Land‐based measures to mitigate climate change: Potential and feasibility by country – ScienceOpen
23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article
      1 , 2 , , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 5 , 9 , 15 , 16 , 2 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 2 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 16 , 22 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 8 , 18 , 1
      Global Change Biology
      John Wiley and Sons Inc.
      AFOLU, co‐benefits, demand management, feasibility, land management, land sector, mitigation, natural climate solutions, nature‐based solutions

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          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 2eq) land‐based mitigation is 8–13.8 GtCO 2eq yr −1 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 −1) 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.

          Abstract

          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). The likely range of cost‐effective (available up to $100/tCO2eq) land‐based mitigation potential is 8–13.8 GtCO2eq yr −1 between 2020 and 2050. Mitigation potential varies sixfold across the five regions assessed (0.75–4.8 GtCO2eq yr −1) and the top 15 countries account for about 60% of the global potential. Opportunities among countries vary widely depending on types of land‐based measures available, their potential co‐benefits and risks, and their feasibility.

          Related collections

          Most cited references159

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Natural climate solutions

            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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health.

              Diets link environmental and human health. Rising incomes and urbanization are driving a global dietary transition in which traditional diets are replaced by diets higher in refined sugars, refined fats, oils and meats. By 2050 these dietary trends, if unchecked, would be a major contributor to an estimated 80 per cent increase in global agricultural greenhouse gas emissions from food production and to global land clearing. Moreover, these dietary shifts are greatly increasing the incidence of type II diabetes, coronary heart disease and other chronic non-communicable diseases that lower global life expectancies. Alternative diets that offer substantial health benefits could, if widely adopted, reduce global agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, reduce land clearing and resultant species extinctions, and help prevent such diet-related chronic non-communicable diseases. The implementation of dietary solutions to the tightly linked diet-environment-health trilemma is a global challenge, and opportunity, of great environmental and public health importance.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                stephanieroe@virginia.edu
                Journal
                Glob Chang Biol
                Glob Chang Biol
                10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2486
                GCB
                Global Change Biology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1354-1013
                1365-2486
                11 October 2021
                December 2021
                : 27
                : 23 ( doiID: 10.1111/gcb.v27.23 )
                : 6025-6058
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Environmental Sciences University of Virginia Charlottesville Virginia USA
                [ 2 ] Climate Focus Berlin Germany
                [ 3 ] International Politics University of Potsdam Potsdam Germany
                [ 4 ] Environmental Engineering and Economics Division RTI International Research Triangle Park North Carolina USA
                [ 5 ] Conservation International Arlington Virginia USA
                [ 6 ] Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management University of California Berkeley Berkeley California USA
                [ 7 ] Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development Utrecht University Utrecht the Netherlands
                [ 8 ] PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency The Hague the Netherlands
                [ 9 ] International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Laxenburg Austria
                [ 10 ] New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre Palmerston North New Zealand
                [ 11 ] Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics University of Wisconsin‐Madison Madison Wisconsin USA
                [ 12 ] Project Drawdown San Francisco California USA
                [ 13 ] Land Use and Climate Knowledge Initiative Chicago Illinois USA
                [ 14 ] Joint Research Centre European Commission Ispra Italy
                [ 15 ] Department of Environmental Science Radboud University Nijmegen Nijmegen The Netherlands
                [ 16 ] Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association Potsdam Germany
                [ 17 ] College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences University of Exeter Exeter UK
                [ 18 ] Soil and Crop Science School of Integrative Plant Science College of Agriculture and Life Science Cornell University Ithaca New York USA
                [ 19 ] Sciences Po Paris Paris School of International Affairs (PSIA) Paris France
                [ 20 ] Wageningen Environmental Research Wageningen University and Research Wageningen the Netherlands
                [ 21 ] Forest Ecology and Forest Management Group Wageningen University Wageningen the Netherlands
                [ 22 ] Woodwell Climate Research Center Falmouth Massachusetts USA
                [ 23 ] Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics Ohio State University Columbus Ohio USA
                [ 24 ] Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences University of Aberdeen Aberdeen UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Stephanie Roe, University of Virginia, Department of Environmental Sciences, 291 McCormick Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA.

                Email: stephanieroe@ 123456virginia.edu

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3821-6435
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5105-5683
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8549-8546
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0918-4179
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1377-1539
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6028-352X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7943-4842
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6842-573X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6835-9883
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9084-7955
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2634-0743
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0650-0391
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8496-7213
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5551-5085
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7673-8509
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2927-9407
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8336-0121
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9561-1506
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4701-2936
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9761-074X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9500-1986
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3215-1706
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9094-160X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3784-1124
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3016-2679
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9344-9496
                Article
                GCB15873
                10.1111/gcb.15873
                9293189
                34636101
                811838b5-ee67-4ece-a1ce-e7404d33e4ed
                © 2021 The Authors. Global Change Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 16 August 2021
                : 12 December 2020
                : 19 August 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 10, Tables: 2, Pages: 34, Words: 24510
                Categories
                Invited Primary Research Article
                Invited Primary Research Article
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                December 2021
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.7 mode:remove_FC converted:18.07.2022

                afolu,co‐benefits,demand management,feasibility,land management,land sector,mitigation,natural climate solutions,nature‐based solutions

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content40

                Cited by67

                Most referenced authors2,070