Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels?," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(6), pages 441-443, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Swati Sinha Babu, 2024. "Is Agricultural Production Responsible for Environmental Degradation in India? Implications for Sustainability Based on Panel Data Analysis," Global Journal of Emerging Market Economies, Emerging Markets Forum, vol. 16(3), pages 340-370, September.
    2. Purkus, Alexandra & Lüdtke, Jan, 2020. "A systemic evaluation framework for a multi-actor, forest-based bioeconomy governance process: The German Charter for Wood 2.0 as a case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    3. Hurmekoski, Elias & Kunttu, Janni & Heinonen, Tero & Pukkala, Timo & Peltola, Heli, 2023. "Does expanding wood use in construction and textile markets contribute to climate change mitigation?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    4. Annette Hafner & Simon Slabik & Michael Storck, 2020. "Urban Site Development as Temporal Carbon Storage—A Case Study in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-12, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marietta Markiewicz & Łukasz Muślewski, 2019. "The Impact of Powering an Engine with Fuels from Renewable Energy Sources including its Software Modification on a Drive Unit Performance Parameters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-16, November.
    2. Ajayi, Temitope & Awolayo, Adedapo & Gomes, Jorge S. & Parra, Humberto & Hu, Jialiang, 2019. "Large scale modeling and assessment of the feasibility of CO2 storage onshore Abu Dhabi," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 653-670.
    3. Matthew Houser, 2022. "Does adopting a nitrogen best management practice reduce nitrogen fertilizer rates?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 79-94, March.
    4. Erik Paul Johnson & Matthew E. Oliver, 2019. "Renewable Generation Capacity and Wholesale Electricity Price Variance," The Energy Journal, , vol. 40(5), pages 143-168, September.
    5. Avri Eitan, 2021. "Promoting Renewable Energy to Cope with Climate Change—Policy Discourse in Israel," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-17, March.
    6. Guanchun Liu & Yuanyuan Liu & Chien-Chiang Lee, 2020. "Growth Sources of Green Economy and Energy Consumption in China: New Evidence Accounting for Heterogeneous Regimes," The Energy Journal, , vol. 41(6), pages 33-64, November.
    7. Elias Hurmekoski & Juulia Suuronen & Lassi Ahlvik & Janni Kunttu & Tanja Myllyviita, 2022. "Substitution impacts of wood‐based textile fibers: Influence of market assumptions," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(4), pages 1564-1577, August.
    8. Ryan P. Thombs, 2018. "Has the relationship between non-fossil fuel energy sources and CO2 emissions changed over time? A cross-national study, 2000–2013," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 148(4), pages 481-490, June.
    9. Jared B. Fitzgerald & Daniel Auerbach, 2016. "The Political Economy of the Water Footprint: A Cross-National Analysis of Ecologically Unequal Exchange," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-16, December.
    10. Lilis Yuaningsih & R. Adjeng Mariana Febrianti & Hafiz Waqas Kamran, 2021. "Climate Change and Energy Consumption Patterns in Thailand: Time Trends During 1988-2013," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 11(1), pages 571-576.
    11. André Gaspar Ciepliski & Simone D'Alessandro & Tiziano Distefano & Pietro Guarnieri, 2020. "Coupling environmental transition and social prosperity: a scenario-analysis of the Italian case," Discussion Papers 2020/256, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    12. Li, Ding & Gao, Ming & Hou, Wenxuan & Song, Malin & Chen, Jiandong, 2020. "A modified and improved method to measure economy-wide carbon rebound effects based on the PDA-MMI approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    13. Mohd Afjal & Chinnadurai Kathiravan & Leo Paul Dana & Chitra Devi Nagarajan, 2023. "The Dynamic Impact of Financial Technology and Energy Consumption on Environmental Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-21, June.
    14. Sweidan, Osama D. & Alwaked, Ahmed A., 2016. "Economic development and the energy intensity of human well-being: Evidence from the GCC countries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 1363-1369.
    15. He, Jiaxin & Liu, Ying & Lin, Boqiang, 2018. "Should China support the development of biomass power generation?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 416-425.
    16. Mastini, Riccardo & Kallis, Giorgos & Hickel, Jason, 2021. "A Green New Deal without growth?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    17. Busch, Henner & Ruggiero, Salvatore & Isakovic, Aljosa & Hansen, Teis, 2021. "Policy challenges to community energy in the EU: A systematic review of the scientific literature," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    18. Adrian Muller & Eduardo Aguilera & Colin Skinner & Andreas Gattinger, 2016. "Does certified organic farming reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production? Comment on the McGee study," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 33(4), pages 943-947, December.
    19. Bentsen, Niclas Scott, 2017. "Carbon debt and payback time – Lost in the forest?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1211-1217.
    20. Sandra George O’Neil, 2021. "Community obstacles to large scale solar: NIMBY and renewables," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(1), pages 85-92, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    forest-based sector; climate change; greenhouse gas balance; harvested wood products; substitution; scenario analysis; policy instruments;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:jhtire:42. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vtigvde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.