Wood substitution potential in greenhouse gas emission reduction–review on current state and application of displacement factors
Tóm tắt
Replacing non-renewable materials and energy with wood offers a potential strategy to mitigate climate change if the net emissions of ecosystem and technosystem are reduced in a considered time period. Displacement factors (DFs) describe an emission reduction for a wood-based product or fuel which is used in place of a non-wood alternative. The aims of this review were to map and assess DFs from scientific literature and to provide findings on how to harmonise practices behind them and to support coherent application. Most of the reviewed DFs were positive, implying decreasing fossil GHG emissions in the technosystem. The vast majority of the reviewed DFs describe avoided fossil emissions either both in processing and use of wood or only in the latter when wood processing emissions were considered separately. Some of the reviewed DFs included emissions avoided in post-use of harvested wood products (HWPs). Changes in forest and product carbon stocks were not included in DFs except in a few single cases. However, in most of the reviewed studies they were considered separately in a consistent way along with DFs. DFs for wood energy, construction and material substitution were widely available, whereas DFs for packaging products, chemicals and textiles were scarce. More than half of DFs were calculated by the authors of the reviewed articles while the rest of them were adopted from other articles. Most of the reviewed DFs describe the avoided fossil GHG emissions. These DFs may provide insights on the wood-based products with a potential to replace emissions intensive alternatives but they do not reveal the actual climate change mitigation effects of wood use. The way DFs should be applied and interpreted depends on what has been included in them. If the aim of DFs is to describe the overall climate effects of wood use, DFs should include all the relevant GHG flows, including changes in forest and HWP carbon stock and post-use of HWPs, however, based on this literature review this is not a common practice. DFs including only fossil emissions should be applied together with a coherent assessment of changes in forest and HWP carbon stocks, as was the case in most of the reviewed studies. To increase robustness and transparency and to decrease misuse, we recommend that system boundaries and other assumptions behind DFs should be clearly documented.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Baul KT, Alam A, Ikonen A, Strandman H, Asikainen A, Peltola H, Kilpeläinen A (2017) Climate change mitigation potential in boreal forests: impacts of management, harvest intensity and use of forest biomass to substitute fossil resources. Forests 8(11):455. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8110455
Böttcher H, Freibauer A, Scholz Y, Gitz V, Ciais P, Mund M, Wutzler T, Schulze E-D (2012) Setting priorities for land management to mitigate climate change. Carbon Bal Manage 7(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-7-5
Buchanan AH, Levine SB (1999) Wood-based building materials and atmospheric carbon emissions. Environ Sci Pol 2(6):427–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462-9011(99)00038-6
Butarbutar T, Köhl M, Neupane PR (2016) Harvested wood products and REDD+: looking beyond the forest border. Carbon Bal Manage 11(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-016-0046-9
Caurla S, Bertrand V, Delacote P, Le Cadre E (2018) Heat or power: how to increase the use of energy wood at the lowest cost? Energ Econ 75:85–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.08.011
Chen J, Colombo SJ, Ter-Mikaelian MT, Heath LS (2014) Carbon profile of the managed forest sector in Canada in the 20th century: sink or source? Environ Sci Technol 48(16):9859–9866. https://doi.org/10.1021/es5005957
Chen J, Ter-Mikaelian MT, Yang H, Colombo SJ (2018) Assessing the greenhouse gas effects of harvested wood products manufactured from managed forests in Canada. Forestry 91(2):193–205. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpx056
Chung J, Han H, Kwon K, Seol A (2013) Development of a carbon budget assessment model for woody biomass processing and conversion. Centre for Climate Change forestry research paper, Korea Forest Service, Republic of Korea
Cintas O, Berndes G, Cowie AL, Egnell G, Holmström H, Ågren GI (2016) The climate effect of increased forest bioenergy use in Sweden: evaluation at different spatial and temporal scales. WIREs Energy Environ 5(3):351–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.178
Dornburg V, Faaij APC (2005) Cost and CO2-emission reduction of biomass cascading: methodological aspects and case study of SRF poplar. Clim Chang 71(3):373–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-005-5934-z
Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2001) Allocation in ISO 14041—a critical review. J Clean Prod 9(3):197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(00)00052-4
