4.7 Article

Attributing land-use change carbon emissions to exported biomass

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW
卷 37, 期 -, 页码 47-54

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.03.006

关键词

Deforestation; Carbon emissions; Leakage; Trade; Land-use change

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a simple, transparent and robust method is developed in which land-use change (LUC) emissions are retrospectively attributed to exported biomass products based on the agricultural area occupied for the production. LUC emissions account for approximately one-fifth of current greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing agricultural exports are becoming an important driver of deforestation. Brazil and Indonesia are used as case studies due to their significant deforestation in recent years. According to our study, in 2007, approximately 32% and 15% of the total agricultural land harvested and LUC emissions in Brazil and Indonesia respectively were due to exports. The most important exported single items with regard to deforestation were palm oil for Indonesia and bovine meat for Brazil. To reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions effectively worldwide, leakage of emissions should be avoided. This can be done, for example, by attributing embodied LUC emissions to exported biomass products. With the approach developed in this study, controversial attribution between direct and indirect LUC and amortization of emissions over the product life cycle can be overcome, as the method operates on an average basis and annual level. The approach could be considered in the context of the UNFCCC climate policy instead of, or alongside with, other instruments aimed at reducing deforestation. However, the quality of the data should be improved and some methodological issues, such as the allocation procedure in multiproduct systems and the possible dilution effect through third parties not committed to emission reduction targets, should be considered. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据