• Energy Research
• 13. Climate action close
• 11. Sustainability close
• EU close
• NL close
• FI close

The ‘4 per mille Soils for Food Security and Climate’ was launched at the COP21 with an aspiration to increase global soil organic matter stocks by 4 per 1000 (or 0.4 %) per year as a compensation for the global emissions of greenhouse gases by anthropogenic sources. This paper surveyed the soil organic carbon (SOC) stock estimates and sequestration potentials from 20 regions in the world (New Zealand, Chile, South Africa, Australia, Tanzania, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, India, China Taiwan, South Korea, China Mainland, United States of America, France, Canada, Belgium, England & Wales, Ireland, Scotland, and Russia). We asked whether the 4 per mille initiative is feasible for the region. The outcomes highlight region specific efforts and scopes for soil carbon sequestration. Reported soil C sequestration rates globally show that under best management practices, 4 per mille or even higher sequestration rates can be accomplished. High C sequestration rates (up to 10 per mille) can be achieved for soils with low initial SOC stock (topsoil less than 30 t C ha− 1), and at the first twenty years after implementation of best management practices. In addition, areas which have reached equilibrium will not be able to further increase their sequestration. We found that most studies on SOC sequestration only consider topsoil (up to 0.3 m depth), as it is considered to be most affected by management techniques. The 4 per mille number was based on a blanket calculation of the whole global soil profile C stock, however the potential to increase SOC is mostly on managed agricultural lands. If we consider 4 per mille in the top 1m of global agricultural soils, SOC sequestration is between 2-3 Gt C year− 1, which effectively offset 20–35% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. As a strategy for climate change mitigation, soil carbon sequestration buys time over the next ten to twenty years while other effective sequestration and low carbon technologies become viable. The challenge for cropping farmers is to find disruptive technologies that will further improve soil condition and deliver increased soil carbon. Progress in 4 per mille requires collaboration and communication between scientists, farmers, policy makers, and marketeers.

The ‘4 per mille Soils for Food Security and Climate’ was launched at the COP21 with an aspiration to increase global soil organic matter stocks by 4 per 1000 (or 0.4 %) per year as a compensation for the global emissions of greenhouse gases by anthropogenic sources. This paper surveyed the soil organic carbon (SOC) stock estimates and sequestration potentials from 20 regions in the world (New Zealand, Chile, South Africa, Australia, Tanzania, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, India, China Taiwan, South Korea, China Mainland, United States of America, France, Canada, Belgium, England & Wales, Ireland, Scotland, and Russia). We asked whether the 4 per mille initiative is feasible for the region. The outcomes highlight region specific efforts and scopes for soil carbon sequestration. Reported soil C sequestration rates globally show that under best management practices, 4 per mille or even higher sequestration rates can be accomplished. High C sequestration rates (up to 10 per mille) can be achieved for soils with low initial SOC stock (topsoil less than 30 t C ha− 1), and at the first twenty years after implementation of best management practices. In addition, areas which have reached equilibrium will not be able to further increase their sequestration. We found that most studies on SOC sequestration only consider topsoil (up to 0.3 m depth), as it is considered to be most affected by management techniques. The 4 per mille number was based on a blanket calculation of the whole global soil profile C stock, however the potential to increase SOC is mostly on managed agricultural lands. If we consider 4 per mille in the top 1m of global agricultural soils, SOC sequestration is between 2-3 Gt C year− 1, which effectively offset 20–35% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. As a strategy for climate change mitigation, soil carbon sequestration buys time over the next ten to twenty years while other effective sequestration and low carbon technologies become viable. The challenge for cropping farmers is to find disruptive technologies that will further improve soil condition and deliver increased soil carbon. Progress in 4 per mille requires collaboration and communication between scientists, farmers, policy makers, and marketeers.

Abstract This study demonstrates the possibility to use energy-cost optimal building designs based on life cycle approach. There is a lack of studies that cover the comprehensive assessment of both embodied energy (EE) and operational energy (OE) in a single optimization problem. The primary goal of the current study is to compare the optimized results of using OE+EE together and OE only. The optimization is performed on a case study building (townhouse) in Finland with three structural alternatives (i.e., reinforced concrete (RC); cross-laminated timber (CLT) and Steel). Different options for insulation thickness of external wall, roof, floor and window types were considered as decision variables as the scope of the present study is on building envelope. The objectives of the optimization are to minimize life cycle energy (LCE) and life cycle costs (LCC). The LCE difference between the most and least energy efficient solution on the pareto front is greater in case of the OE optimization, compared to OE+EE optimization. For all studied structures, the EE of the optimal solutions from OE+EE optimization ranges 16%–23% of LCE. Many of the non-dominated optimal solutions obtained from the OE+EE optimization shows a higher U-value for the building envelope components compared to the optimal solutions from the OE optimization. A relationship between both OE and EE with the overall thermal resistance of the building envelope is discussed to obtain a deeper understanding of such differences in U-value for the optimal solutions obtained from the OE+EE and OE optimization.

Abstract This study demonstrates the possibility to use energy-cost optimal building designs based on life cycle approach. There is a lack of studies that cover the comprehensive assessment of both embodied energy (EE) and operational energy (OE) in a single optimization problem. The primary goal of the current study is to compare the optimized results of using OE+EE together and OE only. The optimization is performed on a case study building (townhouse) in Finland with three structural alternatives (i.e., reinforced concrete (RC); cross-laminated timber (CLT) and Steel). Different options for insulation thickness of external wall, roof, floor and window types were considered as decision variables as the scope of the present study is on building envelope. The objectives of the optimization are to minimize life cycle energy (LCE) and life cycle costs (LCC). The LCE difference between the most and least energy efficient solution on the pareto front is greater in case of the OE optimization, compared to OE+EE optimization. For all studied structures, the EE of the optimal solutions from OE+EE optimization ranges 16%–23% of LCE. Many of the non-dominated optimal solutions obtained from the OE+EE optimization shows a higher U-value for the building envelope components compared to the optimal solutions from the OE optimization. A relationship between both OE and EE with the overall thermal resistance of the building envelope is discussed to obtain a deeper understanding of such differences in U-value for the optimal solutions obtained from the OE+EE and OE optimization.

This article presents a model of development, civil war and climate change. There are multiple interactions. Economic growth reduces the probability of civil war and the vulnerability to climate change. Climate change increases the probability of civil war. The impacts of climate change, civil war and civil war in the neighbouring countries reduce economic growth. The model has two potential poverty traps – one is climate-change-induced and one is civil-war-induced – and the two poverty traps may reinforce one another. The model is calibrated to sub-Saharan Africa and a double Monte Carlo analysis is conducted in order to account for both parameter uncertainty and stochasticity. Although the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) is used as the baseline, thus assuming rapid economic growth in Africa and convergence of African living standards to the rest of the world, the impacts of civil war and climate change (ignored in SRES) are sufficiently strong to keep a number of countries in Africa in deep poverty with a high probability.