European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2012) Sustainability of construction works, environmental product declarations, core rules for the product category of construction products. EN 15804:2012
FBCA (2009a) Declaration environnementale et sanitaire conforme à la norme NF P01–010. Charpente bois traditionelle (chêne et re résineux). FCBA Institut technologique, Paris
FBCA (2009b) Declaration environnementale et sanitaire conforme à la norme NF P01–010. Panneau MDF (Medium Density Fiber) Standard Mélaminé ou Panneau de fibres melamine standard obtenues par voie séche pour u’tilisation en milieu humide épaisseurs 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25. FCBA institute technologique, Paris
Fortin M, Ningre F, Robert N, Mothe F (2012) Quantifying the impact of forest management on the carbon balance of the forest-wood product chain: a case study applied to even-aged oak stands in France. Forest Ecol Manag 279:176–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.05.031
Geng A, Ning Z, Zhang H, Yang H (2019) Quantifying the climate change mitigation potential of China’s furniture sector: wood substitution benefits on emission reduction. Ecol Indic 103:363–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.04.036
Geng A, Yang H, Chen J, Hong Y (2017a) Review of carbon storage function of harvested wood products and the potential of wood substitution in greenhouse gas mitigation. Forest Policy Econ 85:192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.08.007
Geng A, Zhang H, Yang H (2017b) Greenhouse gas reduction and cost efficiency of using wood flooring as an alternative to ceramic tile: a case study in China. J Clean Prod 166:438–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.058
Global Viscose Market Outlook (2018) https://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/b5zstv/global_viscose?w=4. Accessed 15 Oct 2020
Hagemann N, Gawel E, Purkus A, Pannicke N, Hauck J (2016) Possible futures towards a wood-based bioeconomy: a scenario analysis for Germany. Sustainability 8(1):98. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010098
Han H, Chung W, Chung J (2016) Carbon balance of forest stands, wood products and their utilization in South Korea. J Forest Res 21(5):199–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10310-016-0529-2
Härtl FH, Höllerl S, Knoke T (2017) A new way of carbon accounting emphasises the crucial role of sustainable timber use for successful carbon mitigation strategies. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 22(8):1163–1192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-016-9720-1
Helin T, Sokka L, Soimakallio S, Pingoud K, Pajula T (2013) Approaches for inclusion of forest carbon cycle in life cycle assessment–a review. GCB Bioenergy 5(5):475–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12016
Hischier R (2007) Life cycle inventories of packaging and graphical papers. Ecoinvent-report no. 11. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf
Hurmekoski E, Myllyviita T, Seppälä J, Heinonen T, Kilpeläinen A, Pukkala T, Mattila T, Hetemäki L, Asikainen A, Peltola H (2020) Impact of structural changes in wood-using industries on net carbon emissions in Finland. J Ind Ecol 24(4):899–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12981
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2017) Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works Core rules for environmental product declarations of construction products and services. ISO 21930:2017
Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry (2014) MiLCA. Tokyo
Ji C, Cao W, Chen Y, Yang H (2016) Carbon balance and contribution of harvested wood products in China based on the production approach of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13(11):1132. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13111132
Kalt G, Baumann M, Höher M (2015) Simulating the transformation to a low-carbon bioeconomy with an integrated model of the energy system and the forest sector. Austrian Energy Agency, Wien
Kayo C, Hashimoto S, Numata A, Hamada M (2011) Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by using wood to protect against soil liquefaction. J Wood Sci 57(3):234–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-010-1167-5
Kayo C, Tsunetsugu Y, Tonosaki M (2015) Climate change mitigation effect of harvested wood products in regions of Japan. Carbon Bal Manage 10(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-015-0036-3
Keith H, Lindenmayer D, Macintosh A, Mackey B (2015) Under what circumstances do wood products from native forests benefit climate change mitigation? PLoS One 10(10):e0139640. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139640
Knauf M (2016) The wood market balance as a tool for calculating wood use's climate change mitigation effect — an example for Germany. Forest Policy Econ 66:18–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.02.004
