Webinar on Resilient Biomass Supply Chains in the Post-COVID Recovery

Page created by Claude Andrews
 
CONTINUE READING
Webinar on Resilient Biomass Supply Chains in the Post-COVID Recovery
Webinar on Resilient Biomass Supply
                                                Chains in the Post-COVID Recovery

                                                                                             Resilience of the Southeastern USA woody
                                                                                             pellet supply chain
                                                                                             Presented by Keith L. Kline, Senior Scientist
                                                                                             Environmental Sciences Division
                                                                                             Oak Ridge National Laboratory
                                                                                             Tennessee, USA

                                                                                             IEA Bioenergy Webinar, 3 June 2021

The IEA Bioenergy Technology Collaboration Programme (TCP) is organised under the auspices of the International Energy Agency (IEA) but is functionally and legally autonomous.
Views, findings and publications of the IEA Bioenergy TCP do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the IEA Secretariat or its individual member countries.

                                                                                                                                                                     www.ieabioenergy.com
Webinar on Resilient Biomass Supply Chains in the Post-COVID Recovery
IEA Bioenergy Webinar                                                                          03 June 2021

 Resilient Biomass Supply Chains in the
 Post-COVID Recovery: Southeastern USA
 woody pellet supply chain case

 Presenter: Keith L. Kline klinekl@ornl.gov
 Environmental Sciences, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, USA
 Coauthors: Virginia H. Dale, University of Tennessee;
 Erin Rose, Three-Cubed Research, Knoxville, Tennessee; and
 Esther Parish, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee
ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC for the US Department of Energy

Dedicated to our grandchildren and future generations.

Acknowledgements: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO), IEA Bioenergy, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).
ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle for DOE under contract number DE-AC05-00OR22725. The views expressed in this presentation do not necessarily
represent the views of the United States Government, any sponsor, or agency. For more information on recent research, see https://cbes.ornl.gov/
Webinar on Resilient Biomass Supply Chains in the Post-COVID Recovery
Context: Private forests in the Southeast are a “timber
basket” for the world and source for SE US wood pellets
                                           Private
                                              Family
                                              Corporate
                                              Other private

                                           Public
                                              Federal
                                              State
                                              Local

                Hewes et al. (2014)
Webinar on Resilient Biomass Supply Chains in the Post-COVID Recovery
Clearing for development and other uses represents the largest threat to SE forests
Webinar on Resilient Biomass Supply Chains in the Post-COVID Recovery
Clearing for development and other uses represents the largest threat to SE forests
Webinar on Resilient Biomass Supply Chains in the Post-COVID Recovery
Context: biomass stranded without markets (“unloved wood”)
  • Eventually burns or decays
  • Reduces incentives to keep private lands forested (see references)
Webinar on Resilient Biomass Supply Chains in the Post-COVID Recovery
SE US industrial wood pellet production and trade has
                   been growing

                              Converted power plant,
                              Drax, UK (www.bbc.com)

                                                           Source: E. Parish, A.
                                                           Herzberger, C. Phifer, and
                                                           V. Dale (2018) Ecology &
                                                           Society

                                                       7
Webinar on Resilient Biomass Supply Chains in the Post-COVID Recovery
Stakeholders associated with different parts of wood-based pellet
                   production in the SE US
      Feedstock          Feedstock         Conversion       Biofuel        End
      production          logistics         to pellets     logistics       uses

  Stakeholders concerned with parts of supply chain:
     Landowners         Chippers,           Pellet                       Member
                         truckers,                        Trains &       nations
     Loggers                                mills,
                       logistic and                       shipping       that use
     Sawmills                              workers,
                       certification      neighbors,     companies      bioenergy
     Pulp mills            firms                                       to displace
                                                                           coal
   Stakeholders with cumulative perspective:
     Environmental and social NGOs
     Government policy makers
     Investors and stakeholders in local development
Webinar on Resilient Biomass Supply Chains in the Post-COVID Recovery
Other analyses consider potential effects of
wood pellet industry in the SE US
US Forest Service long-term data and other studies* examine
effects and changes over time in many variables:
• Forest area, composition, age class, values
• Carbon stocks
• Standing dead biomass
• Managing for biodiversity
• Effects on SDGs
• GHG emissions

