%ARobertson, G.%AHamilton, Stephen%APaustian, Keith%ASmith, Pete%D2022%IDryad %TData from: Land-based climate solutions for the United States %X{"Abstract":["Meeting end-of-century global warming targets requires aggressive action\n on multiple fronts. Recent reports note the futility of addressing\n mitigation goals without fully engaging the agricultural sector, yet no\n available assessments combine both nature-based solutions (reforestation,\n grassland and wetland protection, and agricultural practice change) and\n cellulosic bioenergy for a single geographic region. Collectively, these\n solutions might offer a suite of climate, biodiversity, and other benefits\n greater than either alone. Nature-based solutions are largely constrained\n by the duration of carbon accrual in soils and forest biomass; each of\n these carbon pools will eventually saturate. Bioenergy solutions can last\n indefinitely but carry significant environmental risk if carelessly\n deployed. We detail a simplified scenario for the U.S. that illustrates\n the benefits of combining approaches. We assign a portion of non-forested\n former cropland to bioenergy sufficient to meet projected mid-century\n transportation needs, with the remainder assigned to nature-based\n solutions such as reforestation. Bottom-up mitigation potentials for the\n aggregate contributions of crop, grazing, forest, and bioenergy lands are\n assessed by including in a Monte Carlo model conservative ranges for\n cost-effective local mitigation capacities, together with ranges for (a)\n areal extents that avoid double counting and include realistic adoption\n rates and (b) the projected duration of different carbon sinks. The\n projected duration illustrates the net effect of eventually saturating\n soil carbon pools in the case of most strategies, and additionally\n saturating biomass carbon pools in the case of reforestation. Results show\n a conservative end-of-century mitigation capacity of 110 (57 \u2013 178) Gt\n CO2e for the U.S., ~50% higher than existing estimates that prioritize\n nature-based or bioenergy solutions separately. Further research is needed\n to shrink uncertainties but there is sufficient confidence in the general\n magnitude and direction of a combined approach to plan for deployment now."],"Methods":["The dataset is a synthesis of literature values selected based on criteria\n described in the parent paper\u2019s narrative."],"Other":["The files can be opened in Microsoft Excel or any other spreadsheet that\n can load Excel-format files."]} https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.ghx3ffbr1%KNature Based Solutions; Bioenergy; Cellulosic bioenerg; soil carbon; croplands; grazing land; forest land; Forest management; Agriculture practices; climate change mitigation; carbon cycle modeling; negative CO2 emissions; reforestation; carbon dioxide; nitrous oxide (N2O); carbon capture and sequestration; BECCS; CCS; electric vehicles; FOS: Agricultural sciences %SProduct Size: 129435298 bytes %F