Environmental impact assessment of six starch plastics focusing on wastewater-derived starch and additives

This monograph is concerned with different aspects of green house gas (GHG) emissions in agriculture. The first part summarizes the total amount of GHG emissions and analyses them regarding their composition. A differentiation is made between the emissions which are already linked to agriculture (source group agriculture: digestion , manure-management and agricultural soils ) within the National Report on GHG Emissions and those which can be counted primarily in addition to agriculture ( energy and land use and land use change ). Depending on which database is used, agriculture is participating in emitting green house gases with 6.3% or 11.1% of total German GHG emissions in 2004. This means that agriculture is an important polluter. The development of GHG emissions in agriculture compared to the year 1990 is -18.5% for the source group agriculture. This means that the source group has reduced more emissions than the average (-17.5%) over all domains published within the National Report. Regarding the sources energy and land use and land use change in addition emission reduction is -16.4% in the same period and thus worse than the average. Moreover, realized emission reductions are predominantly based on structural changes, less on systematical measures. This fact raises the question how agriculture can make a contribution to the reduction of GHG emissions in future particularly with regard to higher aims in climate politics.For this reason the second part of the monograph identifies capacities for the reduction of GHG emissions by using available agricultural biomass for energetic purposes. Due to the heterogeneity of biomass and the variety of its possible products, a lot of technical processes concerning the conversion of biomass into energy exist in practice. Since all of them have different emission factors the derivation of realistic reduction capacities is a nontrivial problem. This work restricts the problem by combining existing biomass with those technologies which provide largest benefit concerning the reduction of GHG emissions. Thereby it is possible to evaluate the maximum contribution of GHG reductions from biomass usage in agriculture in Germany, which aggregates up to 50,341 Gg CO2-equivalent. This means that 78.3% of the emissions from the source group agriculture in 2004 could be compensated if biomass was used within those technologies which produce the largest benefit. In this regards the subsidy of energy crops in biogas plants based on the Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz (renewable energy law) in Germany should be reviewed because there they do not produce the largest benefit. Energy crops should be applied to replace solid fuels instead. Since in practice several biogas plants are already using energy crops as input material without having an option for alternatives, the question raises how this fact can be improved for the future regarding climate protection.Therefore the third part of this monograph analyses the possible emission reductions of different technologies for converting biogas into energy. Objects of investigation are existing technologies like block heat and power plants or direct gas feeding into public gas distribution system as well as future technologies like the application of biogas in different types of fuel cells. Although direct gas feeding has a better ratio concerning the conversion of primary to secondary energy the GHG reduction capacity is much less compared to technologies of cogeneration. The reason for this is that the production of electricity has much more effect on GHG emissions than the production of heat. This is to be seen when comparing the emission factors of certain reference systems used in this part like condensing boilers running with natural gas (253 gCO2/kWhheat), gas steam power plants (432 gCO2/kWhel) and the average emissions factor of German power production (653 gCO2/kWhel). The more electricity is produced by a conversion technology based on biogas, the higher is its GHG reduction capacity. Direct gas feeding is not the most efficient way of using biogas in matters of climate protection considering that only 13% of the natural gas in Germany is used for electric purposes and considering that replacing natural gas by biogas means that the part of fossil fuels with lowest emissions is replaced. Direct gas feeding is not even then the most efficient way of using biogas if there is a consumer at the other end of the public gas distribution system who theoretically uses the injected biogas for running cogeneration systems. The conditioning of biogas in order to feed public distribution combined with additional heat source for running the fermenter of the biogas plant is worse for efficiency. Considering ecological standpoints local heat and power production next to the fermenter is the most efficient way of using biogas in matters of climate protection. This can only be improved by using more efficient systems like fuel cells instead of existing block heat and power plants.

Major US electric utility climate pledges have the potential to collectively reduce power sector emissions by one-third

Better information on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigation potential in the agricultural sector is necessary to manage these emissions and identify responses that are consistent with the food security and economic development priorities of countries. Critical activity data (what crops or livestock are managed in what way) are poor or lacking for many agricultural systems, especially in developing countries. In addition, the currently available methods for quantifying emissions and mitigation are often too expensive or complex or not sufficiently user friendly for widespread use.The purpose of this focus issue is to capture the state of the art in quantifying greenhouse gases from agricultural systems, with the goal of better understanding our current capabilities and near-term potential for improvement, with particular attention to quantification issues relevant to smallholders in developing countries. This work is timely in light of international discussions and negotiations around how agriculture should be included in efforts to reduce and adapt to climate change impacts, and considering that significant climate financing to developing countries in post-2012 agreements may be linked to their increased ability to identify and report GHG emissions (Murphy et al 2010, CCAFS 2011, FAO 2011).