What about supply chain resilience?
See attached references e.g., Cowie et al (2021) Dispelling misconceptions… (GCB-
Bioenergy); Dale et al (2017) Status and prospects for renewable wood pellets from
the SE US (GCB Bioenergy); Parish et al (2020) Framework for assessing land-
management effects on at-risk species: Example of SE USA wood pellet production
(WIRES Energy & Environ); Parish et al. (2017) Reference scenarios for evaluating wood
pellet production in the SE US (WIRES Energy & Environ); Kline & Dale (2020)
Protecting Biodiversity through Forest Mgmt. DOI: 10.19080/IJESNR.2020.26.556194
Webinar on Resilient Biomass Supply Chains in the Post-COVID Recovery
Supply chain: wood pellets are shipped from the
      Southeast US (SE US) to Europe and Asia to displace
            coal for generation of heat and power.

Economic and employment data are reviewed to identify effects of COVID-19 and
better understand how the supply chain performed during the pandemic.
Figure from: Kline KL, Dale VH, Rose E, Tonn B. 2021. Effects of Production of Woody Pellets in the Southeastern United States on the
Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 13(2), 821; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020821 Also see, Blair et al. 2021 at ieabioenergy.com
National impacts of the pandemic: US monthly change
 in employment  over 20 million jobs lost in April 2020.
    10000

     5000

         0

    -5000
                                       US national emergency
   -10000
                                       declared March 13,
   -15000
                                       2020
                   US unemployment rate rose from 3.5%
   -20000
                   in Feb to nearly 15% two months later
   -25000
                   (April, 2020)
Monthly change non-farm employment (thousands of full-time equivalent employees on payroll) for 1/2018 to 11/2020
(Bureau of Labor Statistics accessible at https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/CES0000000001)
Pandemic effects on the SE US pellet supply chain

Covid-19 affected skilled workers across all sectors, transportation, and individual
industries along the supply chain (red arrows) immediately following a declaration
of emergency in March 2021.
However, impacts on the SE US pellet supply chain were limited.
Source: Kline KL, Dale VH, Rose E. Resilience lessons from the southeast US wood-pellet biomass supply chain response to the Covid-19
pandemic. In review, Frontiers in Forests and Global Change.
Trend data for the wood pellet supply chain
        (A) Quantity (tons) of densified biomass exported from the                          (B)       Quantity (tons) of densified biomass produced in the
                                       US                                                                                     SE US
     700,000                                                                               700,000

     650,000                                                                               650,000

     600,000                                                                               600,000

     550,000                                                                               550,000

     500,000                                                                               500,000

                                                                                           450,000
                                                                                                                 US national emergency
     450,000
                                                                                                                 declared March 13, 2020
     400,000                                                                               400,000

     350,000                                                                               350,000

        (C)      Average Price (USD per ton) of densified biomass                            (D)          Number of FTE employed in the production of
    $190                                                                                                       densified biomass in the SE US
    $185                                                                                      1,600
    $180                                                                                      1,550
    $175                                                                                      1,500

    $170                                                                                      1,450
                                                                                              1,400
    $165
                                                                                              1,350
    $160
                                                                                              1,300
    $155
                                                                                              1,250
    $150
                                                                                              1,200
    $145                                                                                      1,150
    $140                                                                                      1,100

Source: Kline et al. Resilience lessons from the southeast US wood-pellet biomass supply chain response to COVID pandemic. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change (in review).
Trend data for the wood pellet supply chain
 Average monthly operational data pre-
 and post-pandemic (source: US EIA                                       January                March 2020              % change
 Densified Biomass Fuel Report 2021)                                    2018 - Feb              – Nov 2020
                                                                           2020

 Pellet industry employees in SE US                                         1,357                    1,407                   4%

 SE US Pellet production (metric tons)                                    606,181                  643,422                   6%

 Average USD price pellet exports                                         $167.05                  $165.64                   -1%

 Average US pellet export volume (tons)                                   536,147                  576,771                   8%

