Ground-mounted photovoltaics (GMPV) expansion on agricultural land in Sweden is frequently contested, with several cases settled in court. Analysis of recent rulings and permit applications shows that authorities are determining how to prioritize vital societal interests in food production and renewable-energy deployment while a coherent legal framework remains under development. Developers, meanwhile, concentrate proposals on agricultural land near grid infrastructure, neglecting concerns about food security as well as values and identities embedded in existing landscapes. The landscape-governance lens reveals how landscapes emerge from sociocultural processes and how conflicts around GMPV are signs of misalignments between socio-technical development and locally anchored land-use preferences. To explore alternatives aligning with social priorities in southern Sweden, we assess the potential for agrivoltaics and GMPV on rewetted agricultural peatlands through a scenario-based GIS approach. By translating the divergent reference frames of developers and regional authorities into parallel land-constraint scenarios, we show that these frames result in sharply different solar capacities (0-172 GW) and consequences for land use. Further, evaluating distance to grid against socio-economic factors shows its unsuitability as a siting criterion. Combining our spatial assessment approach with participatory iterative engagement could empirically capture land-use expectations and landscape values.

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is a key component of pathways to net zero, yet potential interactions with forest carbon dynamics, cascading wood strategies, and progressive decarbonisation and CCS deployment are poorly represented in assessments. Here, using dynamic life cycle assessment, we explore these factors for sawmill residue-derived BECCS value chains over long, yet flexible, time-horizons. BECCS improves the climate performance of bioenergy and consistently delivers long-term global cooling, even in a fully decarbonised economy where substitution benefits cease, provided forest carbon stocks are maintained. Cascading wood use delivers greater near-term cooling via product substitutions compared to direct diversion to bioenergy, and provides temporary carbon storage complementing later deployment of permanent carbon storage via BECCS. Without cascading use, unharvested forests can deliver stronger near-term cooling than direct diversion to bioenergy, even with full BECCS deployment. However, the sink strength diminishes as forests mature, and sequestered carbon may be vulnerable to disturbances such as wildfire. Crossover points highlight the critical role of cascading wood use coupled with BECCS to ensure continuous and enduring cooling effects. Transferring biogenic carbon from forests to geological stores, via multiple uses, is likely to enhance the longevity and resilience of carbon dioxide removal in a rapidly warming world.

Green biorefineries that produce protein feed from grasses or legumes generate fibrous side streams which can be used to produce biobased products. An analysis was conducted on the net greenhouse gas emissions of five products: (1) transportation fuel (biomethane); (2-3) bioplastics with either a short or long service life; (4) biochar used as a soil amendment; and (5) cellulose products intended for single-use purposes. Analyses consider three land-use scenarios for Sweden, representing different ley (temporary perennial grass-clover crops) cultivation strategies, and include supply-chain emissions, carbon storage in soils and biobased products, and substitution effects from the use of biobased products and N recycling to soils. Biochar consistently provided the largest emission savings, reaching -39 to -200 t COQ-eq ha- 1 over 100 years depending on scenario. The transportation fuel option matched biochar in the short term, reaching -39 to -133 t COQ-eq ha- 1 by year 100. Long-lived bioplastics reached -97 t COQ-eq ha- 1, whereas cellulose products and short-lived plastics reached -97 and -45 t COQ-eq ha- 1 by year 100 in the most favorable scenario. Carbon storage and fossil fuel substitution were the most important mitigation levers. In a scenario with expansion of ley cultivation constrained by farmers' preferences, the analyzed options could contribute 10% of the emissions reduction needed for Sweden to meet its 2045 climate target. For the agriculture and LULUCF sectors, some options have an emissions reduction potential exceeding the sectoral target, highlighting that the treatment of residues in green biorefineries can have a significant impact on climate outcomes.

