On Carbon Substitution and Storage Factors for Harvested Wood Products in the Context of Climate Change Mitigation in the Norwegian Forest Sector

[1] Sathre R., O’Connor J. Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution. Environmental Science & Policy 2010:13(2):104–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.12.005 Search in Google Scholar

[2] Leskinen P., et al. Substitution effect of wood-based products in climate change mitigation. From science to policy 7. Joensuu: European Forest Institute. 2018. Search in Google Scholar

[3] Repo A., Tuomi M., Liski J. Indirect carbon dioxide emissions from producing bioenergy from forest harvest residues. GCB Bioenergy 2010:3:107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01065.x Search in Google Scholar

[4] Holstmark B. Harvesting in boreal forests and the biofuel carbon debt. Climatic Change 2012:112:415–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0222-6 Search in Google Scholar

[5] Pingoud K., Ekholm T., Savolainen I. Global warming potential factors and warming payback time as climate indicators of forest biomass use. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 2012:17:369–386. Search in Google Scholar

[6] Röder M., Thornley P. Waste wood as bioenergy feedstock. Climate change impacts and related emission uncertainties from waste wood based energy systems in the UK. Waste Management 2018:74:241–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.11.042. Search in Google Scholar

[7] Jåstad E., Bolkesjø T. F. Modelling emission and land-use impacts of altered bioenergy use in the future energy system. Energy 2023:265:126349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.126349 Search in Google Scholar

[8] Hurmekoski E., et al. Impact of structural changes in wood-using industries on net carbon emissions in Finland. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2020:24(4):899–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12981 Search in Google Scholar

[9] Soimakallio S., et al. Climate change mitigation challenge for wood utilization – the case of Finland. Environmental Science & Technology 2016:50(10):5127–5134. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.6b00122 Search in Google Scholar

[10] Suter F., Steubing B., Hellweg S. Life Cycle Impacts and Benefits of Wood along the Value Chain: The Case of Switzerland. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2017:21(4):874–886. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12486 Search in Google Scholar

[11] Muñoz I., Campra P., Fernández-Alba A. R. Including CO2-emission equivalence of changes in land surface albedo in life cycle assessment. Methodology and case study on greenhouse agriculture. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2010:15(7):672–681. Search in Google Scholar

[12] IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

[13] Myhre G., et al. Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Search in Google Scholar

[14] IPCC. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories – A primer, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. Japan: IGES, 2006. Search in Google Scholar

[15] IPCC. Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Geneva: IPCC, Switzerland, 2019. Search in Google Scholar

[16] Norwegian Environment Agency. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1990-2019: National Inventory Report. Oslo: Norwegian Environment Agency, 2021. Search in Google Scholar

[17] IPCC. Revised Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol. Geneva: IPCC, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

[18] Marland E. S., Stellar K., Marland G. H. A distributed approach to accounting for carbon in wood products. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 2010:15(1):71–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-009-9205-6 Search in Google Scholar

[19] Iordan C. M., et al. Contribution of forest wood products to negative emissions: historical comparative analysis from 1960 to 2015 in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Carbon Balance and Management 2018:13(1):12. Search in Google Scholar

[20] Werner F., et al. National and global greenhouse gas dynamics of different forest management and use scenarios: a model-based assessment. Environmental Science and Policy 2010:13(1):72–85. Search in Google Scholar

[21] Lecocq F., et al. Paying for forest carbon or stimulating fuelwood demand? Insights from the French Forest Sector Model. Journal of Forest Economics 2011:2:157–168. Search in Google Scholar

[22] Kallio A. M. I., Salminen O., Sievänen R. Sequester or substitute - Consequences of increased production of wood based energy on the carbon balance in Finland. Journal of Forest Economics 2013:19(4):402–415. Search in Google Scholar

[23] Braun M., et al. A holistic assessment of greenhouse gas dynamics from forests to the effects of wood products use in Austria, Carbon Management, 2016:7(5–6):271–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2016.1230990 Search in Google Scholar

[24] Norwegian Environment Agency. Norway. 2021 Common Reporting Format (CRF) Table, 2021. [Online]. [Accessed 15.12.2022]. Available: https://unfccc.int/documents/273426 Search in Google Scholar

[25] Bramming J. Physical and Mechanical Properties in Norwegian Spruce and Pine: An Activity in the SSFF Project. Report 65. Oslo: Norwegian Institute of Wood Technology, 2006. Search in Google Scholar

[26] Repola J. Models for vertical wood density of Scotch Pine, Norway Spruce and birch stems, and their application to determinate average wood density. Silva Fennica 2006:40(4):673–685. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.322 Search in Google Scholar

[27] Heräjärvi H. Variation of basic density and brinell hardness within mature Finnish Betula Pendula and B. Pubescens stems. Wood and Fiber Science 2004:36(2):216–227. Search in Google Scholar