Source: Kline et al. Resilience lessons from the southeast US wood-pellet biomass supply chain response to COVID pandemic. Frontiers in
Forests and Global Change (in review).
Factors increasing resilience of the SE US wood
             pellet supply chain during the pandemic

 Harvest/    Transportation
                                                                                        Conversion to    Transportation    Bioenergy
Collection                                                                                 Pellets

                               Industrial Facility    Wood Residues

                                                 Lumber & other wood products

  Disruptions to pellet industry jobs and exports were limited thanks to several mitigating factors
  (green arrows) including federal and state programs such as those that facilitated the provision
  of personal protective equipment, the Paycheck Protection Program, and the classification of
  workers in this sector as essential.

  Source: Kline KL, Dale VH, Rose E. Resilience lessons from the southeast US wood-pellet biomass supply chain response to the Covid-
  19 pandemic. In review, Frontiers in Forests and Global Change.
Factors increasing resilience of the SE US wood
                 pellet supply chain during the pandemic

 Harvest/     Transportation                                                   Conversion     Transportation     Bioenergy
Collection                                                                      to Pellets

                               Industrial Facility   Wood Residues

                                                Lumber & other wood products

     Disruptions to pellet industry jobs and exports were also limited by:
     • automated/mechanized approaches for field operations and logistics
     • open-air work environments
     • an established culture of safety
     • long-term contracts
     • vertical integration & partnerships             Source: Kline KL, Dale VH, Rose E. Resilience lessons from the
                                                       southeast US wood-pellet biomass supply chain response to the
                                                                                Covid-19 pandemic. In review, Frontiers in Forests and Global Change.
IEA Bioenergy case studies identify positive contributions
supporting SDGs
 o SDG-7 Affordable & Clean Energy
 o SDG-8 Decent Work & Economic Growth
 o SDG-9 Industry, Innovation, Infrastructure
 o SDG-12 Responsible Production & Consumption
 o SDG-15 Life on Land (especially with properly-managed forestry supply chains)
 o And others, e.g., SDG-2 Zero Hunger and SDG-6 Clean Water & Sanitation (especially with agricultural,
   energy crops and residues)
 o Risks and precautions are identified to mitigate potential negative effects.
 o Sustainability requirements for bioenergy influence wider forestry and agricultural biomass management
   practices, increase investments in conservation, and provide incentives for ‘natural climate solutions’ (see
   references including Griscom et al PNAS 2017) .
                                                                                                                                                        US FWS
 Distrust persists despite evidence of support for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) when done right

 Bioenergy supply chains around the globe showed remarkable variability in
 terms of resilience to the COVID-19 pandemic. Can lessons be drawn by
 examining and comparing distinct cases?
 For more information, please see IEABioenergy.com (publications) Blair et al. 2021; Kline et al. 2021; and References listed at end of presentation.
Discussion and preliminary recommendations
 To increase resilience to future disturbances…

 • Establish trade schools for specialized labour
 • Increase local capacities for services in logistics and transportation
 • Engage and build trust with stakeholders
 • Transparent and timely communication of pellet industry plans,
   activities, and effects in communities
 • Ensure timely policy responses from government

Source: Kline KL, Dale VH, Rose E. Resilience lessons from the southeast US wood-pellet biomass supply chain response
to the Covid-19 pandemic. In review, Frontiers in Forests and Global Change.