Biomass is a versatile renewable energy source that can be used in all parts of the energy system, but it is a limited resource and usage needs prioritisation. Here we use a sector-coupled European energy system model to explore the range of cost-effective near-optimal solutions for achieving stringent emissions targets. We show that provision of biogenic carbon rather than energy is the main value of biomass, with the energy system cost increasing by 20% if biomass is excluded. It is not crucial in which sector biomass is used if it is combined with carbon capture to enable negative emissions and e-fuel production. A shortage of renewable electricity or hydrogen primarily increases the value of biomass for fuel production, which appears as the marginal abatement option and is most sensitive to uncertainties. Biomass usage is significantly affected if the biomass is associated with upstream emissions.

Biomass associated with low upstream emissions offers cost-effective renewable carbon for negative emissions and production of chemicals, aviation and shipping fuels, reducing the need for more costly options like direct air capture. Policy support for sustainable biomass use alongside emerging technologies reduces energy system costs and the risk of missing emissions targets.

Bioenergy is a critical element in many national and international climate change mitigation efforts, including as a carbon dioxide removal strategy combined with the capture and durable geological storage of flue gas emissions (BECCS). However, divergent results on the effectiveness of bioenergy as a climate change mitigation measure are reported in the scientific literature. Climate impacts of bioenergy depend on case-specific factors, primarily biophysical features of the biomass production system, and the design and efficiency of conversion and capture processes. Estimates of climate impacts are also strongly affected by methodological choices and assumptions, and much of the divergence between studies derives from differences in the assumed alternate use of the land or feedstock, the alternate energy source and the system boundaries applied. We present a methodology to support robust estimates of the climate change effects of bioenergy systems, updating the standard methodology developed by the International Energy Agency's Technology Collaboration Program on Bioenergy. We provide guidance on the key choices including the reference land use and energy system that bioenergy is assumed to displace, spatial and temporal system boundaries, co-product handling, climate forcers considered, metrics applied and time horizon of impact assessment. Researchers should consider the whole bioenergy system including all life cycle stages, and choose system boundaries, reference systems and treatment of co-products that are consistent with the intended application of the results. The assessment should be normalised to a functional unit that can be compared with other systems delivering an equivalent quantity of the same function. All significant climate forcers should be included, and climate effects should be quantified using appropriate impact assessment methods that distinguish the impact of time. Consistency in methodology and interpretation will facilitate comparison between studies of different bioenergy systems.

Increasing crop rotational diversity, e.g., by including grass-clover ley crops, can increase soil organic carbon (SOC) and support climate change mitigation and adaptation, with economic and environmental co-benefits. Here, we apply a method for using large and continuously updated geospatial datasets on (i) agricultural land use and (ii) soil properties, from the Swedish national soil inventory, to analyze how grass-clover (ley) cultivation in rotation with annual crops influences SOC content and soil structure quality (SOC/clay ratio). The results suggest a positive correlation between the occurrence of ley in crop rotations and SOC content. The method used in this study can build on and complement long-term field experiments and can enable the use of spatially explicit soil structure indicators for mapping and analyzing effects of land management, providing input to inform development and implementation of policies for land-based climate change mitigation.

What should I eat? Many people ask this question several times a day. What we eat determines whether we get all the nutrients and energy that we need. But our choice of foods is also important for the environment and Earth’s climate. Which diets are nutritious, healthy, and climate friendly? There is no easy answer. All the activities involved in putting food on our tables—farming, food processing, transport, storage, and cooking—can cause greenhouse gas emissions. In this article we will explain what food systems are, how some food systems can be harmful to the environment, how we can eat diets that are both healthy and climate friendly.

The European Union (EU) does not have a common forestry policy but EU policies can indirectly affect the forest sector. This study departs from the EU "Fit for 55" package of legislation and uses a forest sector model to simulate and analyze three responses in the Swedish forest sector (2020-2100) to policy initiatives addressing climate change and biodiversity: (i) increasing the area of set-asides with 50%; (ii) prohibiting harvest of old forest (>120/140 years of age); and (iii) extending the minimum allowed age for final harvest with 30%. Results indicate that, while all three responses can reduce net carbon emissions compared to business-as-usual, extension of the minimum allowed age for final harvest reduces emissions the most. In general, the effects on net carbon emissions are highly correlated with the level of harvest. Increasing the area of set-asides and prohibiting old forest harvest help preserve old forest better than both business-as-usual and final felling age regulation. Longer-term results are uncertain as policies and technology development can radically change biomass use, product portfolios and displacement effects.

