Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:59:57.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Land Use

from Land Use, Forests and Agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2021

By
Heather Keith
Edited by
Kenneth G. H. Baldwin ,
Mark Howden ,
Michael H. Smith ,
Karen Hussey  and
Peter J. Dawson
Kenneth G. H. Baldwin
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Canberra
Mark Howden
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Canberra
Michael H. Smith
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Canberra
Karen Hussey
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Peter J. Dawson
Affiliation:
P. J. Dawson & Associates
Get access

Summary

Human activities in the land sector produce the second highest level of greenhouse gas emissions globally and the highest in some countries, but the land is also a major sink for anthropogenic emissions. This land carbon sink is at risk because plant growth, survival and distributions are dependent on climate conditions and particularly extreme events: higher temperatures, reduction in water availability in some areas and flooding in others, droughts and wildfires. Agricultural and forest productivity are affected by the combined pressures of climate change, demand for land resources for food production, deforestation and degradation of natural systems, and population pressure. The land sector provides numerous opportunities for mitigation, many of which are cost-effective and can be implemented quickly. However, the land sink has limits because the uptake of carbon represents replacing the stock that was previously depleted by human activities, and productivity is limited by nutrient and water availability. Potential mitigation activities should be assessed in terms of the magnitude, timeframe and cost of the changes in carbon stocks.