                                                            18                                              www.ieabioenergy.com
Thank you!             (-:
For more information:
Keith L. Kline, ORNL: klinekl@ornl.gov
Virginia H. Dale, vdale@utk.edu
Erin Rose, erose@threecubed.org
Esther Parish, parishes@ornl.gov
Mark Brown, Lead for IEA Bioenergy Task 43 Biomass:
mbrown2@usc.edu.au
https://task43.ieabioenergy.com/
                                                      www.ieabioenergy.com
And see the references listed on the final slides
References supporting materials used in this presentation
• Blair et al. 2021 Contribution of Biomass Supply Chains for Bioenergy to Sustainable Development Goals. Land 10(2):181
• Butler BJ, Hewes JH, Dickinson BJ, Andrejczyk K, Butler SM, Markowski-Lindsay M (2016) USDA Forest Service National Woodland Owner Survey: national, regional, and state
  statistics for family forest and woodland ownerships with 10+ acres, 2011-2013. Res. Bull. NRS-99. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 39 p.
• Dale VH, KL Kline, ES Parish, AL Cowie, TC Smith, NS Bentsen, G Berndes, et al. (2017). Status and prospects for renewable energy using wood pellets from the southeastern United
  States. GCB Bioenergy. GCB Bioenergy doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12445. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12445/full
• Dale VH, Parish ES, Kline KL, Tobin E (2017) How is wood-based pellet production affecting forest conditions in the southeastern United States? Forest Ecology and Management
  396: 143-149. doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.03.022 Griscom et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(44):11645
• Dale VH et al. 2016. Incorporating bioenergy into sustainable landscape designs. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 56:1158-1171.
  http://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S1364032115014215
• Duden AS, PA Verweij, HM Junginger, RC Abt, JD Henderson, VH Dale, KL Kline, D Karssenberg, JA Verstegen, APC Faaij, F van der Hilst. 2017. Modelling the impacts of wood pellet
  demand on forest dynamics in southeastern United States. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bbb.1803/full
• Hewes J, Butler B, Liknes GC, Nelson MD, Snyder SA (2014) Map of distribution of six forest ownership types in the conterminous United States. Res. Map NRS-6. U.S. Department of
  Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. [Scale 1: 10,000,000, 1: 34,000,000.] https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/46386
• Hudson B. 2021. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/opinion/to-keep-forests-intact-we-must-use-them/ [finds “demand for wood leads to increased forest area
  and productivity. Wood-based bioenergy supports markets that help protect our forests from conversion to other uses”]
• Kline et al. 2021. Effects of Woody Pellets in the Southeastern United States on the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 13(2):821
• Kline et al. Resilience lessons from the southeast US wood-pellet biomass supply chain response to the Covid-19 pandemic (in review with Frontiers in Forests and Global Change)
• Kline and Dale 2020. Protecting Biodiversity through Forest Management: Lessons Learned and Strategies for Success. DOI: 10.19080/IJESNR.2020.26.556194
• Kline and Simon, 2020. What really works to conserve biodiversity & tropical forests? EurActiv.com
• Parish E, Baskaran L, Dale V. (2020) Framework for assessing land-management effects on at-risk species: Example of SE USA wood pellet production and gopher tortoise (Gopherus
  Polyphemus). WIREs Energy and Environment 10(1):e385.
• Kline, Parish, Dale. 2018. The importance of reference conditions in assessing effects of bioenergy wood pellets produced in the SE US https://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/1474471
• Kline et al. 2017. Reconciling biofuels and food security: priorities for action. GCB-Bioenergy 9(3):557-576.
• Kline KL, Dale VH, Lee R, Leiby P. 2009. In Defense of Biofuels, Done Right. Issues in Science and Technology 25(3): 75-84. http://www.issues.org/25.3/kline.html
• Parish ES, Dale VH, Kline KL, Abt R (2017) Reference scenarios for evaluating wood pellet production in the Southeastern United States. WIRES Energy and Environment.
• Wear DN, Coulston JW (2015) From sink to source: Regional variation in U.S. forest carbon futures. Sci. Rep. 5, 16518; doi:10.1038/srep16518
• Weir D, Greis J. (2013) The Southern Forest Futures Project: Technical Report Gen. Tech. Pre. SRS-178. United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Research and