Estimates of theoretical climate change mitigation potentials in agriculture need to be complemented with investigations of factors that influence deployment. This study introduces a framework for landscape-level assessment of climate change mitigation in agriculture that accounts for existing land uses, soil carbon stocks, and farmers' preferences concerning specific mitigation options. The framework is used in an assessment of the deployment potentials for selected mitigation options in an agricultural landscape in Sweden, in which arable land covers approximately one-third of the land area. Three options were found to be preferable by farmers: biochar as soil amendment, cover crops, and (an increased) cultivation of ley crops in crop rotations. Cultivation of cover crops and leys was found to increase SOC stocks by 1.9 and 1.6 MgC ha-1 over three decades, respectively. About 10.2 MgC ha-1 is sequestered in soils over three decades when biochar is added as a soil amendment, if 50% of available residues are collected and utilized. This can be compared with GHG emissions from agriculture from the studied area, estimated at 1.6 Mg CO2-eq ha-1 yr-1 (GWP100). The framework was found useful for assessing mitigation options in the agriculture sector, underlining farmer involvement to identify actionable strategies.

Grass‐based biomass from grasslands can be used as feedstock in green biorefineries (GBs) that produce a range of biobased products. In addition, adjustments made as part of crop rotation to increase areas under temporary grasslands can yield benefits such as carbon sequestration, increased soil productivity, reduced eutrophication and reduced need for pesticides. In this paper, a flexible modeling framework is developed to analyze the deployment options for GBs that use grass–clover to produce protein feed and feedstock for bioenergy. The focus is placed on optimal deployment, considering system configuration and operation, as well as land use changes designed to increase grass–clover cultivation on cropland. A case study involving 17 counties in Sweden showed that the deployment of GB systems could support biomethane and protein feed production corresponding to 5–60 and 13–154%, respectively, of biomethane and soybean feed imports to Sweden in 2020. © 2022 The Authors. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining published by Society of Industrial Chemistry and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

The agriculture sector can contribute to climate change mitigation by reducing its own greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, sequestering carbon in vegetation and soils, and providing biomass to substitute for fossil fuels and other GHG intensive products. The sector also needs to address water, soil, and biodiversity impacts caused by historic and current practices. Emerging EU policies create incentives for cultivation of perennial plants that provide biomass along with environmental benefits. One such option, common in northern Europe, is to include grass in rotations with annual crops to provide biomass while remediating soil organic carbon (SOC) losses and other environmental impacts. Here, we apply a spatially explicit model on >81,000 sub-watersheds in EU27+UK (Europe) to explore the effects of widespread deployment of such systems. Based on current accumulated SOC losses in individual sub-watersheds, the model identifies and quantifies suitable areas for increased grass cultivation and corresponding biomass- and protein supply, SOC sequestration, and reductions in nitrogen emissions to water as well as wind and water erosion. The model also provides information about possible flood mitigation. The results indicate a significant climate mitigation potential, with combined annual GHG savings from soil-carbon sequestration and displacement of natural gas with biogas from grass-based biorefineries, equivalent to 13-48% of current GHG emissions from agriculture in Europe. The environmental co-benefits are also notable, in some cases exceeding the estimated mitigation needs. Yield increases for annual crops in modified rotations mitigate the displacement effect of increasing grass cultivation. If the grass is used as feedstock in lieu of annual crops, the displacement effect can be negative, i.e., a reduced need for annual crop production elsewhere. Incentivizing widespread deployment will require supportive policy measures as well as new uses of grass biomass, e.g., as feedstock for green biorefineries producing protein concentrate, biofuels and other biobased products.