The production of six regionally important cellulosic biomass feedstocks, including pine, eucalyptus, unmanaged hardwoods, forest residues, switchgrass, and sweet sorghum, was analyzed using consistent life cycle methodologies and system boundaries to identify feedstocks with the lowest cost and environmental impacts. Supply chain analysis models were created for each feedstock calculating costs and supply chain requirements for the production 453,592 dry tonnes of biomass per year. Cradle-to-gate environmental impacts from these supply systems were quantified for nine mid-point indicators using SimaPro 7.2 LCA software. Conversion of grassland to managed forest for bioenergy resulted in large reductions in GHG emissions, due to carbon sequestration associated with direct land use change. However, converting forests to energy cropland resulted in large increases in GHG emissions. Production of forest-based feedstocks for biofuels resulted in lower delivered cost, lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and lower overall environmental impacts than the studied agricultural feedstocks. Forest residues had the lowest environmental impact and delivered cost per dry tonne. Using forest-based biomass feedstocks instead of agricultural feedstocks would result in lower cradle-to-gate environmental impacts and delivered biomass costs for biofuel production in the southern U.S.

Innovations in papermaking: An LCA of printing and writing paper from conventional and high yield pulp

Power utility companies in the United Kingdom are using imported wood pellets from the southern region of the United States for electricity generation to meet the legally binding mandate of sourcing 15% of the nation’s total energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020. This study ascertains relative savings in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for a unit of electricity generated using imported wood pellet in the United Kingdom under 930 different scenarios: three woody feedstocks (logging residues, pulpwood, and logging residues and pulpwood combined), two forest management choices (intensive and non-intensive), 31 plantation rotation ages (year 10 to year 40 in steps of 1 year), and five power plant capacities (20–100 MW in steps of 20 MW). Relative savings in GHG emissions with respect to a unit of electricity derived from fossil fuels in the United Kingdom range between 50% and 68% depending upon the capacity of power plant and rotation age. Relative savings in GHG emissions increase with higher power plant capacity. GHG emissions related to wood pellet production and transatlantic shipment of wood pellets typically contribute about 48% and 31% of total GHG emissions, respectively. Overall, use of imported wood pellets for electricity generation could help in reducing the United Kingdom’s GHG emissions. We suggest that future research be directed to evaluation of the impacts of additional forest management practices, changing climate, and soil carbon on the overall savings in GHG emissions related to transatlantic wood pellet trade.

At the UN climate change conference in Paris in November 2015, Norway committed itself to a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. Agriculture accounts for 8% of Norway’s total GHG emissions. If GHGs from drained and cultivated wetland (categorized under land use, land use change and forestry) are included, the share is 13%; this for a sector that accounts for roughly 0.3% of GDP. As is the case in most countries, agriculture is currently exempt from emission reduction measures, including the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (ETS), in which Norway participates. But the country has recently signaled its intention to include agriculture in future emission reduction efforts. Consideration is being given to how best to achieve GHG reductions in the sector. A recent report by the Norwegian Green Tax Commission, established by the government to evaluate policy options for achieving emission reductions, (Government of Norway, 2015) emphasizes the importance of including agriculture. The Commission suggests that agricultural emissions should be taxed at the same rate as for other sectors. It also recommends that reductions in the production and consumption of red meat should be specifically targeted, through cuts in production grants to farmers and the imposition of consumption taxes. Unsurprisingly, this proposed policy shift is extremely controversial and faces resistance, particularly from the farmers’ unions. Farmers argue that the maintenance of domestic agricultural production is crucial for achieving national food security objectives, in addition to pursuing other aims such as the maintenance of economic activity in rural areas and landscape preservation. Food security, which has been a key policy objective since the end of the Second World War, has been interpreted in Norway as requiring high levels of selfsufficiency in basic agricultural commodities. To achieve this, substantial subsidies are provided to farmers and domestic prices of many commodities are kept at high levels by restricting imports. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimates that the total financial support provided to Norwegian agriculture in 2015 was equivalent to 62% of the value of gross farm receipts, which made Norway (along with Switzerland) a leader in the amount of support provided to agriculture by the 50 OECD member and non-member countries monitored by the Organization (OECD, 2016). In this paper we analyze policy options for achieving a 40% reduction in agricultural GHG emissions, consistent with the economy-wide target, while imposing the restriction that national food production measured in calories should be maintained (the food security target). This is consistent with the way that the Norwegian government identifies the country’s food security objective. In section 2 we outline the current situation with respect to GHG emissions in Norwegian agriculture. In section 3 we illustrate the policy issues involved by considering two product aggregates that are intensive in the use of land for crop production (grainland) and grassland, respectively. The aggregates are based on data for the main commodities in Norwegian agriculture relating to GHG emissions, land use, caloric content, subsidies, and costs per unit of production. We show that even though the opportunity set (i.e., the production combinations that are possible within technical constraints) is narrow, a 40% cut in emissions is achievable by substituting from ruminant products that are intensive in the use of grassland to products based on grainland. We also show that the emissions reduction both reduces government budgetary costs and land use, i.e., ruminant products are characterized by relatively high subsidies and land use. Two-dimensional analysis ignores the fact that per unit emissions from dairy production are low compared to other ruminant products (i.e., beef and sheep production). Both in terms of production value and agricultural employment, dairy farming is the most important component of Norwegian agriculture. Consequently, milk production deserves to be separated from ruminant meat production. Finally in section 4, we present a detailed analysis 3 of policy options derived from a disaggregated model that includes all the major products in Norwegian agriculture. In the model-based analysis, we examine first the imposition of a carbon tax, while maintaining existing agricultural support policies and import protection, and achieving the food security (production of calories) target. Since the imposition of a carbon tax in agriculture presents both technical and political challenges, we then examine an alternative approach of changing the existing structure of agricultural support to approximate the same result. We show that it is possible to change current subsidy rates to mimic the carbon tax and calorie target solution. The explanation for this is that ruminant products not only generate high emissions per produced calorie, but they are also the most highly subsidized products. Meat from ruminants is relatively unimportant in achieving Norway’s food security objective of calorie availability.