Keywords

carbon sinkssequestrationcarbon accountingbiocarboncarbon storagecarbon cyclemitigationadaptation
Type
Chapter
Information
Transitioning to a Prosperous, Resilient and Carbon-Free Economy
A Guide for Decision-Makers
 , pp. 441 - 461
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ajani, J. and Comisari, P. (2014). Towards a Comprehensive and Fully Integrated Stock and Flow Framework for Carbon Accounting in Australia. Discussion Paper. Australia: The Australian National University (ANU). Available at: https://coombs-forum.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publication/coombs_forum_crawford_anu_edu_au/2014-09/carbon_accounting_discussion_paper_revised_sept_2014.pdf.Google Scholar
Ajani, J., Keith, H., Blakers, M., Mackey, B. G. and King, H. P. (2013). Comprehensive carbon stock and flow accounting: A national framework to support climate change mitigation policy. Ecological Economics, 89, 61–72.Google Scholar
Allen, M. R., Frame, D. J., Huntingford, C. et al. (2009). Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature, 458, 1163–1166.Google Scholar
Archer, D. (2005). Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, 1–6.Google Scholar
Archer, D., Eby, M., Brovkin, V. et al. (2009). Atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel carbon dioxide. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 37, 117–134.Google Scholar
Asner, G. P., Powell, G. V. N., Mascaro, J. et al. (2010). High resolution forest carbon stocks and emissions in the Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 16739–16742.Google Scholar
Benndorf, R., Federici, S., Forner, C. et al. (2007). Including land use, land-use change, and forestry in future climate change, agreements: Thinking outside the box. Environmental Science & Policy, 10, 283–294.Google Scholar
ClimateWorks Australia, ANU (Australian National University), CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) and CoPS (Centre for Policy Studies) (2014). Pathways to Deep Decarbonisation in 2050: How Australia Can Prosper in a Low Carbon World. Technical report. Melbourne: ClimateWorks Australia. Available at: www.climateworksaustralia.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/climateworks_pdd2050_technicalreport_20140923-1.pdf.Google Scholar
Dean, C., Wardell-Johnson, G. and Kirkpatrick, J. B. (2012). Are there any circumstances in which logging primary wet-eucalypt forest will not add to the global carbon burden? Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 161, 156–169.Google Scholar
Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y. et al. (2014). Technical summary. In Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y. et al., eds., Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33–107. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_technical-summary.pdf.Google Scholar
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2010). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010: Main Report. FAO Forestry Paper 163. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN. Available at: www.fao.org/3/i1757e/i1757e00.htm.Google Scholar
FAO (2015) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: How Are the World’s Forests Changing?, 2nd ed. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
Feely, R. A., Sabine, C. L., Lee, K. et al. (2004). Impact of anthropogenic CO2 in the CaCO3 system in the oceans. Science, 305, 362–366.Google Scholar
Friedlingstein, P., Cox, P., Betts, R. et al. (2006). Climate–carbon cycle feedback analysis: Results from the C4MIP model intercomparison. Journal of Climate, 19, 3337–3353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedlingstein, P., Houghton, R., Marland, G. et al. (2010). Update on CO2 emissions. Nature Geoscience, 3, 811–812.Google Scholar
GCP (Global Carbon Project) (2020). Carbon Budget 2020. Available at: www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/archive/2011/CarbonBudget_2011.pdf.Google Scholar
Global Commission on the Economy and Climate (2014). Better Growth, Better Climate: The New Climate Economy Report. Synthesis Report. Washington, DC: The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. Available at: https://newclimateeconomy.report/2016/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/08/BetterGrowth-BetterClimate_NCE_Synthesis-Report_web.pdf.Google Scholar
Graβl, H., Kokott, J., Kulessa, M. et al. (2003). Climate Protection Strategies for the 21st Century: Kyoto and Beyond. Special Report. Berlin: German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). Available at: www.gci.org.uk/Documents/wbgu_sn2003_engl.pdf.Google Scholar
Höhne, N., Wartmann, S., Herold, A. and Freibauer, A. (2007). The rules for land use, land use change and forestry under the Kyoto Protocol: Lessons learned for the future climate negotiations. Environmental Science & Policy, 10, 353–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houghton, R. A. (2007). Balancing the global carbon budget. Annual Review Earth and Planetary Science, 35, 313–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houghton, R. A. (2008). Carbon flux to the atmosphere from land-use changes: 1850–2005. In TRENDS: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. Available at: https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/landuse/houghton/houghton.html.Google Scholar
House, J. I., Prentice, I. C. and Le Quéré, C. (2002). Maximum impacts of future reforestation or deforestation on atmospheric CO2. Global Change Biology, 8, 1047–1052.Google Scholar
IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by Pachauri, R. K. and Meyer, L. A.. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.Google Scholar
IPCC (2018). Global Warming of 1.5 °C: An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty. Edited by Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O. et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.Google Scholar
Keith, H., Vardon, M., Stein, J. A. and Lindenmayer, D. (2019). Contribution of native forests to climate change mitigation: A common approach to carbon accounting that aligns results from environmental-economic accounting with rules for emissions reduction. Environmental Science & Policy, 93, 189–199.Google Scholar
Keith, H., Vardon, M., Obst, C. et al. (2021). Evaluating nature-based solutions for climate mitigation and conservation requires comprehensive carbon accounting. Science of the Total Environment, 769, 14434.Google Scholar
Le Quéré, C. (2009). Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Nature Geoscience, 2, 831–836.Google Scholar
Le Quéré, C., Peters, G. P., Andres, R. J. et al. (2013). Global carbon budget 2013. Earth System Science Data, 6, 689–760.Google Scholar
Mackey, B., Prentice, I. C., Steffen, W. et al. (2013). Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate mitigation policy. Nature Climate Change, 3, 552–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, B., Kormos, C., Keith, H. et al. (2020). Understanding the importance of primary tropical forest protection as a mitigation strategy. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 25, 763–787. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-019-09891-4.Google Scholar
Matthews, H. D. and Caldeira, K. (2008). Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophysics Research Letters, 35, L04705.Google Scholar
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available at: www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf.Google Scholar
Nabuurs, G. J., Masera, O., Andrasko, K. et al. (2007). Forestry. In: Metz, B., Davidson, O. R., Bosch, P. R., Dave, R. and Meyer, L. A., eds., Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 541–581. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg3-chapter9-1.pdf. Google Scholar
Olsson, L., Barbosa, H., Bhadwal, S. et al. (2019). Land degradation. In Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., Buendia, E. C. et al., eds., Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-4/. Google Scholar
Plattner, G. K., Knutti, R., Joos, F. et al. (2008). Long-term climate commitments projected with climate–carbon cycle models. Journal of Climate, 21, 2721–2751.Google Scholar
Prentice, I. C., Farquhar, G. D., Fasham, M. J. R. et al. (2001). The carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide. In Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J. et al., eds., Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 185–237. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/TAR-03.pdf.Google Scholar
Richards, K. R. and Stokes, C. (2004). A review of forest carbon sequestration cost studies: A dozen years of research. Climatic Change, 63, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schellnhuber, H. J., Messnre, D., Leggewie, C. et al. (2009). Solving the Climate Dilemma: The Budget Approach. Special Report. Berlin: German Advisory Council on Global Change. Available at: www.wbgu.de/en/publications/publication/special-report-2009.Google Scholar
Scholze, M., Knorr, W., Arnell, N. W. and Prentice, I. C. (2006). A climate-change risk analysis for world ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 35, 13116–13120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulze, E.-D., Valentini, R. and Sanz, M.-J. (2002). The long way from Kyoto to Marrakesh: Implications of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations for global ecology. Global Change Biology, 8, 505–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva Junior,  C. H. L., Pessôa,  A. C. M., Carvalho,  N. S. et al. The Brazilian Amazon deforestation rate in 2020 is the greatest of the decade. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 5, 144–145. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01368-x.Google Scholar
Smith, P., Nkem, J., Calvin, K. et al. (2019). Interlinkages between desertification, land degradation, food security and GHG fluxes: Synergies, trade-offs and integrated response options. In Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., Buendia, E. C. et al., eds., Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. In press. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-6/. Google Scholar
Steffen, W. and Hughes, L. (2013). The Critical Decade 2013: Climate Change Science, Risks and Responses. Canberra: ACT Climate Commission Secretariat. Available at: https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/the-critical-decade-2013-climate-change-science-risks-and-respons.Google Scholar
Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S. and Mosseler, A. (2009). Forest Resilience, Biodiversity and Climate Change. A Synthesis of the Biodiversity/Resilience/Stability Relationship in Forest Ecosystems. CBD Technical Series No. 43. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention in Biological Diversity. Available at: www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-43-en.pdf.Google Scholar
UNSD (United Nations Statistics Division) (2021). System of Environmental–Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting: Final draft. Available at: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/52nd-session/documents/BG-3f-SEEA-EA_Final_draft-E.pdf.Google Scholar
WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change) (1998). The Accounting of Biological Sinks and Sources under the Kyoto Protocol: A Step Forwards or Backwards for Global Environmental Protection? Special report. Berlin: German Advisory Council on Global Change. Available at: www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu/publikationen/sondergutachten/sg1998/pdf/wbgu_sn1998_engl.pdf.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×