Abatement options for the hard-to-electrify parts of the transport sector are needed to achieve ambitious emissions targets. Biofuels based on biomass, electrofuels based on renewable hydrogen and a carbon source, as well as fossil fuels compensated by carbon dioxide removal (CDR) are the main options. Currently, biofuels are the only renewable fuels available at scale and are stimulated by blending mandates. Here, we estimate the system cost of enforcing such mandates in addition to an overall emissions cap for all energy sectors. We model overnight scenarios for 2040 and 2060 with the sector-coupled European energy system model PyPSA-Eur-Sec, with a high temporal resolution. The following cost drivers are identified: (i) high biomass costs due to scarcity, (ii) opportunity costs for competing usages of biomass for industry heat and combined heat and power (CHP) with carbon capture, and (iii) lower scalability and generally higher cost for biofuels compared to electrofuels and fossil fuels combined with CDR. With a-80% emissions reduction target in 2040, variable renewables, partial electrification of heat, industry and transport, and biomass use for CHP and industrial heat are important for achieving the target at minimal cost, while an abatement of remaining liquid fossil fuel use increases system cost. In this case, a 50% biofuel mandate increases total energy system costs by 123-191 billion euro, corresponding to 35%-62% of the liquid fuel cost without a mandate. With a negative-105% emissions target in 2060, fuel abatement options are necessary, and electrofuels or the use of CDR to offset fossil fuel emissions are both more competitive than biofuels. In this case, a 50% biofuel mandate increases total costs by 21-33 billion euro, or 11%-15% of the liquid fuel cost without a mandate. Biomass is preferred in CHP and industry heat, combined with carbon capture to serve negative emissions or electrofuel production, thereby utilising biogenic carbon several times. Sensitivity analyses reveal significant uncertainties but consistently support that higher biofuel mandates lead to higher costs.

Bioenergy aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and contribute to meeting global climate change mitigation targets. Nevertheless, several sustainability concerns are associated with bioenergy, especially related to the impacts of using land for dedicated energy crop production. Cultivating energy crops can result in synergies or trade-offs between GHG emission reductions and other sustainability effects depending on context-specific conditions. Using the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework, the main synergies and trade-offs associated with land use for dedicated energy crop production were identified. Furthermore, the context-specific conditions (i.e., biomass feedstock, previous land use, climate, soil type and agricultural management) which affect those synergies and trade-offs were also identified. The most recent literature was reviewed and a pairwise comparison between GHG emission reduction (SDG 13) and other SDGs was carried out. A total of 427 observations were classified as either synergy (170), trade-off (176), or no effect (81). Most synergies with environmentally-related SDGs, such as water quality and biodiversity conservation, were observed when perennial crops were produced on arable land, pasture or marginal land in the ‘cool temperate moist’ climate zone and ‘high activity clay’ soils. Most trade-offs were related to food security and water availability. Previous land use and feedstock type are more impactful in determining synergies and trade-offs than climatic zone and soil type. This study highlights the importance of considering context-specific conditions in evaluating synergies and trade-offs and their relevance for developing appropriate policies and practices to meet worldwide demand for bioenergy in a sustainable manner.

We analyse the short- and long-term consequences for atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations of forest management strategies and forest product uses in Sweden by comparing the modelled consequences of forest resource use vs. increased conservation at different levels of GHG savings from carbon sequestration and product substitution with bioenergy and other forest products. Increased forest set-asides for conservation resulted in larger GHG reductions only in the short term and only when substitution effects were low. In all other cases, forest use was more beneficial. In all scenarios, annual carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration rates declined in conservation forests as they mature, eventually approaching a steady state. Forest set-asides are thus associated with increasing opportunity costs corresponding to foregone wood production and associated mitigation losses. Substitution and sequestration rates under all other forest management strategies rise, providing support for sustained harvest and cumulative mitigation gains. The impact of increased fertilization was everywhere beneficial to the climate and surpassed the mitigation potential of the other scenarios. Climate change can have large-positive or negative-influence on outcomes. Despite uncertainties, the results indicate potentially large benefits from forest use for wood production. These benefits, however, are not clearly linked with forestry in UNFCCC reporting, and the European Union's Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry carbon accounting, framework may even prevent their full realization. These reporting and accounting frameworks may further have the consequence of encouraging land set-asides and reduced forest use at the expense of future biomass production. Further, carbon leakage and resulting biodiversity impacts due to increased use of more GHG-intensive products, including imported products associated with deforestation and land degradation, are inadequately assessed. Considerable opportunity to better mobilize the climate change mitigation potential of Swedish forests therefore remains.