Assessment of the potential of digestibility-improving enzymes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from broiler production

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction in the electricity sector: Implications of increasing renewable energy penetration in Ghana's electricity generation mix

Agriculture significantly impacts the global environment, contributing to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, air and water pollution, and biodiversity loss. As the global population grows and demands higher agricultural output, these environmental impacts are expected to intensify. Among global contributors, China, with its vast population and prominent agricultural sector, plays a leading role in GHG emissions. Understanding and mitigating these impacts in China is crucial for addressing broader global environmental challenges. To address these key issues, we conducted a study on the dynamic impact of agricultural key variables (agricultural land, fertilizer consumption, energy use for agriculture, agricultural value-added, forest land, livestock, fisheries, and crop production) on GHG emissions by utilizing the data from 1990 to 2020, and employed linear and non-linear linear autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL and NARDL) models. In the study, co-integration analysis confirms the long-run relationship between variables, and the long-term findings from the ARDL model reveal important insights, increased agricultural land use, fertilizer consumption, agricultural energy use, crop production, livestock production, and fishery production increases GHG emissions in China and GHG emissions can be reduced by increasing forest land in the long term. Furthermore, with the asymmetric NARDL regression applied to three key variables, the positive shock analysis results confirm that agricultural land use (AGL+), fertilizer consumption (FC+), and agricultural energy use (EUA+) can significantly contribute to long-term GHG emissions. However, adverse shocks to (AGL−), (FC−), and (EUA−) could significantly compress GHG emissions. These findings offer valuable implications for Chinese authorities’ focus on expanding forest land, using more renewable energy, and minimizing the usage of chemicals in agriculture. These measures can help to mitigate emissions while promoting sustainable agricultural practices.

Carbon prices and greenhouse gases abatement from agriculture, forestry and land use in Nepal

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from unsustainable land-use practices around the world contribute significantly to anthropogenic climate change. Growing population pressure and low efficiency of agricultural production systems in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) trigger the expansion of agricultural land into natural ecosystems, which leads to deforestation and land degradation, and causes GHG emissions. At the same time, prolonged droughts and increasingly erratic weather patterns due to climate change jeopardise food security in SSA countries such as Kenya.

Taking Stock of Strategies on Climate Change and the Way Forward: A Strategic Climate Change Framework for Australia

