ABSTRACT 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.
Cowie et al. (Sat,) studied this question.