Circular economy approaches are commonly depicted by two cycles, where the biological cycle is associated with regeneration in the biosphere and the technical cycle with reuse, refurbishment, and recycling to maintain value and maximize material recovery. This work, instead, presents an alternative vision to the management of carbon-based materials that integrates the two cycles and enables the phasing-out of fossil carbon from the material system. The aim is to investigate the benefits and global potential of a co-recycling system, as an alternative to conventional recycling systems that separate biomass-based materials (e.g., wood, paper) from fossil-based materials (e.g., plastics). Thermochemical recycling technologies enable the conversion of carbon-based waste materials into high-quality synthetic products, promoting circularity and avoiding carbon losses such as carbon emissions and waste accumulation in landfills and nature. Here, the construction and analysis of co-recycling scenarios show how the deployment of thermochemical recycling technologies can decouple the material system from fossil resource extraction. Furthermore, energy use is reduced if pyrolysis and/or gasification are included in the portfolio of recycling technologies. In a decarbonized energy system, deployment of co-recycling can lead to near-zero carbon emissions, while in more carbon-intensive energy systems the choice of thermochemical recycling route is key to limiting carbon emissions.

Long-standing debates over the benefits of forest conservation vs. those of substitution and forest resource use continue to occupy attention in Europe and beyond. Moreover, many argue the carbon sequestration benefits of standing forest are greater than those from forest resource use and replanting. To study this question, we generate long-term scenario analyses based on different forest management strategies in Sweden, in particular comparing increasing forest use and increasing land set-asides over 100, 200 and 500 year cycles. We find that the cost of increasing land set-asides is reflected in a significant loss of the carbon benefits created by forest use (substitution and carbon sequestration). We explain this outcome through the loss of additional growth that occurs as forest in land set-asides matures and eventually reaches a steady state. For the Swedish forest, these costs are significant and may amount to the loss (lost opportunity) of annually providing and additional -14 MtCO2e in net annual removals. The EU-based LULUCF carbon accounting framework, however, does not recognize this benefit and thus may effectively encourage land set-asides at the expense of real, measurable forest and forest resource-based climate change mitigation.

The land sector needs to increase biomass production to meet multiple demands while reducing negative land use impacts and transitioning from being a source to being a sink of carbon. The new Common Agricultural Policy of the EU (CAP) steers towards a more needs-based, targeted approach to addressing multiple environmental and climatic objectives, in coherence with other EU policies. In relation to this, new schemes are developed to offer farmers direct payments to adapt practices beneficial for climate, water, soil, air and biodiversity. Multifunctional biomass production systems have potential to reduce environmental impacts from agriculture while maintaining or increasing biomass production for the bioeconomy across Europe. Here, we present the first attempt to model the deployment of two such systems, riparian buffers and windbreaks, across >81.000 landscapes in Europe (EU27 + UK), aiming to quantify the resulting ecosystem services and environmental benefits, considering three deployment scenarios with different incentives for implementation. We found that these multifunctional biomass production systems can reduce N emissions to water and soil loss by wind erosion, respectively, down to a “low” impact level all over Europe, while simultaneously providing substantial environmental co-benefits, using less than 1% of the area under annual crops in the EU. The GHG emissions savings of utilizing the biomass produced in these systems for replacing fossil alternatives, combined with the increases in soil organic carbon, correspond to 1-1,4% of total GHG emissions in EU28. The introduction of “eco-schemes” in the new CAP may resolve some of the main barriers to implementation of large-scale multifunctional biomass production systems. Increasing the knowledge of these opportunities among all EU member states, before designing and introducing country-specific Eco-scheme options in the new CAP, is critical.