Suchergebnisse

Bioenergy deployment offers significant potential for climate change mitigation, but also carries considerable risks. In this review, we bring together perspectives of various communities involved in the research and regulation of bioenergy deployment in the context of climate change mitigation: Land-use and energy experts, landuse and integrated assessment modelers, human geographers, ecosystem researchers, climate scientists and two different strands of life-cycle assessment experts. We summarize technological options, outline the state-of-theart knowledge on various climate effects, provide an update on estimates of technical resource potential and comprehensively identify sustainability effects. Cellulosic feedstocks, increased end-use efficiency, improved land carbon-stock management and residue use, and, when fully developed, BECCS appear as the most promising options, depending on development costs, implementation, learning, and risk management. Combined heat and power, efficient biomass cookstoves and small-scale power generation for rural areas can help to promote energy access and sustainable development, along with reduced emissions. We estimate the sustainable technical potential as up to 100 EJ: high agreement; 100–300 EJ: medium agreement; above 300 EJ: low agreement. Stabilization scenarios indicate that bioenergy may supply from 10 to 245 EJ yr 1 to global primary energy supply by 2050. Models indicate that, if technological and governance preconditions are met, large-scale deployment (>200 EJ), together with BECCS, could help to keep global warming below 2° degrees of preindustrial levels; but such high deployment of land-intensive bioenergy feedstocks could also lead to detrimental climate effects, negatively impact ecosystems, biodiversity and livelihoods. The integration of bioenergy systems into agriculture and forest landscapes can improve land and water use efficiency and help address concerns about environmental impacts. We conclude that the high variability in pathways, uncertainties in technological development and ambiguity in political decision render forecasts on deployment levels and climate effects very difficult. However, uncertainty about projections should not preclude pursuing beneficial bioenergy options. ; publishedVersion ; © 2015. This is the authors' accepted and refereed manuscript to the article. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ DOI:10.1111/gcbb.12205

Intro -- Foreword -- Preface -- Prologue -- Contents -- About the Editors -- Contributors -- Part I: Climate Change: Introduction, Models, Scenarios, Impact, and Scientific Evidence -- 1 Introduction to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation -- Introduction -- Climate Change -- Most Recent IPCC Updates -- The Greenhouse Effect -- Anthropogenic Climate Change -- Effects of Climate Change -- Impact of Climate Change Mitigation Actions -- Climate Change Adaptation Versus Climate Change Mitigation -- Climate Change and the Public -- What´s Next? -- Motivation -- Why This Book Is Needed -- Audience of the Handbook -- Scope -- References -- 2 Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases Emissions in Terrestrial Ecosystems -- Introduction: Global Climate Change and Soil Greenhouse Gases Emissions -- Soil Greenhouse Gases Emissions -- Soil CO2 Emission -- Soil CH4 Emission -- Soil N2O Emission -- Measurement Methods of Soil Greenhouse Gases Emissions -- Soil Chamber Methods -- Closed Static Chamber -- Closed Dynamic Chamber -- Open Dynamic Chamber -- Micrometeorological Methods - Eddy Covariance Technique -- Advantages and Disadvantages of the Measurement Methods -- Research Approaches of Global Climate Change and Soil Greenhouse Gases Emissions: Laboratory Incubation, Field Experiment, Met... -- Laboratory Incubation -- Field Experiment -- Meta-Analysis -- Biogeochemical and Ecosystem Modeling -- The DNDC Model -- Dynamic Land Ecosystem Model (DLEM) -- Impacts of Global Climate Change on Soil Greenhouse Gases Emissions: Case Studies -- Laboratory Incubation and Field Experiment -- Laboratory Incubation -- Field Experiment -- Meta-Analysis -- Biogeochemical and Ecosystem Modeling -- Site and Stand Levels -- Regional and Global Scales -- Closing Remarks and Future Research -- Cross-References -- References.

Intro -- Preface -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- Glossary -- Chapter 1: Introduction -- References -- Chapter 2: Salt Marshes -- 2.1 Dynamics of Soil Accretion and Carbon Accumulation -- 2.2 Soil Accretion and Carbon Sequestration -- 2.2.1 Methodological Advantages and Limitations -- 2.2.2 Carbon Sequestration Rates -- 2.3 Soil Carbon Stocks -- 2.4 Potential Losses of Carbon -- References -- Chapter 3: Mangrove Forests -- 3.1 Capturing and Accumulating Sediment and Carbon -- 3.1.1 Mechanisms of Capture -- 3.1.2 Rates of Soil Accretion and Carbon Sequestration -- 3.2 Carbon Sequestration Rates -- 3.3 Carbon Stocks -- 3.4 Potential Losses -- References -- Chapter 4: Seagrass Meadows -- 4.1 Fluid Dynamics: The Mechanism for Sediment and Carbon Accumulation -- 4.2 Carbon Sequestration -- 4.3 Carbon Stocks -- 4.4 Potential Losses -- References -- Chapter 5: Kelp Forests -- 5.1 Do Kelp Forests Sequester and Store Blue Carbon? -- 5.2 Kelp Carbon and Climate Change -- References -- Chapter 6: The Blue Economy: Mitigation and Adaptation -- 6.1 Ecological Economics -- 6.1.1 Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) -- 6.1.2 Regulatory and Policy Matters -- 6.2 Restoration and Management -- 6.2.1 Success or Failure: What Does and Doesn´t Work -- 6.3 Financing -- 6.3.1 UNFCCC-Related and Other Finance Mechanisms -- 6.3.2 The Voluntary Carbon Market -- 6.3.3 Investment Risk -- 6.3.4 Policy and Commodification -- References -- Chapter 7: Summary and Conclusions -- References.

Global institutions and national governments have failed to provide effective policy guidance or leadership on tackling climate change. The extraction and combustion of fossil fuels continues apace, resulting in continual rising of greenhouse gas emissions, which pose a threat to all life on earth. However, the global climate regime continues to underestimate the need for immediate, radical and powerful action. Dominant framings of the problem continue to emphasise behaviour change rather than system change, and fail to challenge the power of fossil-fuel capital. This failure makes it difficult to be optimistic about the future but there may be hope in a new kind of politics based on non-violent direct action and mass civil disobedience. This form of action is directed at delegitimising fossil fuels and stopping their extraction, and acting as a 'radical flank' in positively influencing political decision-making towards a democratically agreed just transition.

Cities worldwide have taken the lead in addressing climate change; however, this does not tell the full story in understanding the puzzle of local climate action. Rather than in isolation, city actions occur in the context of a complex of other government arrangements. Whereas the majority of the literature concerning subnational responses to climate change in the US is addressed in the literatures of federalism and diffusion, we offer an explanation of climate actions through a multilevel governance approach. Multilevel governance allows us to consider the horizontal city-to-city influences on climate action while also considering the vertical influences of state-to-local action. We conduct a large quantitative study of climate actions in all US cities with populations greater than 50,000 people. We find that cities' and states' climate action efforts are complementary, rather than attenuating; however, we note that horizontal influences are generally stronger than vertical influences in motivating climate action at the local level. We conclude that, in spite of the potential for an increased role of federal and state governments in climate action in the United States, city-to-city networks are likely to remain important in motivating cities to mitigate climate change.