Land‐based measures to mitigate climate change: Potential and feasibility by country

  • Stephanie Roe
    Department of Environmental Sciences University of Virginia Charlottesville Virginia USA
  • Charlotte Streck
    Climate Focus Berlin Germany
  • Robert Beach
    Environmental Engineering and Economics Division RTI International Research Triangle Park North Carolina USA
  • Jonah Busch
    Conservation International Arlington Virginia USA
  • Melissa Chapman
    Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management University of California Berkeley Berkeley California USA
  • Vassilis Daioglou
    Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development Utrecht University Utrecht the Netherlands
  • Andre Deppermann
    International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Laxenburg Austria
  • Jonathan Doelman
    PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency The Hague the Netherlands
  • Jeremy Emmet‐Booth
    New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre Palmerston North New Zealand
  • Jens Engelmann
    Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics University of Wisconsin‐Madison Madison Wisconsin USA
  • Oliver Fricko
    International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Laxenburg Austria
  • Chad Frischmann
    Project Drawdown San Francisco California USA
  • Jason Funk
    Land Use and Climate Knowledge Initiative Chicago Illinois USA
  • Giacomo Grassi
    Joint Research Centre European Commission Ispra Italy
  • Bronson Griscom
    Conservation International Arlington Virginia USA
  • Petr Havlik
    International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Laxenburg Austria
  • Steef Hanssen
    Department of Environmental Science Radboud University Nijmegen Nijmegen The Netherlands
  • Florian Humpenöder
    Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association Potsdam Germany
  • David Landholm
    Climate Focus Berlin Germany
  • Guy Lomax
    College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences University of Exeter Exeter UK
  • Johannes Lehmann
    Soil and Crop Science School of Integrative Plant Science College of Agriculture and Life Science Cornell University Ithaca New York USA
  • Leah Mesnildrey
    Climate Focus Berlin Germany
  • Gert‐Jan Nabuurs
    Wageningen Environmental Research Wageningen University and Research Wageningen the Netherlands
  • Alexander Popp
    Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association Potsdam Germany
  • Charlotte Rivard
    Woodwell Climate Research Center Falmouth Massachusetts USA
  • Jonathan Sanderman
    Woodwell Climate Research Center Falmouth Massachusetts USA
  • Brent Sohngen
    Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics Ohio State University Columbus Ohio USA
  • Pete Smith
    Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences University of Aberdeen Aberdeen UK
  • Elke Stehfest
    PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency The Hague the Netherlands
  • Dominic Woolf
    Soil and Crop Science School of Integrative Plant Science College of Agriculture and Life Science Cornell University Ithaca New York USA
  • Deborah Lawrence
    Department of Environmental Sciences University of Virginia Charlottesville Virginia USA

抄録

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Land‐based climate mitigation measures have gained significant attention and importance in public and private sector climate policies. Building on previous studies, we refine and update the mitigation potentials for 20 land‐based measures in >200 countries and five regions, comparing “bottom‐up” sectoral estimates with integrated assessment models (IAMs). We also assess implementation feasibility at the country level. Cost‐effective (available up to $100/tCO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>eq) land‐based mitigation is 8–13.8 GtCO<jats:sub>2</jats:sub>eq yr<jats:sup>−1</jats:sup> between 2020 and 2050, with the bottom end of this range representing the IAM median and the upper end representing the sectoral estimate. The cost‐effective sectoral estimate is about 40% of available technical potential and is in line with achieving a 1.5°C pathway in 2050. Compared to technical potentials, cost‐effective estimates represent a more realistic and actionable target for policy. The cost‐effective potential is approximately 50% from forests and other ecosystems, 35% from agriculture, and 15% from demand‐side measures. The potential varies sixfold across the five regions assessed (0.75–4.8 GtCO2eq yr<jats:sup>−1</jats:sup>) and the top 15 countries account for about 60% of the global potential. Protection of forests and other ecosystems and demand‐side measures present particularly high mitigation efficiency, high provision of co‐benefits, and relatively lower costs. The feasibility assessment suggests that governance, economic investment, and socio‐cultural conditions influence the likelihood that land‐based mitigation potentials are realized. A substantial portion of potential (80%) is in developing countries and LDCs, where feasibility barriers are of greatest concern. Assisting countries to overcome barriers may result in significant quantities of near‐term, low‐cost mitigation while locally achieving important climate adaptation and development benefits. Opportunities among countries vary widely depending on types of land‐based measures available, their potential co‐benefits and risks, and their feasibility. Enhanced investments and country‐specific plans that accommodate this complexity are urgently needed to realize the large global potential from improved land stewardship.</jats:p>

収録刊行物

被引用文献 (2)*注記

もっと見る

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