1/7 Bioenergy for climate change mitigation overrated? Our paper suggests that sustainability threshold translate into much more limited bioenergy and BECCS potential.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12798#.YCuLYJT9rTk.twitter

@Peters_Glen @ecoguy

2/ IPCC scenarios for stabilizing temperatures at 1.5°C mostly rely on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage to compensate for remaining and overshooting GHG emissions - but this means relying on a lot of land: nearly 3 times the size of Germany in a "sustainable" scenario P2

3/7 The high reliance on BECCS conflicts with another IPCC assessment on land - showing that among 32 land-based options BECCS is the most unsustainable one

4/7 We evaluate sustainable BECCS potential of 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios: Out of 192 scenarios from the IAMC database, 172 (91%) are above the lower threshold suggested (0.5 GtCO2/yr), and 33% are above the higher sustainability threshold (5.0 GtCO2/yr).

5/7 Assuming a precautionary threshold of land to mitigate land pressure on biodiversity, even 97% of mitigation scenarios are above the threshold.

6/7 Underlying dangers of BECCS are dominated by biodiversity (we are already in midth of an anthropogenic irreversible mass extinction) and land take away from more than a billion smallholders and indigenous communities.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26189492 

7/7 so what?

- High proportion of mitigation scenarios possibly infeasible
- Models should reconsider BECCS addiction
- More emphasize on PV/wind/demand-side possible