c –sequ - idf · 2020. 11. 13. · why c-sequis important to dmi •dairy management inc. and its...
Post on 14-Mar-2021
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Public Consultation Webinar
November 10, 2020
C– SequDevelopment of LCA guidelines for the calculation of
Carbon Sequestration for the cattle sector
C– Sequ
IntroductionThanks for Engaging!
• Partners investing
• 2 webinars
• Constructive feedback crucial to progress
• Purpose of this webinar
• Questions – Only on Consultation process
C– Sequ
Agenda
1. Introduction to Webinar
2. Partner introduction to C-Sequ
3. Content overview – Quantis
4. Questions (Typed in Chat)
5. Next steps
6. Close
WhyC-sequ isimportanttoDMI
• Dairy Management Inc. and its related organizations work to increase sales and demand for dairy through research, education and innovation, and to maintain confidence in dairy foods, farms and businesses. DMI manages National Dairy Council and the American Dairy Association, and founded the U.S. Dairy Export Council and the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy.
• The Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy has set aggressive new environmental sustainability goals to achieve carbon neutrality or better, optimize water usage and improve water quality by 2050.
• Carbon sequestration is not included so far – but have been challenged on that (not least by farmers).
• Want to ensure that the advices given to farmers includes the ‘full picture’ and also promotes carbon sequestration and thereby mitigate climate change.
C A R B O N N E U T R A L I T Y W A T E R Q U A L I T Y P R O G R E S S T O W A R D G O A L SW A T E R Q U A N T I T Y
%
• All companies/organisations in the project have climate strategies/goals and have worked with carbon assessments at farm level for several years.
• To date there is no consensus on how to include carbon sequestration, but there are different methods (which can provide very different results).
• As a result, the companies/organisations got together to find a scientifically & feasible method, and engaged with soil & LCA experts.
PURPOSE OF THE C-SEQU PROJECTEstablish a carbon sequestration calculation method
to be used in Carbon Footprint assessments at farm level.
The ultimate outcome is to have a method that will support and encourage farmers to implement activities and practices that
promote carbon sequestration and thereby mitigate climate change.
BackgroundfortheC-sequ project
C– Sequ
The draft Guidance process
Multi stakeholder engagement for 1+ year, about a dozen
group calls.
Literature review and informal peer review
Ongoing debate and evolving
conversation
Key take away: Today, we present the draft of the Guidance as an outcome of this multi-stakeholder process. The purpose is to equip you with the knowledge and perspective needed to provide critical feedback on the Guidance.
Draft Guidance now available for your critical feedback.
C– Sequ
Glossary
• CO2 removal: The process of capturing carbon from atmospheric CO2and keeping it from being re-emitted by storing it in any form.
• Carbon sequestration: The process where CO2 is removed from that atmosphere and stored in organic stocks (e.g. soil, trees). Gains in sequestered carbon are meant to be long-standing but are still considered reversable out of precaution.
• Carbon stock: Carbon in soils, trees, or other biomass on a farm.• Climate benefit: For the purpose of the Guidance the phrase “climate
benefit” refers to a negative emission of CO2, i.e. a removal, while acknowledging that negative emissions associated with any given system is not equal to a global climate benefit.
• Climate impact: For the purpose of the Guidance the phrase “climate impact” refers to a climate relevant emission of CO2, while acknowledging that emissions for any given system is not equal to a global climate impact.
C– Sequ
Two fundamental gaps in GHG accounting practice
Inventory (Flows)EmissionsRemovals
Characterization (Impact)Global warming potential (GWP)
CO2 emissions and removals are not necessarily climate relevant as it is the “atmospheric perspective” that matters.
Key take away: Carbon stock changes that influence atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gas, and subsequent warming potential, over a time period are relevant to consider for both removed CO2 and emitted CO2.
Inventory flow * characterization factor = impact indicatorX tCO2 stored-year * Y tCO2equivalent / tCO2 stored-year = Z tCO2equivalent
Many LCA methods available, however are not used in practice
Many methods available outside of LCA community and are not used in practice
Microbial respiration from decomposition
Soil organiccarbon lost via
erosion
Erosion
O HORIZON (DECOMPOSING ORGANIC MATTER)
ABOVE GROUND VEGETATION
DEAD ORGANIC MATTER (LEAF LITTER/PLANT DEBRIS)
A HORIZON (TOPSOIL)
Photosynthesis (removal)
0cm
10cm
30cm
Carbon lost via leaching
100cm
C horizon (Substratum – Mostly rocks, not soil)
Soil organic carbon (SOC)
B HORIZON (SUBSOIL)
Belowground biomass
(in plant roots)
CH4Emissions
Fundamentals for inventory: Carbon cycle
Animal enteric emissions, manure emissions and respiration
C– Sequ
CO2 removals and emissions can be climate relevant inventory, example: deforestation
Biogenic CO2 emitted through deforestation would not be in the atmosphere if the forest continued toexist, thus is climate relevant.
CO2 exchanges due to the forest however, can be carbon neutral depending on the characteristics of theforest (temperature, rainfall), mortality etc. (To note local weather patterns can be influenced by forest.)
