Suchergebnisse

Accounting for bioenergy's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, as done under the Kyoto Protocol (KP) and European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme, fails to capture the full extent of these emissions. As a consequence, other approaches have been suggested. Both the EU and United States already use value-chain approaches to determine emissions due to biofuels – an approach quite different from that of the KP. Further, both the EU and United States are engaged in consultation processes to determine how emissions connected with use of biomass for heat and power will be handled under regulatory systems. The United States is considering whether CO2 emissions from biomass should be handled like fossil fuels. In this context, this article reviews and evaluates the three basic bioenergy accounting options.* CO2 emissions from bioenergy are not counted at the point of combustion. Instead emissions due to use of biomass are accounted for in the land-use sector as carbon stock losses – a combustion factor (CoF) = 0 approach; * CO2 emissions from bioenergy are accounted for in the energy sector – a CoF = 1 approach; and * End users account for all or a specified subset of CO2 emissions, regardless of where geographically these emissions occur – 0 < CoF < 1. Following short descriptions of the basic options, this article discusses variations to these options and uses numerical examples to illustrate the impacts of approaches at a local and international level. Finally, the alternative accounting systems are evaluated against general criteria and for impacts on selected stakeholder goals. General criteria considered are: (a) comprehensiveness, (b) simplicity, and (c) scale independence. Stakeholder goals reviewed are: (a) stimulation of rural economies, (b) food security, (c) GHG reductions, and (d) preservation of forests.

Forests are sources of biomass that can be used to create forest-based bioenergy, whether directly by establishing energy plantations on non-forestland, by using existing forest resources or by using residues from harvesting for nonbioenergy purposes. If created in a sustainable manner, this bioenergy can have significant positive greenhouse gas benefits. However, past experience provides strong reason to believe that significant bioenergy development will come at the expense of natural forests, either through direct conversion of forests to non-forestland or through indirect competition between land uses. Bioenergy development may increase the demand for agricultural land, which may be sourced from tropical forests. In this case, the net carbon balance would be highly negative. This paper first reviews existing methods for carbon accounting for forest-based bioenergy development.The review examines methodologies from: 1. the IPCC Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (GPGLULUCF) and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006 IPCC Guidelines); and 2. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (EU Renewable Energy Directive).