RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Imposing policy constraints on biomass supply may not avoid initial net carbon emissions from forest bioenergy, but economic factors can drive long-term climate benefits, according to a market-based economic model that explores 51 pathways of forest bioenergy demandThere is considerable concern that consuming forest biomass for energy will increase net carbon emissions from forests, which is defined as carbon debt. Using a market-based economic model, we test the effects of 51 demand pathways for forest bioenergy on future forest carbon stocks to assess the likelihood of incurring a sustained carbon debt lasting for several decades. We show that potential forest carbon debt from bioenergy expansion, measured as a near-term decrease in forest carbon sequestration relative to a baseline, occurs and persists only under a specific set of assumptions about carbon accounting, markets, policies, and future biomass demands. Finally, we evaluate whether forest regulations restricting biomass sourcing could influence the scale of carbon debt and/or reduce the time needed to recover the carbon debt (payback period). We show that under similar demand pathways and in the absence of direct carbon policies, imposing limits to supply is likely to reduce the payback period but does not avoid initial carbon debt.
