An integrated assessment of land use change in the Border Rivers-Gwydir catchment - Jonathan Moss
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
1 recomendación•342 vistas
This document summarizes research on the potential for land use change in the Border Rivers-Gwydir Catchment region of Australia to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions through carbon sequestration. The research analyzed the carbon sequestration potential and costs of converting land to different uses like forests and environmental plantings. It found that mixed-species environmental plantings and Pinus radiata plantations have the highest carbon sequestration potential. However, targeting only regions with the highest sequestration may not be the lowest-cost strategy. The results are sensitive to the discount rate used in the analysis.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Destacado
Similar a An integrated assessment of land use change in the Border Rivers-Gwydir catchment - Jonathan Moss
Similar a An integrated assessment of land use change in the Border Rivers-Gwydir catchment - Jonathan Moss (20)
Más de Climate Change Research Strategy for Primary Industries
Más de Climate Change Research Strategy for Primary Industries (20)
Último
Último (20)
An integrated assessment of land use change in the Border Rivers-Gwydir catchment - Jonathan Moss
- 1. An Integrated Assessment of Land-use Change in the Border Rivers-Gwydir Catchment Jonathan Moss, Oscar Cacho, Stuart Mounter
- 2. Acknowledgement Primary Industry Adaptation Research Network (PIARN) 2
- 3. Presentation outline Potential for GHG reduction from farmers Objectives of research Methodology Results Conclusions 3
- 4. Australian farming sector Potential for GHG mitigation: ◦ Reduce emissions ◦ Increase soil carbon ◦ Bioenergy ◦ Second-generation biofuels ◦ Wood or carbon plantations ◦ Conservation forests 4
- 5. Land-use change for climate mitigation Considerable potential for biosequestration Realisation may greatly reduce the costs of mitigation (Garnaut 2008) Incentives required 5
- 6. Objectives of research What is the potential supply of carbon mitigation services? What are the abatement and transaction costs? What economic incentives are necessary? How will different policy arrangements affect this supply? 6
- 7. Methodology For the supply of land-use changes from landholders: Abatement + Incentive s > transaction costs 7
- 8. Abatement costs Calculated as opportunity cost Dependent on: Location Current land use Soil type Climatic variables 8
- 9. Simulations Developed model of LUC in Border Rivers-Gwydir catchment Modelled current land uses and 4 proposed land uses Calculated carbon sequestration using FullCAM model Abatement costs calculated from a variety of secondary sources 9
- 10. Carbon sequestration (t C ha-1) 10
- 11. Carbon sequestration Av. change from current land use Av. change from current land use to mixed spp. environmental to Eucalyptus globulus plantings plantation 50 20 Carbon biomass (tC ha-1) Carbon biomass (tC ha-1) 40 30 10 20 10 0 0 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 Year Year 11
- 12. Average additional carbon sequestration (t C ha-1) 12
- 13. Abatement costs ($ tCO2e-1) Discount rate Proposed land use 1% 3% 5% 7% 9% Pinus radiata 55 48 44 43 41 Mixed env. planting 38 28 22 19 17 Eucalyptus globulus 89 88 87 87 85 Eucalyptus cladocalyx 187 -18 -149 -227 -271 13
- 14. Sequestration potential vs. opp. cost • Regions with the highest sequestration potential do not necessarily provide the lowest-cost strategy 14
- 15. Carbon sequestration supply (in absence of transaction costs) 15
- 16. Carbon sequestration supply (in absence of transaction costs) 16
- 17. Supply with price caps Discount rate Price cap 1% 3% 5% 7% 9% ($k tCO2 e-1) 10 358 296 227 155 505 20 378 431 589 1,342 1,963 30 503 692 979 1,808 2,409 40 704 872 1,266 2,006 2,532 50 800 1,088 1,369 2,077 2,610 Unlimited 1,397 1,432 1,573 2,215 2,688 17
- 18. Conclusions Additional carbon can be sequestered from LUC Mixed species plantings and Pinus radiata plantations have the highest sequestration potential Targeting regions with the highest sequestration potential is not necessarily lowest-cost strategy Results are sensitive to discount rate 18
Notas del editor
- So if this is where we really stand, we need to look at several ways of reducing/mitigating these emissions. In 2008, Ross Garnaut released a report that he had prepared for the Rudd government on climate change and its impact on Australia. One of the chapters in this review was on agriculture. Several different ways in which agricultural and rural areas may be used to mitigate or reduce greenhouse gases include, reduced livestock emissions. Methane emissions from livestock accounts for about 67% of the GHG emissions from agriculture in Australia. Therefore there is scope to change to low methane emitting livestock or for technological advances to develop low methane emitting stock.
- It was highlighted in Garnaut’s 2008 report that there is considerable potential for biosequestration in rural Australia.
- What is the potential supply of carbon mitigation services from land-use change of Australian farmers?What are the abatement and transaction costs for the supply of these services, and how they vary spatially?What economic incentives are necessary to realise this supply?
- A farmer j will participate in a carbon sequestration or abatement project is the incentives they receive are greater than the sum of the abatement costs and the transaction costs.
- Carbon sequestration potential varies significantly based on geographical location