[28] Shen L., Patel M. Life Cycle Assessment of man-made cellulose fibres. Lenzinger Berichte 2010:88:1–59. Search in Google Scholar

[29] Schultz T., Suresh A. Life Cycle Assessment Comparing Ten Sources of Manmade Cellulose Fiber. Emeryville: SCS Global Services, 2017. Search in Google Scholar

[30] FAO. FAOSTAT data base. Forestry production and trade [Online]. [Accessed 15.12.2022]. Available: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO Search in Google Scholar

[31] Process21. Biobasert prosessindustri. Prosess21 ekspertgrupperapport [Online]. [Accessed 15.12.2022]. Available: www.prosess21.no Search in Google Scholar

[32] Braun M., et al. Apparent half-life-dynamics of Harvested Wood Products (HWPs) in Austria: Development and analysis of weighted time-series for 2002 to 2011. Forest Policy and Economics 2016:63:28–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.11.008 Search in Google Scholar

[33] Karjalainen T., Kellomäki S., Pussinen A. Role of wood-based products in absorbing atmospheric carbon. Silva Fennica 1994:28(2):67–80. Search in Google Scholar

[34] Pingoud K., Perälä A., Pussinen A. Carbon dynamics in wood products. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 2001:6:91–111. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011353806845 Search in Google Scholar

[35] Skog K. E., Nicholson G. A. Carbon sequestration in wood and paper products, the impact of climate change on America’s forests: a technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. Fort Collins, CO: Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-59. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 2000:79–88. Search in Google Scholar

[36] Vandenbroucke M. Rapport- Technische levensduur van gebouwcomponenten (Technical lifetime of components in construction). Mechelen: OVAM, 2018. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23706.88002 (in Dutch) Search in Google Scholar

[37] Nabuurs G. J., Sikkema R. Application and Evaluation of the Alternative IPCC Methods for Harvested Wood Products in the National Communications. Proceedings for the IPCC Expert Meeting on Evaluating approaches for estimating net emissions from harvested wood products. Wageningen, 1998. Search in Google Scholar

[38] Irle M., et al. Recycling waste fibreboard. Proceedings of IPPS 2019. Search in Google Scholar

[39] Guest G., Strømman A. H. Climate Change Impacts Due to Biogenic Carbon: Addressing the Issue of Attribution Using Two Metrics with Very Different Outcomes. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 2014:33(3):298–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2013.872997 Search in Google Scholar

[40] Fossdal S. Energi og miljøregnskap for bygg (Energy and environmental accounting for construction). Oslo: NBI, 1995. (in Norwegian) Search in Google Scholar

[41] Menzies G. F. Whole Life Analysis of Timber, Modified Timber and Aluminium-Clad Timber Windows: Service Life Planning (SLP), Whole Life Costing (WLC) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University, 2013. Search in Google Scholar

[42] Asif M., Muneer T., Kubie J. Sustainability analysis of window frames. Building Services Engineering Research and Technology 2005:26(1):71–87. https://doi.org/10.1191/0143624405bt118tn Search in Google Scholar

[43] Coelho P., Silva A., de Brito J. How long can a wood flooring system last? Buildings 2021:11(1):23. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11010023 Search in Google Scholar

[44] Nyrud A. Q., et al. Innovative wood building materials- climate change and improved life. Treteknisk rapport 2015. Search in Google Scholar

[45] Myllyviita T., et al. Wood substitution potential in greenhouse gas emission reduction–review on current state and application of displacement factors. Forest Ecosystems 2021:8(42). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-021-00326-8 Search in Google Scholar

[46] Härtl F. H., Höllerl S., Knoke T. A new way of carbon accounting emphasises the crucial role of sustainable timber use for successful carbon mitigation strategies. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 2017:22(8):1163–1192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-016-9720-1 Search in Google Scholar

[47] Rüter S., et al. ClimWood2030 ‘Climate benefits of material substitution by forest biomass and harvested wood products: Perspective 2030’ Final Report. Braunschweig: Thunen-Institut, 2016. Search in Google Scholar

[48] Shen L., Worrell E., Patel M. K. Environmental impact assessment of man-made cellulose fibres. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2010:55(2):260–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.10.001 Search in Google Scholar

[49] Knauf M., et al. Modeling the CO₂-effects of forest management and wood usage on a regional basis. Carbon Balance and Management 2015:10:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-015-0024-7 Search in Google Scholar

[50] Hunton Fiber AS. Environmental product declaration Trefiberisolasjon Innblåst, 2020 [Online]. [Accessed 15.09.2022]. Available at https://www.epd-norge.no/isolasjon/hunton-trefiberisolasjon-innblast-article2685-321.html Search in Google Scholar

[51] Hunton Fiber AS. Environmental product declaration Trefiberisolasjon Plate, 2020 [Online]. [Accessed 15.09.2022]. Available at https://www.epd-norge.no/isolasjon/hunton-trefiberisolasjon-innblast-article2685-321.html Search in Google Scholar

