The role of China&apos;s terrestrial carbon sequestration 2010–2060 in offsetting energy-related CO <sub>2</sub> emissions

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Energy consumption dominates annual CO ₂ emissions in China. It is essential to significantly reduce CO ₂ emissions from energy consumption to reach national carbon neutrality by 2060, while the role of terrestrial carbon sequestration in offsetting energy-related CO ₂ emissions cannot be underestimated. Natural climate solutions (NCS), including improvements in terrestrial carbon sequestration, represent readily deployable options to offset anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. However, the extent to which China's terrestrial carbon sequestration in the future, especially when target-oriented managements (TOMs) are implemented, can help to mitigate energy-related CO ₂ emissions is far from certain. By synthesizing available findings and using several parameter-sparse empirical models that have been calibrated and/or fitted against contemporary measurements, we assessed China's terrestrial carbon sequestration over 2010–2060 and its contribution to offsetting national energy-related CO ₂ emissions. We show that terrestrial C sequestration in China will increase from 0.375 ± 0.056 (mean ± standard deviation) Pg C yr ⁻¹ in the 2010s to 0.458 ± 0.100 Pg C yr ⁻¹ under RCP2.6 and 0.493 ± 0.108 Pg C yr ⁻¹ under the RCP4.5 scenario in the 2050s, when TOMs are implemented. The majority of carbon sequestration comes from forest, accounting for 67.8–71.4% of the total amount. China's terrestrial ecosystems can offset 12.2–15.0% and 13.4–17.8% of energy-related peak CO ₂ emissions in 2030 and 2060, respectively. The implementation of TOMs contributes 11.9% of the overall terrestrial carbon sequestration in the 2020s and 23.7% in the 2050s. The most likely strategy to maximize future NCS effectiveness is a full implementation of all applicable cost-effective NCS pathways in China. Our findings highlight the role of terrestrial carbon sequestration in offsetting energy-related CO ₂ emissions and put forward future needs in the context of carbon neutrality.

Abstract

China's terrestrial ecosystems could sequester carbon at the rates of 0.375 Pg C yr ⁻¹ in the 2010s and 0.458 ± 0.493 Pg C yr ⁻¹ in the 2050s. Target-oriented managements contribute 12–24% to the total carbon sequestration. China's terrestrial carbon sequestration in 2060 could offset 13–18% of energy-related peak CO ₂ emissions.

Related collections

Most cited references 101

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A large and persistent carbon sink in the world's forests.

Yude Pan, Richard A Birdsey, Jingyun Fang … (2011)

The terrestrial carbon sink has been large in recent decades, but its size and location remain uncertain. Using forest inventory data and long-term ecosystem carbon studies, we estimate a total forest sink of 2.4 ± 0.4 petagrams of carbon per year (Pg C year(-1)) globally for 1990 to 2007. We also estimate a source of 1.3 ± 0.7 Pg C year(-1) from tropical land-use change, consisting of a gross tropical deforestation emission of 2.9 ± 0.5 Pg C year(-1) partially compensated by a carbon sink in tropical forest regrowth of 1.6 ± 0.5 Pg C year(-1). Together, the fluxes comprise a net global forest sink of 1.1 ± 0.8 Pg C year(-1), with tropical estimates having the largest uncertainties. Our total forest sink estimate is equivalent in magnitude to the terrestrial sink deduced from fossil fuel emissions and land-use change sources minus ocean and atmospheric sinks.

0 comments Cited 829 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Natural climate solutions

Bronson W. Griscom, Justin Adams, Peter Ellis … (2017)

Significance Most nations recently agreed to hold global average temperature rise to well below 2 °C. We examine how much climate mitigation nature can contribute to this goal with a comprehensive analysis of “natural climate solutions” (NCS): 20 conservation, restoration, and/or improved land management actions that increase carbon storage and/or avoid greenhouse gas emissions across global forests, wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands. We show that NCS can provide over one-third of the cost-effective climate mitigation needed between now and 2030 to stabilize warming to below 2 °C. Alongside aggressive fossil fuel emissions reductions, NCS offer a powerful set of options for nations to deliver on the Paris Climate Agreement while improving soil productivity, cleaning our air and water, and maintaining biodiversity.

0 comments Cited 597 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Is Open Access

Global Carbon Budget 2020

Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew Jones … (2020)

Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2010–2019), EFOS was 9.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.6 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1. For the same decade, GATM was 5.1 ± 0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.4 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of −0.1 GtC yr−1 indicating a near balance between estimated sources and sinks over the last decade. For the year 2019 alone, the growth in EFOS was only about 0.1 % with fossil emissions increasing to 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.7 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.8 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.2 ± 3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2019, GATM was 5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.1 ± 1.2 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 409.85 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2019. Preliminary data for 2020, accounting for the COVID-19-induced changes in emissions, suggest a decrease in EFOS relative to 2019 of about −7 % (median estimate) based on individual estimates from four studies of −6 %, −7 %, −7 % (−3 % to −11 %), and −13 %. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2019, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from diverse approaches and observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent discrepancy between the different methods for the ocean sink outside the tropics, particularly in the Southern Ocean. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Friedlingstein et al., 2019; Le Quéré et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2020 (Friedlingstein et al., 2020).

0 comments Cited 544 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Yao Huang:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0192-1421

Wenjuan Sun

Zhangcai Qin:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9414-4854

Wen Zhang

Yongqiang Yu

Tingting Li

Qing Zhang

Guocheng Wang

Lingfei Yu

Yijie Wang

Fan Ding:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7938-1015

Ping Zhang

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Natl Sci Rev

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Natl Sci Rev

Journal ID (publisher-id): nsr

Title: National Science Review

Publisher: Oxford University Press

ISSN (Print): 2095-5138

ISSN (Electronic): 2053-714X

Publication date Collection: August 2022

Publication date (Electronic): 25 March 2022

Publication date PMC-release: 25 March 2022

Volume: 9

Issue: 8

Electronic Location Identifier: nwac057

Affiliations

State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences , Beijing 100093, China

State Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Boundary Layer Physics and Atmospheric Chemistry, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences , Beijing 100029, China

State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences , Beijing 100093, China

School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University , Guangzhou 510275, China

State Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Boundary Layer Physics and Atmospheric Chemistry, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences , Beijing 100029, China

State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences , Beijing 100093, China

College of Land and Environment, Shenyang Agricultural University , Shenyang 110866, China

College of New Energy and Environment, Jilin University , Changchun 130021, China

Author notes

Corresponding author. E-mail: huangyao@ 123456ibcas.ac.cn

Yao Huang and Wenjuan Sun are equally contributed to this work.

Author information

Yao Huang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0192-1421

Zhangcai Qin https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9414-4854

Fan Ding https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7938-1015

Article

Publisher ID: nwac057

DOI: 10.1093/nsr/nwac057

PMC ID: 9385465

PubMed ID: 35992243

SO-VID: 145bdec9-b211-4238-b1c8-8ce3ca6bfcc5

License:

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

History

Date received : 15 September 2021

Date revision received : 16 March 2022

Date accepted : 17 March 2022

Date: 30 May 2022

Page count

Pages: 14

Funding

Funded by: National Natural Science Foundation of China, DOI 10.13039/501100001809;