New research reveals timber systems deliver superior climate benefits compared to bioenergy plantations through more efficient carbon storage and land use
As the world grapples with the escalating climate crisis, the urgent need to remove carbon dioxide from our atmosphere has become undeniable. With the Earth having already exceeded 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming above preindustrial times—a threshold beyond which climate impacts are expected to escalate dramatically—scientists agree that reducing emissions alone is no longer sufficient 5 . We must also actively remove carbon pollution that's already in the atmosphere.
Current warming above preindustrial levels
Potential annual CO₂ removal with diversified approaches
In this race to develop effective carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies, two seemingly similar approaches have emerged: dedicated bioenergy plantations and multi-purpose timber plantations. While both use plants to capture atmospheric carbon, they represent fundamentally different paths with dramatically different outcomes for carbon storage, land use, and ecosystem health. New research reveals that the choice between these approaches isn't merely technical—it represents a critical fork in the road for how we manage our planet's limited land resources while addressing the climate emergency.
The critical distinction lies in what happens after harvest. Bioenergy plantations typically release their stored carbon back into the atmosphere within a short time frame, while timber plantations maintain carbon storage both in the forest and in long-lived wood products. This fundamental difference in carbon retention has profound implications for the climate effectiveness of each approach.
To quantify the differences between these approaches, researchers at the MIT Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy conducted a comprehensive study using their global multi-region, multi-sector Economic Projection and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model. This sophisticated analytical tool allowed them to simulate how different carbon removal strategies would perform economically and environmentally through the year 2100 5 .
Multi-region, multi-sector analysis using EPPA model
Comprehensive carbon flow analysis through multiple pools
Cost, carbon price, and market effect projections
The research team created several scenarios to compare the effectiveness of different carbon removal portfolios, with particular attention to how bioenergy and timber systems compete for limited land resources. Their modeling accounted for:
The researchers paid special attention to the phenomenon of indirect land-use change—where using land for biomass production displaces food production, potentially causing agriculture to expand into high-carbon ecosystems like forests elsewhere 1 . This crucial factor is often overlooked in simpler analyses but can completely undermine the climate benefits of bioenergy.
The findings revealed striking differences between the two approaches. Timber-based systems consistently delivered superior carbon removal outcomes when all factors were accounted for, primarily because they maintained carbon storage across multiple pools while producing durable materials that displace fossil-intensive alternatives like concrete and steel.
| Storage Pool | Dedicated Bioenergy Plantation | Multi-Use Timber Plantation |
|---|---|---|
| Living Biomass | Short-rotation (3-10 years) | Long-rotation (20-80 years) |
| Harvested Products | Immediate release as energy | Decades to centuries in wood products |
| Soil Carbon | Often depleted by frequent disturbance | Generally enhanced by litter accumulation |
| Displacement Benefits | Modest (offsets some fossils) | Significant (displaces cement, steel) |
Perhaps most significantly, the research found that diversified CDR portfolios that included timber systems alongside other approaches like biochar and enhanced weathering delivered the best return on investment while minimizing negative impacts 5 . This diversified approach reduced overall cropland and energy consumption while avoiding negative impacts like increased food insecurity.
| Performance Metric | Bioenergy-Heavy Portfolio | Diversified Portfolio with Timber |
|---|---|---|
| Projected CDR by 2100 | ~22 gigatons CO₂/year | ~31.5 gigatons CO₂/year |
| Cropland Demand | High increase | Moderate increase |
| Impact on Food Prices | Significant increase | Minimal increase |
| Overall Cost Effectiveness | Lower | Higher |
The modeling revealed that unrestricted expansion of purpose-grown biomass for energy would have enormous land use implications, potentially requiring over 100 million acres by 2050 in the U.S. alone—an area around the size of California and equal to almost a quarter of present-day U.S. cropland 1 . This is nearly 12 times the land that could be needed for wind and solar by 2050, raising serious questions about efficiency of land use for climate mitigation.
Studying the effectiveness of different carbon removal approaches requires specialized methods and tools. Researchers in this field rely on a sophisticated array of analytical techniques to track carbon flows and environmental impacts.
Measure CO₂ fluxes between ecosystem and atmosphere to quantify net carbon exchange of plantations
Direct measurement of carbon content in soil samples to track changes in soil carbon stocks
Traces carbon movement through ecosystems using carbon-13 and carbon-14 to distinguish between fossil and biogenic CO₂ sources 2
Models environmental impacts across full product lifecycle to calculate net carbon balance
Monitors land-use change and vegetation health via satellite to detect indirect land-use change
Projects costs, benefits, and market impacts to assess economic viability of CDR strategies (e.g., EPPA model) 5
These tools collectively enable researchers to move beyond simplistic carbon accounting to comprehensive analyses that consider the full ecological and economic context of carbon removal strategies. For instance, carbon-14 testing can verify whether CO2 captured from biomass processes is truly biogenic (recently from the atmosphere) rather than from ancient fossil sources, ensuring accurate carbon accounting 2 .
While the comparison between timber and bioenergy plantations reveals clear advantages for timber-based approaches, experts emphasize that neither represents a silver bullet solution. The MIT study consistently found that diversifying CDR portfolios across multiple options delivers the best outcomes, minimizing negative impacts while maximizing removal potential 5 .
Converting agricultural wastes into stable carbon that can enhance soils while sequestering carbon for centuries 3
Using chemical processes to capture CO2 directly from ambient air, though this currently remains energy-intensive and costly 5
Focusing on protecting existing forests and restoring degraded ones, which often provides superior carbon and biodiversity benefits compared to new plantations 6
Each of these approaches has distinct strengths and limitations, suggesting that the optimal solution varies by region based on local environmental conditions, infrastructure, and community needs. For example, the MIT researchers noted that "afforestation and reforestation would be of great benefit in places like Brazil, Latin America, and Africa, by not only sequestering carbon in more acreage of protected forest but also helping to preserve planetary well-being and human health" 5 .
The evidence comparing timber and bioenergy plantations for carbon removal points to a clear conclusion: systems designed for long-term carbon retention in multiple pools outperform those based on rapid cycling of carbon through the atmosphere. Timber plantations, especially when managed for both wood products and ongoing ecosystem carbon storage, deliver more diverse benefits including longer-duration carbon storage, reduced land competition with food production, and valuable materials that displace fossil-intensive alternatives.
Carbon remains locked for decades to centuries
Better carbon storage per acre of land
Displaces carbon-intensive building materials
This research comes at a critical juncture in climate policy development. As nations ramp up their carbon removal efforts to meet Paris Agreement goals, understanding these distinctions becomes essential for designing effective policies. The MIT researchers warned that "delaying large-scale deployment of CDR portfolios could be very costly, leading to considerably higher carbon prices across the globe" 5 , underscoring the urgency of making smart choices now.
Perhaps the most important insight from this research is that not all plant-based carbon removal is created equal. As we move forward in implementing climate solutions, we must look beyond simplistic claims of "carbon neutrality" and instead evaluate each approach based on its full lifecycle impacts, including effects on land use, ecosystem services, and carbon storage durability. In this more nuanced understanding, multi-purpose timber systems emerge as clearly superior to dedicated bioenergy plantations for terrestrial carbon dioxide removal.
The path forward requires smart policy that prioritizes the most effective approaches, continued research to refine our understanding, and public engagement to build support for a diversified portfolio of carbon removal strategies. Our future climate depends not just on removing carbon, but on choosing the right ways to do it.