Many future energy and emission scenarios envisage an increase of bioenergy in the global primary energy mix1,2,3,4. In most climate impact assessment models and policies, bioenergy systems are assumed to be carbon neutral, thus ignoring the time lag between CO2 emissions from biomass combustion and CO2 uptake by vegetation5. Here, we show that the temperature peak caused by CO2 emissions from bioenergy is proportional to the maximum rate at which emissions occur and is almost insensitive to cumulative emissions. Whereas the carbon–climate response (CCR; ref. 6) to fossil fuel emissions is approximately constant, the CCR to bioenergy emissions depends on time, biomass turnover times, and emission scenarios. The linearity between temperature peak and bioenergy CO2 emission rates resembles the characteristic of the temperature response to short-lived climate forcers. As for the latter7,8,9, the timing of CO2 emissions from bioenergy matters. Under the international agreement to limit global warming to 2 °C by 21003, early emissions from bioenergy thus have smaller contributions on the targeted temperature than emissions postponed later into the future, especially when bioenergy is sourced from biomass with medium (50–60 years) or long turnover times (100 years).
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $17.75 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Vuuren, D. et al. RCP2.6: Exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2 °C. Climatic Change 109, 95–116 (2011).
Thomson, A. et al. RCP4.5: A pathway for stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100. Climatic Change 109, 77–94 (2011).
Rogelj, J. et al. Emission pathways consistent with a 2 °C global temperature limit. Nature Clim. Change 1, 413–418 (2011).
Riahi, K. et al. RCP 8.5—A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions. Climatic Change 109, 33–57 (2011).
Bernier, P. & Paré, D. Using ecosystem CO2 measurements to estimate the timing and magnitude of greenhouse gas mitigation potential of forest bioenergy. GCB Bioenergy 5, 67–72 (2013).
Matthews, H. D., Gillett, N. P., Stott, P. A. & Zickfeld, K. The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature 459, 829–832 (2009).
Bowerman, N. H. A. et al. The role of short-lived climate pollutants in meeting temperature goals. Nature Clim. Change 3, 1021–1024 (2013).
Smith, S. M. et al. Equivalence of greenhouse-gas emissions for peak temperature limits. Nature Clim. Change 2, 535–538 (2012).
Shine, K. P., Berntsen, T. K., Fuglestvedt, J. S., Skeie, R. B. & Stuber, N. Comparing the climate effect of emissions of short- and long-lived climate agents. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 365, 1903–1914 (2007).
Melillo, J. M. et al. Indirect emissions from biofuels: How important? Science 326, 1397–1399 (2009).
EPA Deferral for CO 2 Emissions From Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Programs Vol. 76 (EPA, 2011).
Myhre, G. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) Ch. 8 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Cherubini, F., Bright, R. M. & Strømman, A. H. Global climate impacts of forest bioenergy: What, when and how to measure? Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 014049 (2013).
Eby, M. et al. Lifetime of anthropogenic climate change: Millennial time scales of potential CO2 and surface temperature perturbations. J. Clim. 22, 2501–2511 (2009).
Joos, F. et al. Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: A multi-model analysis. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 2793–2825 (2013).
Allen, M. R. et al. Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature 458, 1163–1166 (2009).
Bright, R. M. et al. A comment to “Large-scale bioenergy from additional harvest of forest biomass is neither sustainable nor greenhouse gas neutral”: Important insights beyond greenhouse gas accounting. GCB Bioenergy 4, 617–619 (2012).
Stocker, T. F. The closing door of climate targets. Science 339, 280–282 (2013).
Zickfeld, K., Eby, M., Matthews, H. D. & Weaver, A. J. Setting cumulative emissions targets to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 16129–16134 (2009).
Shindell, D. et al. Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security. Science 335, 183–189 (2012).
Ciais, P. et al. Attributing the increase in atmospheric CO2 to emitters and absorbers. Nature Clim. Change 3, 926–930 (2013).
Gillett, N. P., Arora, V. K., Matthews, D. & Allen, M. R. Constraining the ratio of global warming to cumulative CO2 emissions using CMIP5 simulations*. J. Clim. 26, 6844–6858 (2013).
Shine, K., Fuglestvedt, J., Hailemariam, K. & Stuber, N. Alternatives to the global warming potential for comparing climate impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases. Climatic Change 68, 281–302 (2005).
Ciais, P. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) Ch. 6 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Friedlingstein, P. et al. Long-term climate implications of twenty-first century options for carbon dioxide emission mitigation. Nature Clim. Change 1, 457–461 (2011).
Hallgren, W. et al. Climate impacts of a large-scale biofuels expansion. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 1624–1630 (2013).
Field, C. B., Campbell, J. E. & Lobell, D. B. Biomass energy: The scale of the potential resource. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 65–72 (2008).
Gonçalves, J. L. M. et al. Soil fertility and growth of Eucalyptus grandis in Brazil under different residue management practices. Southern Hemisphere Forest. J. 69, 95–102 (2007).
Amiro, B. D. et al. Ecosystem carbon dioxide fluxes after disturbance in forests of North America. J. Geophys. Res. 115, G00K02 (2010).
Magnani, F. et al. The human footprint in the carbon cycle of temperate and boreal forests. Nature 447, 849–851 (2007).
F.C., R.M.B. and A.H.S. acknowledge support from the projects CENBIO, CLIMPOL and ECOSERVICE, funded by the Norwegian Research Council. P.C. acknowledges support from the ERC-SYG grant P-IMBALANCE.
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
About this article
Cite this article
Cherubini, F., Gasser, T., Bright, R. et al. Linearity between temperature peak and bioenergy CO2 emission rates. Nature Clim Change 4, 983–987 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2399
A vision on biomass-to-liquids (BTL) thermochemical routes in integrated sugarcane biorefineries for biojet fuel production
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2020)
Quantifying the probability distribution function of the transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions
Environmental Research Letters (2020)
Tracking Construction Material over Space and Time: Prospective and Geo‐referenced Modeling of Building Stocks and Construction Material Flows
Journal of Industrial Ecology (2019)
Biomass and Bioenergy (2019)
SSRN Electronic Journal (2018)