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
-
- Global Change Biology
-
Global Change Biology 27 (23), 6025-6058, 2021-10-11
Wiley