[52] Schulte M., Lewandowski I., Pude R., Wagner M. Comparative life cycle assessment of bio-based insulation materials: Environmental and economic performances. GCB Bioenergy 2021:13(6):979–998. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12825 Search in Google Scholar

[53] Hunton Fiber AS. Vi skal øke markedsandelen i isolasjonsmarkedet (We shall increase the market share in isolation markets). 2020 [Online]. [Accessed 15.12.2022]. Available: https://www.hunton.no/nyheter/hunton-skal-okemarkedsandelen-i-isolasjonsmarkedet/ (in Norwegian) Search in Google Scholar

[54] Hunton Fiber AS. Fra tre til trefiber (From tree to woodfibre). 2020 [Online]. [Accessed 15.12.2022]. Available: https://www.hunton.no/nyheter/fra-flis-til-trefiber/ (in Norwegian) Search in Google Scholar

[55] European Parliament. The impact of textile production and waste on the environment 2021 [Online]. [Accessed 15.12.2022]. Available: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20201208STO93327/the-impact-of-textile-production-and-waste-on-the-environment-infographic Search in Google Scholar

[56] Kallio A. M. I. Wood-based textile fibre market as part of the global forest-based bioeconomy. Forest Policy and Economics 2021:123:102364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102364 Search in Google Scholar

[57] Treindustrien. Nøkkeltal (Key figures). 2021 [Online]. [Accessed 15.12.2022]. Available: www.treindustrien.no/nokkeltall (in Norwegian) Search in Google Scholar

[58] Sandberg D., et al. The role of the wood mechanical industry in the Swedish forest industry cluster. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 2014:29(4):352–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2014.932005 Search in Google Scholar

[59] Directive 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast). Official Journal of European Union 2018:L 328/82. Search in Google Scholar

[60] Moazzem S., et al. Life Cycle Assessment of Apparel Consumption in Australia. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2021:25(1):71–111. https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2021-0006 Search in Google Scholar

[61] Södra. 2023. Oncemore [Online]. [Accessed 17.6.2023]. https://www.sodra.com/en/global/pulp/oncemore/ Search in Google Scholar

[62] Watson D., et al. Kartlegging av brukte tekstiler og tekstilavfall i Norge (Mapping used textiles and textile waste in Norway). PlanMiljø, NORSUS, 2020. (in Norwegian) Search in Google Scholar

[63] Ioncell [Online]. [Accessed 15.12.2022]. Available: https://ioncell.fi/ Search in Google Scholar

[64] Spinnova [Online]. [Accessed 15.12.2022]. Available: https://spinnova.com/technology/ Search in Google Scholar

[65] Hunton Fiber AS. Isolere fornybart og lagre CO2 (Isolate with renewably and store carbon). Gjøvik: Hunton, 2017. (in Norwegian) Search in Google Scholar

[66] Schlamadinger B., et al. Bioenergy strategies and the global carbon cycle. Scientific Geological Bulletin 1997:50:157–182. Search in Google Scholar

[67] Pingoud K., Pohjola J., Valsta L. Assessing the integrated climatic impacts of forestry and wood products. Silva Fennica 2010:44:1:166. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.166 Search in Google Scholar

[68] Strimbu V., Eid T., Gobakken T. A forest stand growth and yield simulator for the Norwegian forest sector. 2023. Unpublished manuscript. (Submitted) Search in Google Scholar

[69] Brunet-Navarro P., et al. Climate mitigation by energy and material substitution of wood products has an expiry date. Journal of Cleaner Production 2021:303:127026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127026 Search in Google Scholar

[70] Mathiesen B. V., Münster M., Fruergaard T. Uncertainties related to the identification of the marginal energy technology in consequential life cycle assessments. Journal of Cleaner Production 2009:17(15):1331–1338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.04.009 Search in Google Scholar

[71] Smyth C., et al. Climate change mitigation potential of local use of harvest residues for bioenergy in Canada. GCB Bioenergy 2017:9(4):817–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12387 Search in Google Scholar

[72] Soimakallio S., et al. On the trade-offs and synergies between forest carbon sequestration and substitution. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 2021:26(1):1–17. Search in Google Scholar

[73] Kallio A. M. I., Solberg B. Leakage of forest harvest changes in a small open economy: case Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 2018:33(5):502–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2018.1427787 Search in Google Scholar

[74] Solberg B., et al. Wood for food: Economic impacts of sustainable use of forest biomass for salmon feed production in Norway. Forest Policy and Economics 2021:122:102337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102337 Search in Google Scholar

[75] Spalvins K., Blumberga D. Production of Fish Feed and Fish Oil from Waste Biomass Using Microorganisms: Overview of Methods Analyzing Resource Availability. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2018:22:149–164. https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2018-0010 Search in Google Scholar