In addition to every execution membership (Fig

In addition to every execution membership (Fig

Portfolios selected the best mix of regionally differentiated scenarios for each of the three implementation levels, but these levels were developed independently for each scenario and their different ranges may affect their ranking. It is advantageous to generalize the existing results so that we can estimate the net change in GHG emissions for any implementation level within the modeled range. Figure 4a shows the dos070 cumulative mitigation potential (default implementation level, high substitution benefits) for each region plotted against the absolute value of the cumulative change in harvested wood (including roundwood and residues) relative to the baseline, and although the regions differed in size and harvesting activity, there was a well-defined relationship for most scenarios. 4b, Additional file 1: Table S7) resulted in very similar regressions, indicating the cumulative mitigation potential could be estimated from the change in harvested wood (relative to the baseline). Slopes from the log–log regressions were close to -1 for the Higher Recovery scenario (between ? 0.5 and ? 1.2 for other scenarios), indicating a 1 MtCO2 increase in cumulative harvested wood in 2070 resulted in a change (relative to the baseline) of ? 1 MtCO2e in cumulative emissions in 2070. The Bioenergy scenario had the greatest variation amongst the regions, which was caused by the degree to which available biomass for bioenergy could meet the local heat demand and substitute high-emissions fossil fuels (See Additional file 2). Normalized net GHG reductions, defined as the net change in cumulative GHG emissions divided by the cumulative change in harvested wood for the Higher Recovery scenario were ? 1 for all implementation levels in most regions, while other scenarios had more regional variability (Additional file 1: Figure S5). For the conservation scenarios, the normalized net GHG reduction was greater for the Harvest Less scenario than for the Restricted Harvest scenario in most regions, indicating that, of the two conservation scenarios, the Harvest Less scenario would have a greater mitigation benefit.

Cumulative net GHG emissions in 2070 compared to the magnitude of the associated cumulative change in harvest C, relative to the baseline, for each region (points) along with linear regressions (lines) for a default scenario implementation level and b all implementation levels, assuming high substitution benefits. 1 MtCO2e) have been excluded. LLP stands for Longer-Lived Products

Financial and socio-financial analyses

Desk step 3 summarizes the newest provincial annual average prices affects on entire several months for all conditions therefore the home-based portfolio according to the default situation execution height. Prices for all the implementation account are given when you look at the Fig. 3b and considering from inside the Even more document step 1: Dining table S18.

Quick collective websites emissions (smaller than ? 0

In terms of individual scenarios, the Restricted Harvest and Harvest Less scenarios have the lowest mitigation costs ($20–$30 per tCO2e), but in terms of socio-economic impacts, there were significant reductions in jobs (Fig. 3c), Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and government revenue (Table 4, Additional file 1: Table S19). The Harvest Residues for Bioenergy, Higher Recovery plus Harvest Residues for Bioenergy, and Longer-Lived Products (LLP) scenarios indicated moderate mitigation costs ($94–$126 per tCO2e). The Higher Recovery scenario with low substitution benefits had positive socio-economic impacts, but indicated the highest mitigation cost ($272 per tCO2e) due to limited mitigation potential. The Higher Recovery scenario had the greatest cost per tonne difference between the low and high substitution benefits, reflecting the significant difference in mitigation potentials depending on how the incremental harvest was used.

Problems related to bioenergy had extremely high socio-financial influences because bioenergy design off secure deposits was a different sort of globe and you will generated generous cash.

Modifying the truth implementation top had nothing impact on the price per tonnes with the conservation situations, as a result of the proportional changes in total price and you can cumulative mitigation, it greatly impacted the price per tonne into the bioenergy conditions once the changing the degree of accumulated assemble deposits impacted bioenergy business choices and eliminated fossil fuel. With the exception of preservation issues, each situation increased jobs, nevertheless LLP scenario contributed to losings in the GDP and you will authorities money as the pulp and report marketplace is way more money extreme and less labour intense as compared to timber manufacturing. The cost per tonne opinions to possess domestic portfolios are some of the lower, with just minimal differences ranging from execution membership and free interracial dating France replacing pros (Extra document 1: Desk S18).

Scroll to Top