Key take away: Deforestation is a well known example of a climate relevant emission of biogenic CO2 . Land use change Guidance has been previously developed to account for this.
C– Sequ
Most carbon applied to soils or captured by trees is released back to the atmosphere at some point in the near future.
What is climate relevant when applying carbon to soil?
Key take away: Carbon added to the soil is inherently reversible and re-emitted through time, the same for trees. It is the amount and time period for which the carbon is removed that has a climate benefit.
Carbon returning to the atmosphere due to application of organic carbon is not climate relevant, as it is just returning to its previous atmospheric pool.
0 50
1
Carbon applied
Years since original carbon application
100
carbon in soil
carbon that returns to atmosphere
Carbon that stays out of the atmosphere over a period of time is climate relevant.
Carbon that is emitted exceeding what was applied, is also climate relevant.
C– Sequ
Relevant CO2 removals through change of equilibrium e.g. Tier I/II empirical models.
Carbon stock
Time
Initiation event
Stock saturation
New sustained stock levelequilibrium steady-state
Key take away: A build in carbon stock (biomass or soil) to a new equilibrium state can also be climate relevant, however land use change methods may not cover this if it is due to a land management change. Various models and measurements can be
used to determine change of overall carbon stock.
Inventory is a net change in stock. In the Guidance we don’t suggest a single method for obtaining inventory, and like most LCA frameworks, we don’t suggest needs for monitoring or validation.
Tier I/II IPCC models are currently used in land use change accounting. Site-specific measurements or Tier III models are more precise. Satellite imagery may also become possible.
Please review the table of “initiation events” (land management change) in the Guidance.
C– Sequ
CO2 removals from atmospheric perspective
Key take away: A build in carbon stock (biomass or soil) to a new equilibrium state is considered to be a CO2 removal and its climate relevance is dependent on the quantity removed (inventory) and the time frame it is removed for (characterization).
The climate benefit is related to the amount of CO2 removed over a time period of 100 years.Atmospheric
CO2
Removed CO2
Initiation event
Stock saturation
Sustained stock
Time
The climate benefit is related to the amount of CO2 removed over a time period of 100 years – so temporary removals, or removals where the future fate is unknown, can also have climate benefit when removed.
C– Sequ
Characterizing reversible removals
Key take away: GWP100 for a CO2 removal is also the ratio of the change of radiative forcing of the removal over 100 years in comparison to a CO2 pulse emission, even if that removal is temporary and reversible.
Atmospheric CO2
Time
Removed CO2
Initiation event
Reversal event
Microbial respiration from decomposition
Soil organiccarbon lost via
erosion
Erosion
O HORIZON (DECOMPOSING ORGANIC MATTER)
ABOVE GROUND VEGETATION
DEAD ORGANIC MATTER (LEAF LITTER/PLANT DEBRIS)
A HORIZON (TOPSOIL)
Photosynthesis (removal)
0cm
10cm
30cm
Carbon lost via leaching
100cm
C horizon (Substratum – Mostly rocks, not soil)
Soil organic carbon (SOC)
B HORIZON (SUBSOIL)
Belowground biomass
(in plant roots)
CH4Emissions
Fundamentals for characterization: Carbon cycle
Animal enteric emissions, manure emissions and respiration
C– Sequ
Fundamentals of characterization: Global warming potential in a 100 year time horizon
https://www.fcrn.org.uk/fcrn-blogs/livestock%E2%80%99s-carbon-footprint-importance-comparing-greenhouse-gases
CO2 radiative forcing over 100 years after a pulse emission
CH4 radiative forcing over 100 years after a pulse emission
Key take away: GWP100 for any greenhouse gas is the ratio of the radiative forcing due to emission of that gas in comparison to a reference pulse emission of CO2 over 100 years. This is the fundamental science behind of the GWP factors by IPCC AR5.
Bern Carbon Cycle captures dynamics in the atmosphere
C– Sequ
Methods to consider removals given GWP100
Brandão et al 2018. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12593
1. Method to chose for the characterization factor for CO2 removal2. Reference state to chose
Different methods
Different results
https://www.worldwildlife.org/projects/biogenic-carbon-footprint-calculator-for-harvested-wood-products
Key take away: Many different methods for removal accounting from the forestry and bioenergy sectors. Two main challenges are which characterization approach and which reference state? We face these challenges for the dairy and beef sector.
Challenges!
C– Sequ
Solving the challenge with the simple ILCD linear approach for characterization of removals
Dynamic accounting is conceptually and computationally challenging and requires predictions of the future (ex-ante) storage, and is based on the arbitrary assumption of a 100 year time horizon. Thus “precision” is an illusion, and the conceptual challenge of shifting the Bern Curve is not essential, especially when future dynamics are uncertain. For systems that produce fast-consumable goods (e.g. food) and don’t have tree planting cycles, the dynamic accounting methods don’t add a lot of value.