  Development, Southern Research Station, 553 pg
Additional references – related reading
• 2016 Billion-Ton Report. Volume 2: Advancing Domestic Resources for a Thriving Bioeconomy. Volume 2. Environmental Sustainability Effects of Select Scenarios:
  https://energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/downloads/2016-billion-ton-report-volume-2-environmental-sustainability-effects & https://energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/2016-billion-ton-report
• Cowie A, Berndes G, Smith T (2013) On the timing of greenhouse gas mitigation benefits of forest based bioenergy. IEA Bioenergy ExCo: 2013:04. Available at: www.ieabioenergy.com/publications/on-the-
  timing-of-greenhouse-gas-mitigationbenefits-of-forest-based-bioenergy .
• Dale B et al. 2014. Take a closer look: biofuels can support environmental, economic and social goals. ES&T48(13):7200-7203
• Dale VH, Kline KL, Parish ES, Eichler SE. 2019. Engaging stakeholders to assess landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecology. DOI: 10.1007/s10980-019-00848-1. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10980-
  019-00848-1
• Dale B et al. 2014. Take a closer look: biofuels can support environmental, economic and social goals. ES&T48(13):7200-7203
• Dale VH, Kline KL, Parish ES, Eichler SE. 2019. Engaging stakeholders to assess landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecology. DOI: 10.1007/s10980-019-00848-1. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10980-
  019-00848-1
• Dale VH, Parish ES, Kline KL, Tobin E (2017) How is wood-based pellet production affecting forest conditions in the southeastern United States? Forest Ecology and Management 396: 143-149.
  doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.03.022 https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1UxyW1L~GwCo5V
• Dale VH et al. 2016. Incorporating bioenergy into sustainable landscape designs. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 56:1158-1171. http://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S1364032115014215
• Dale VH, Kline KL, Marland G, Miner RA. 2015. Ecological objectives can be achieved with wood-derived bioenergy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 13(6): 297-299.
• Dale VH, RA Efroymson, KL Kline, and M Davitt (2015) A framework for selecting indicators of bioenergy sustainability. Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining 9(4):435-446. DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1562;
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bbb.1562/epdf
• Dale, VH, RA Efroymson, KL Kline, MH Langholtz, PN Leiby, GA Oladosu, MR Davis, ME Downing, MR Hilliard. 2013. Indicators for assessing
  socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: A short list of practical measures. Ecological Indicators 26: 87-102.
  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.014
• Davis MB (editor) (1996) Eastern old growth forests: prospects for discovery and recovery. Island Press, Washington, DC. 383 p.
• Dale VH, Kline KL, Marland G, Miner RA. 2015. Ecological objectives can be achieved with wood-derived bioenergy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 13(6): 297-299.
• Dale VH, RA Efroymson, KL Kline, and M Davitt (2015) A framework for selecting indicators of bioenergy sustainability. Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining 9(4):435-446. DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1562;
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bbb.1562/epdf
• Dale, VH, RA Efroymson, KL Kline, MH Langholtz, PN Leiby, GA Oladosu, MR Davis, ME Downing, MR Hilliard. 2013. Indicators for assessing socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: A short list of
  practical measures. Ecological Indicators 26: 87-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.014
• Dale VH, Kline KL et al. (2010) Biofuels: Implications for Land Use and Biodiversity. Ecological Society of America special report: http://www.esa.org/biofuelsreports
• Dale VH, KL Kline et al. (2013) Communicating about bioenergy sustainability. Environ. Mgmt. 51(2)Dale VH, KL Kline, LL Wright, RD Perlack, M Downing, RL Graham. 2011. Interactions among bioenergy
  feedstock choices, landscape dynamics and land use. Ecological Applications 21(4):1039-1054.
• Dornburg et al. 2010. Bioenergy revisited: Key factors in global potentials of bioenergy. Energy Environ. Sci., 2010,3, 258-267..
Additional references – related reading (continued)
• Efroymson, R. A., V. H. Dale, K. L. Kline, A. C. McBride, J. M. Bielicki, R. L. Smith, E. S. Parish, P. E. Schweizer, D. M. Shaw. 2012. Environmental indicators of biofuel sustainability:
  What about context? Environmental Management DOI 10.1007/s00267-012-9907-5
  http://web.ornl.gov/sci/ees/cbes/Publications/Efroymsonetal2012biofuelindicatorcontextEMfinal10%201007_s00267-012-9907-5.pdf
• Ellefson PV, Moulton RJ, Kilgore MA (2002) An assessment of state agencies that affect forests. Journal of Forestry 100 (6), 35-41.
• Hodges DG, Larson EC, Finley JC, Luloff AE, Willcox AS, Gordon JS (2016) Wood bioenergy and private forests: perceptions of owners in the eastern United States. In: Forest
  Economics and Policy in a Changing Environment: How Market, Policy, and Climate Transformations Affect Forests—Proceedings of the 2016 Meeting of the International Society of
  Forest Resource Economics. Frey, Gregory E.; Nepal, Prakash, eds. 2016. e-Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-218. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research
  Station.
• Hodges DG, Chapagain B, Watcharaanantapong P, Poudyal NC, Kline KL, Dale VH. 2019. Opportunities and attitudes of private forest landowners in supplying woody biomass for
  renewable energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 113:10925 (Oct 2019) doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.06.012
• Efroymson RA, Kline KL, Angelsen A, Verburg PH, Dale VH, Langeveld JWA, McBride A (2016) A causal analysis framework for land-use change and the potential role of bioenergy
  policy. Land Use Policy (59) 31 (Dec 2016) 516–527 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.09.009
• Giglio L., J. T. Randerson, G. R. van derWerf, P. S. Kasibhatla, G. J. Collatz, D. C. Morton, and R. S. DeFries. Assessing variability and long-term trends in burned area by merging
  multiple satellite fire products. Biogeosciences, 7, 1171–1186, 2010.
• Griscom BW, Adams J, Ellis PW, et al. Natural climate solutions [published correction appears in Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Feb 12;116(7):2776]. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
  2017;114(44):11645-11650
• Hanssen S, Duden, Jungninger, Dale, van der Hilst. Wood pellets, what else? Greenhouse gas parity times of European electricity from wood pellets produced in the south-eastern
  United States using different softwood feedstocks. GCB Bioenergy 9(9) DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12426
• Hoekman K, Scott D and Kline KL. 2019. Summary of the NBB Sustainability and Land Use Change Workshop held September 26-27, 2018, in St. Louis, MO. Available at Center for
  BioEnergy Sustainability 2019 publications website http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/cbes/
• IRENA (Jeff Skeer) (2016) Boosting Biofuels: Sustainable paths to greater energy security. www.irena.org
• Jonker GG, van der Hilst, Markewitz, Faaij, Junginger. 2018. Carbon balance and economic performance of pine plantations for bioenergy production in the Southeastern United
  States. Biomass and Bioenergy 117, 44-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.06.017
• Junginger M, Fritsche U, Mai-Moulin T, Thrän D, Thiffault E, Kline KL, Dale VH. 2019. Measuring, governing and gaining support for sustainable bioenergy supply chains: IEA
  Bioenergy Sustainability Inter-Task (web site: http://itp-sustainable.ieabioenergy.com/
• Kline KL, Dale VH (2008) Biofuels, causes of land-use change, and the role of fire in greenhouse gas emissions. Science, 321, 199.
• Kline KL, Oladosu GA, Dale VH, McBride AC (2011) Scientific analysis is essential to assess biofuel policy effects. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, 4488-4491
• Kline KL et al. (2017) Reconciling biofuels and food security: priorities for action. GCB-Bioenergy. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12366/full
• Kline, KL and MD Coleman, (2010) Woody energy crops in the southeastern United States: Two centuries of practitioner experience, Biomass and Bioenergy, 34(12).
• Kline, K. L., V. H. Dale, and A. Grainger. (2010) Challenges for Bioenergy Emission Accounting. Science e-letter (2 March 2010)
  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/326/5952/527#13024
• McBride A, VH Dale, L Baskaran, M Downing, L Eaton, RA Efroymson, C Garten, KL Kline, H Jager, P Mulholland, E Parish, P Schweizer, and J Storey. 2011. Indicators to support
  environmental sustainability of bioenergy systems. Ecological Indicators 11(5) 1277-1289.
Additional references – related reading (continued)
• Miner RA, Abt RC, Bowyer JL et al. (2014) Forest carbon accounting considerations in US bioenergy policy. Journal of Forestry, 112, 591–606.
