Zero, one, or in between: evaluation of alternative national and entity‐level accounting for bioenergy

Accounting for bioenergy's carbon dioxide ( CO 2 ) emissions, as done under the K yoto P rotocol ( KP ) and E uropean U nion ( EU ) E missions T rading S cheme, fails to capture the full extent of these emissions. As a consequence, other approaches have been suggested. Both the EU and U nited S tates already use value‐chain approaches to determine emissions due to biofuels – an approach quite different from that of the KP . Further, both the EU and U nited S tates are engaged in consultation processes to determine how emissions connected with use of biomass for heat and power will be handled under regulatory systems. The U nited S tates is considering whether CO 2 emissions from biomass should be handled like fossil fuels. In this context, this article reviews and evaluates the three basic bioenergy accounting options. CO 2 emissions from bioenergy are not counted at the point of combustion. Instead emissions due to use of biomass are accounted for in the land‐use sector as carbon stock losses – a combustion factor (CoF) = 0 approach; CO 2 emissions from bioenergy are accounted for in the energy sector – a CoF = 1 approach; and End users account for all or a specified subset of CO 2 emissions, regardless of where geographically these emissions occur – 0 < CoF < 1. Following short descriptions of the basic options, this article discusses variations to these options and uses numerical examples to illustrate the impacts of approaches at a local and international level. Finally, the alternative accounting systems are evaluated against general criteria and for impacts on selected stakeholder goals. General criteria considered are: (a) comprehensiveness, (b) simplicity, and (c) scale independence. Stakeholder goals reviewed are: (a) stimulation of rural economies, (b) food security, (c) GHG reductions, and (d) preservation of forests.