Example of dynamic modelling à GWP of a CO2 removal Model comparison (Brandão & Levasseur)
Key take away: Using the ILCD linear method, where each year of CO2 removal gets 1% “credit” in a 100 year time horizon, is a simple approach to a complicated concept.
For each year of CO2 removed from the atmosphere over a 100 time horizon for GWP100, there is a 1% “credit”, a static characterization factor of -0.01 kg CO2eq/kg CO2 removed-year
Bern Carbon Cycle captures dynamics in the atmosphere A straight line, is not far off.
C– Sequ
Current state
Improved state
Benefit e.g. carbon removal
Natural state
How to chose a reference state?
Key take away: Depending on what a removal due to a gain (or loss) of carbon stock is compared to, it can either be a net removal (benefit) or a filling of a carbon debt (a less bad impact).
Filing a carbon debt
Net removal
Reference? Reference?
C– Sequ
Looking at previous consensus to solve the challenge for the choice of reference state
Key take away: Years of stakeholder engagement has defined rules for assessing carbon stock (soil or biomass) changes due to land use change. These rules are now widespread in GHG accounting.
Reference state
C– Sequ
Aligning with Land Use Change (LUC) Guidance
• In LUC, the 20 year look-back period is equal to the 20 year amortization period of impacts in order to have accounting symmetry. Symmetry is recommended in the Guidance.
• In LUC, the 20 year period is to ensure carried responsibility of an event, hence the term “responsibility window” in the draft Guidance is presented as a new term to describe the period of time previously referred to as the “look back” and “amortization” period.
• In LUC, the reference state is historical, e.g. just prior to an event, which is also recommended in the Guidance.
• LUC methods can be used in attributional (snapshot) or consequential (market-dynamics). We do not discuss this larger LCA framework and application issue in the Guidance.
This stock change is amortized over a responsibility window of 20 years which is equivalent to the look-back period.
EventHistorical stock Farm stock
Key take away: Years of stakeholder engagement has defined rules for assessing carbon stock (soil or biomass) changes due to land use change. These rules are now widespread in GHG accounting, and the draft Guidance builds on these.
C– Sequ
Aligning with Land Use Change (LUC) Guidance, a new challenge of amortization and look-back
• Events that can lead to gains and losses of sequestered carbon are not land use changes – but can be related to land management change or continuous land management; thus in the draft Guidance we focus on land management change.
• However, when considering “removals” due to stock gain with a GWP100 framework, poses an accounting challenge if needing to distribute the entire benefit over 20 years.
• Thus if the equivalent of an amortization period of impacts is performed for benefits (where 100% of the benefit can be received in 20 years), this would lead to an adjusted characterization factor of 5% (0.05 kg CO2eq/kg CO2) for either sequestration or emission. Other responsibility windows could be chosen for various value choices.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEZvF68sytc
Key take away: The draft Guidance builds on LUC accounting rules, and extends to Land Management Change, however this requires adjusting characterization factors.
C– Sequ
Responsibility windows: your input needed
We invite your feedback in order to chose 1 of the 3 different responsibility windows and corresponding adjusted characterization factors for the final guidance.
Responsibility
window
(Years)
Adjusted characterization factor
(kg CO2eq/kg CO2 stored)Advantages Disadvantages
20 5% -Aligned with LUC accounting
-Realistic time period for agricultural land management
-Feasible time period to find data on past changes
-Overestimates benefits of carbon sequestration if reversed in the future
(i.e. adjusts the characterization factor of 0.01 to be 0.05 kg CO2eq/kg
CO2 stored)
-Would not capture changes in practices occurring prior to 20 years
before the assessment year
50 2% -Somewhat realistic time period for agricultural land
management
-Offers a per-year benefit of carbon sequestration aligned
with some scientific evidence (e.g. Moura-Costa method)
-Not aligned with LUC accounting
-Difficult to find data to document the past
100 1% -Offers a time period aligned with GWP100
-Captures practices that have occurred within the past 100
years
-Not aligned with LUC accounting
-Is a time period too long to be relevant for inspiring changes in land
management
-Difficult to find data to document past changes
-Impacts and benefits are small per year which discourages changes
C– Sequ
In all the Guideline outlines how to 1) obtain inventory and 2) multiply by adjusted characterization factor (ACF)
C– Sequ
Reporting and bigger picture
• We recommend to report the value of removals separately from greenhouse gas emissions.
• A negative or neutral carbon footprint for a farm, a product, a company, or even a country does not mean that society is on track for a 1.5 °C scenarios as laid out by the IPCC and several peer reviewed publications.
C– Sequ
After major fossil CO2 reductions, and stopping emission through land management and use, removals are required to neutralize residual emissions.
Inspired by IPCC, 2018
For any further information: Alexi.Ernstoff@quantis-intl.com
40
20
0
-202020 2050 2100
Billion tonnes CO2per year
Fossil carbon
Land use
Technological carbon capture
Removals through land management
Emissions through land management and use
C– Sequ
Next Steps
• Public consultation close –December 9
• Review of feedback December / January
• Revised document Q2 2021 (aspirational)
• Pilots – Practical application
top related