Knauf M, Joosten R, Frühwald A (2016) Assessing fossil fuel substitution through wood use based on long-term simulations. Carbon Manag 7(1-2):67–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2016.1166427
Knauf M, Köhl M, Mues V, Olschofsky K, Frühwald A (2015) Modeling the CO2-effects of forest management and wood usage on a regional basis. Carbon Bal Manage 10(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-015-0024-7
Köhl M, Ehrhart H-P, Knauf M, Neupane PR (2020) A viable indicator approach for assessing sustainable forest management in terms of carbon emissions and removals. Ecol Indic 111:106057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.106057
Koponen K, Soimakallio S, Kline KL, Cowie A, Brandão M (2018) Quantifying the climate effects of bioenergy–choice of reference system. Renew Sust Energ Rev 81:2271–2280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.292
Koskela S, Dahlbo H, Judl J, Korhonen M-R, Niininen M (2014) Reusable plastic crate or recyclable cardboard box? A comparison of two delivery systems. J Clean Prod 69:83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.045
Le Quéré C, Andrew RM, Friedlingstein P, Sitch S, Hauck J, Pongratz J, Pickers PA, Korsbakken JI, Peters GP, Canadell JG, Arneth A, Arora VK, Barbero L, Bastos A, Bopp L, Chevallier F, Chini LP, Ciais P, Doney SC, Gkritzalis T, Goll DS, Harris I, Haverd V, Hoffman FM, Hoppema M, Houghton RA, Hurtt G, Ilyina T, Jain AK, Johannessen T, Jones CD, Kato E, Keeling RF, Goldewijk KK, Landschützer P, Lefèvre N, Lienert S, Liu Z, Lombardozzi D, Metzl N, Munro DR, Nabel JEMS, Nakaoka S, Neill C, Olsen A, Ono T, Patra P, Peregon A, Peters W, Peylin P, Pfeil B, Pierrot D, Poulter B, Rehder G, Resplandy L, Robertson E, Rocher M, Rödenbeck C, Schuster U, Schwinger J, Séférian R, Skjelvan I, Steinhoff T, Sutton A, Tans PP, Tian H, Tilbrook B, Tubiello FN, van der Laan-Luijkx IT, van der Werf GR, Viovy N, Walker AP, Wiltshire AJ, Wright R, Zaehle S, Zheng B (2018) Global carbon budget 2018. Earth Syst Sci Data 10(4):2141–2194. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018
Leskinen P, Cardellini G, González-García S, Hurmekoski E, Sathre R, Seppälä J, Smyth C, Stern T, Verkerk PJ (2018) Substitution effects of wood-based products in climate change mitigation. From science to policy 7. European Forest Institute
Lobianco A, Caurla S, Delacote P, Barkaoui A (2016) Carbon mitigation potential of the French forest sector under threat of combined physical and market impacts due to climate change. J Forest Econ 23:4–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2015.12.003
Macintosh A, Keith H, Lindenmayer D (2015) Rethinking forest carbon assessments to account for policy institutions. Nat Clim Chang 5(10):946–949. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2695
Matsumoto M, Oka H, Mitsuda Y, Hashimoto S, Kayo C, Tsunetsugu Y, Tonosaki M (2016) Potential contributions of forestry and wood use to climate change mitigation in Japan. J Forest Res 21(5):211–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10310-016-0527-4
Nepal P, Skog KE, McKeever DB, Bergman RD, Abt KL, Abt RC (2016) Carbon mitigation impacts of increased softwood lumber and structural panel use for non-residential construction in the United States. Forest Prod J 66(1-2):77–87. https://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D-15-00019
Noda R, Kayo C, Yamanouchi M, Shibata N (2016) Life cycle greenhouse gas emission of wooden guardrails—a study in Nagano prefecture. J Wood Sci 62(2):181–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-015-1530-7
Norwegian Institute of Wood Technology (2015) Wood Energy Management in the European Sawmill Industry Thünen Institute and Innova. http://www.ecoinflow.com/portals/0/pror_final_26_06_final-compressed_web.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2020
Olguin M, Wayson C, Fellows M, Birdsey R, Smyth CE, Magnan M, Dugan AJ, Mascorro VS, Alanís A, Serrano E, Kurz WA (2018) Applying a systems approach to assess carbon emission reductions from climate change mitigation in Mexico’s forest sector. Environ Res Lett 13(3):035003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaaa03
Petersen AK, Solberg B (2005) Environmental and economic impacts of substitution between wood products and alternative materials: a review of micro-level analyses from Norway and Sweden. Forest Policy Econ 7(3):249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00063-7
Puettmann ME, Wilson JB (2005) Life-cycle analysis of wood products: cradle-to-gate LCI of residential wood building materials. Wood Fiber Sci 37:18–29
Pukkala T (2014) Does biofuel harvesting and continuous cover management increase carbon sequestration? Forest Policy Econ 43:41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.03.004
Rock J, Bolte A (2011) Auswirkungen der Waldbewirtschaftung 2002 bis 2008 auf die CO2-Bilanz. AFZ-Der Wald 15:22–24
Ruter S (2011) Welchen Beitrag leisten Holzprodukte zur CO2-Bilanz? AFZ-Der Wald 15:15–18