Biofuel use is intended to address the ever-increasing demand for and scarcer supply of fossil fuels. The recent Indonesia government policy of imposing 10% mixing of biodiesel into petroleum-based diesel affirms the more important biofuel role in the near future. Palm oil, methane from palm oil mill effluent (POME) and animal wastes are the most prospective agricultural-based biofuels. The production and use of palm oil is interlinked with land use and land use change (LULUC), while the use of methane from POME and animal wastes can contribute in reducing emissions. The current European Union (EU) and the potential United States (US) markets are imposing biodiesels’ green house gas (GHG) emission reduction standards (ERS) of 35% and 20%, respectively relative to the emissions of petroleum-based diesel based on using the lifecycle analysis (LCA). EU market will increase the ERS to 50% starting 1 January 2017, which make it more challenging to reach. Despite controversies in the methods and assumptions of GHG emission reduction assessment using LCA, the probability of passing ERS increases as the development of oil palm plantation avoid as much as possible the use of peatland and natural forests. At present, there is no national ERS for bioenergy, but Indonesia should be cautious with the rapid expansion of oil palm plantation on existing agricultural lands, as it threatens food security. Focusing more on increasing palm oil yield, reducing pressure on existing agricultural lands for oil palm expansion and prioritizing the development on low carbon stock lands such as grass- and shrublands on mineral soils will be the way forward in addressing land scarcity, food security, GHG emissions and other environmental problems. Other forms of bioenergy source, such as biochar, promise to a lesser extent GHG emission reduction, and its versatility also requires consideration of its use as a soil ameliorant.

For all its cachet, you might think that hybrid drivetrain technology is inherently green. But only 13 of 34 hybrid vehicles assessed achieve better than a 25% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and just 3 exceed a 40% reduction, according to an evaluation by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).1 Moreover, reductions in GHG emissions do not necessarily correlate with reductions in other toxic emissions. Like any engine output–improving technology, hybrid technology can boost both fuel efficiency and power—but the more you boost one, the less you can boost the other. That dichotomy spurred the UCS to develop its “hybrid scorecard,” which rates each hybrid according to how well it lives up to its promise of reducing air pollution.2 All the vehicles were from model year 2011 except for one, the 2012 Infiniti M Hybrid. First the UCS scored each hybrid on how much it reduced its GHG emissions relative to its conventional counterpart, on a scale of zero (least reduction) to 10 (greatest reduction). These scores reflect the percentage in fuel efficiency gain. For example, the Toyota Prius gets 50 mpg3 compared with 28 mpg for the comparable Toyota Matrix. This represents a 44.0% reduction in GHG emissions, earning the Prius a GHG score of 9.4. At the bottom of the scale, the 21-mpg hybrid VW Touareg reduces GHG emissions only 10% over the 19-mpg conventional Toureg, for a score of 0.0. With a 46% improvement, the luxury Lincoln MKZ Hybrid had the greatest reduction over its conventional counterpart. The UCS also scored hybrids for absolute emissions (rather than relative to the conventional model) of air pollutants including particulate matter, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. These scores, on a scale of zero (dirtiest) to 10 (cleanest), are based on California certifications for tailpipe emissions. As the scorecard showed, a vehicle that emits less heat-trapping gases may not necessarily emit less of other air pollutants. For example, the Mercedes Benz S400 Hybrid scored 9 on air pollution reduction, alongside the Prius and the Lincoln MKZ, but only 1.3 on GHG emissions. HYBRID SCORECARD: Top 10 Nonluxury Hybrids by Total Environmental Improvement Score “Hybrid technology doesn’t add additional challenges [to reducing exhaust pollutants] that can’t be addressed through design of the vehicle’s emission controls,” says Don Anair, senior vehicles analyst at the UCS. “Numerous manufacturers of hybrids are meeting the lowest emissions levels. Hybrid manufacturers who aren’t delivering the lowest smog-forming emissions have chosen not to do so.” Each vehicle’s air pollution and GHG scores were averaged into a total “environmental improvement score,” again with the MKZ and the Prius leading the pack, and the Touareg scraping bottom. The UCS also scored “hybrid value” (the cost of reducing GHG emissions in dollars per percent reduction) and “forced features” (options you must buy with the hybrid whether you want them or not). HYBRID SCORECARD: Top 10 Luxury Hybrids by Total Environmental Improvement Score Luke Tonachel, vehicles analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, compliments the scorecard for illustrating that hybrid technology is not automatically green. He says, “We should improve the efficiency of all vehicles, and [hybrid technology] is just one technology that can get us there if applied with that goal in mind.” Nonetheless, Jamie Kitman, the New York bureau chief for Automobile Magazine, questions the wisdom of emphasizing percentage improvement in gas mileage rather than absolute miles per gallon. At 21 mpg, the hybrid Cadillac Escalade 4WD represents a 29% improvement over the 15-mpg conventional model, saving nearly 2 gallons per 100 miles. But the hybrid Escalade is still a gas guzzler, and Kitman says he wishes people would see through the marketing that encourages them to buy SUVs and “crossovers” rather than ordinary cars, which are more efficient than either. Says Anair, “The scorecard shows that automakers can pair hybrid technology with advanced emission controls to help tackle climate change while reducing the health impacts from breathing polluted air.” However, he adds, alluding to the stark variation in how much hybrid technology boosted fuel efficiency, “Not all automakers are delivering on the full promise of this technology.”