• Oladosu D, KL Kline, P Leiby, R Martinez, M Davis, M Downing, L Eaton. 2012. Global economic effects of the US biofuel policy and the potential contribution from advanced
  biofuels. Biofuels 3(6):703-723. http://www.future-science.com/doi/pdfplus/10.4155/bfs.12.6
• Oladosu, G., and Msangi, S. (2013). Biofuel-food market interactions: a review of modeling approaches and findings. Agriculture, 3(1), 53-71.
• Oswalt SN, Smith WD (2014) US forest resources facts and historical trends. USDA Forest Service FS-1035.
  https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf
• Parish ES, M Hilliard, LM Baskaran, VH Dale, NA Griffiths, PJ Mulholland, A Sorokine, NA Thomas, ME Downing, R Middleton. 2012. Multimetric spatial optimization of switchgrass
  plantings across a watershed. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 6(1):58-72.
• Parish ES, Kline KL, Dale VH, Efroymson RA, et al., (2013) Comparing Scales of Environmental Effects from Gasoline and Ethanol Production. Environmental Management 51(2):307-
  338
• Rainforest Alliance (2008) Impact of FSC Certification on Deforestation and the Incidence of Wildfires in the Maya Biosphere Reserve. http://www.rainforest-
  alliance.org/forestry/documents/peten_study.pdf
• Roser M (2015) Our World in Data. www.OurWorldinData.org
• Souza GM, Victoria RL, Joly CA and Verdade M, editors 2015. Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), Bioenergy & Sustainability: bridging the gaps. SCOPE
  72. Paris, France and Sao Paulo, Brazil. ISBN: 978-2-9545557-0-6. http://bioenfapesp.org/scopebioenergy/index.php
• Strassburg BBN, Latwiec AE, et al., 2014. When enough should be enough. Improving the use of current agricultural lands could spare natural habitats in Brazil. Glob.Env.Change 28
  84-97.
• Sumner DA (2009) Recent commodity price movements in historical perspective. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(5) 1250-1256
• Stewart, P., 2015. Wood Supply Market Trends in the US South: 1995–2015. Forest2Market, Inc., Report prepared for the National alliance of Forest Owners. 109 pages.
• Thurow R, Kilman S (2009) Enough: Why the World’s Poor Starve in an Age of Plenty. BBS Public Affairs, New York.
• UNEP (2016) Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools. Working Group on Land and Soils, International Resource Panel (IRP
  UNEP). Herrick, JE, O Arnalds, B Bestelmeyer, S Bringezu, G Han, MV Johnson et al. , ISBN: 978-92-807-3578-9
• USDA Economic Research Service (2015) Definitions of Food Security: Ranges of Food Security and Food Insecurity. U.S. Department of Agriculture
• USDOE 2011. U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry. ORNL. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/billion_ton_update.pdf
• Varner JM, Gordon DR, Putz E, Hiers JK (2005) Restoring fire to long-unburned Pinus palustris ecosystems: Novel fire effects and consequences for long-unburned ecosystems.
  Restoration Ecology, 13, 536-544.
• Wear, D.N., Greis, J.G., 2013. The Southern Forest Futures Project: Technical Report - Gen.Tech.Pre.SRS-178. United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Research and
  Development, Southern Research Station. 553 p.
• Wear, D.N., Huggett, R., Ruhong, R., et al., 2013. Forecasts of forest conditions in regions of the United States under future scenarios: a technical document supporting the Forest
  Service 2012 Resources Planning Act Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-170. Asheville, NC: USDA-Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 101 p.
   (accessed February 19, 2017).
• Woodall et al. 2015. Monitoring Network Confirms Land-Use Change is a Substantial Component of the Forest Carbon Sink in eastern United States
Thanks again
            Acknowledgements: Support for the research and presentation provided by the US
            Department of Energy, Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) with special thanks to Alicia
            Lindauer and Jim Spaeth (BETO), ORNL colleagues Esther Parish, Rebecca Efroymson, Erin
            Webb, and Matt Langholtz, IEA Bioenergy collaborators around the globe, and Virginia Dale,
            University of TN Knoxville.

Copyright statement: This material is based upon work supported by the US Department of Energy under the Bioenergy
Technologies Office (BETO) and performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under contract number DE-AC05-00OR22725.
The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any
legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents
that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
You can also read