Rüter S, Werner F, Forsell N, Prins C, Via E, Levet A-L (2016) ClimWood 2030, climate benefits of material substitution by forest biomass and harvested wood products: perspective 2030 – final report. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig, p 142
Sandanayake M, Lokuge W, Zhang G, Setunge S, Thushar Q (2018) Greenhouse gas emissions during timber and concrete building construction—a scenario based comparative case study. Sustain Cities Soc 38:91–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.12.017
Sathre R, O’Connor J (2010) Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution. Environ Sci Pol 13(2):104–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.12.005
Schlamadinger B, Edwards R, Byrne KA, Cowie A, Faaij A, Green C, Fijan-Parlov S, Gustavsson L, Hatton T, Heding N, Kwant K (2005) Optimizing the greenhouse gas benefits of bioenergy systems. Proceedings of the 14th European Biomass Conference. Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection, 2029–2032 14th European biomass conference, 17–21 October 2005, Paris, France, pp 17–21
Schweinle J, Köthke M, Englert H, Dieter M (2018) Simulation of forest-based carbon balances for Germany: a contribution to the ‘carbon debt’ debate. WIREs Energy Environ 7(1):e260. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.260
Seppälä J, Heinonen T, Pukkala T, Kilpeläinen A, Mattila T, Myllyviita T, Asikainen A, Peltola H (2019) Effect of increased wood harvesting and utilization on required greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood-based products and fuels. J Environ Manag 247:580–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.031
Smyth C, Kurz WA, Rampley G, Lemprière TC, Schwab O (2017b) Climate change mitigation potential of local use of harvest residues for bioenergy in Canada. GCB Bioenergy 9(4):817–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12387
Smyth C, Rampley G, Lemprière TC, Schwab O, Kurz WA (2017a) Estimating product and energy substitution benefits in national-scale mitigation analyses for Canada. GCB Bioenergy 9(6):1071–1084. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12389
Smyth CE, Rampley GJ, Lemprière TC, Schwab O, Kurz WA (2016) Estimating product and energy substitution benefits in national-scale mitigation analyses for Canada. GCB Bioenergy 9:1071–1084
Smyth CE, Smiley BP, Magnan M, Birdsey R, Dugan AJ, Olguin M, Mascorro VS, Kurz WA (2018) Climate change mitigation in Canada’s forest sector: a spatially explicit case study for two regions. Carbon Bal Manage 13(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-018-0099-z
Smyth CE, Stinson G, Neilson E, Lemprière TC, Hafer M, Rampley GJ, Kurz WA (2014) Quantifying the biophysical climate change mitigation potential of Canada’s forest sector. Biogeosciences 11(13):3515–3529. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-3515-2014
Soimakallio S, Mäkinen T, Ekholm T, Pahkala K, Mikkola H, Paappanen T (2009) Greenhouse gas balances of transportation biofuels, electricity and heat generation in Finland—dealing with the uncertainties. Energy Policy 3:80–90
Soimakallio S, Saikku L, Valsta L, Pingoud K (2016) Climate change mitigation challenge for wood utilization-the case of Finland. Environ Sci Technol 50(10):5127–5134. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00122
Sommerhuber PF, Wenker JL, Rüter S, Krause A (2017) Life cycle assessment of wood-plastic composites: analysing alternative materials and identifying an environmental sound end-of-life option. Resour Conserv Recy 117:235–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.10.012
Sun M, Wang Y, Shi L, Klemeš JJ (2018) Uncovering energy use, carbon emissions and environmental burdens of pulp and paper industry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Renew Sust Energ Rev 92:823–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.036
Suter F, Steubing B, Hellweg S (2017) Life cycle impacts and benefits of wood along the value chain: the case of Switzerland. J Ind Ecol 21(4):874–886. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12486
Taeroe A, Mustapha WF, Stupak I, Raulund-Rasmussen K (2017) Do forests best mitigate CO2 emissions to the atmosphere by setting them aside for maximization of carbon storage or by management for fossil fuel substitution? J Environ Manag 197:117–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.051
The circular economy - a powerful force for climate mitigation (2018) Material Economics Sverige AB. https://www.sitra.fi/en/publications/circular-economy-powerful-force-climate-mitigation/. Accessed 15 Oct 2020
Werner F, Taverna R, Hofer P, Thürig E, Kaufmann E (2010) National and global greenhouse gas dynamics of different forest management and wood use scenarios: a model-based assessment. Environ Sci Pol 13(1):72–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.10.004
Xu Z, Smyth CE, Lemprière TC, Rampley GJ, Kurz WA (2018) Climate change mitigation strategies in the forest sector: biophysical impacts and economic implications in British Columbia, Canada. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 23(2):257–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-016-9735-7