Next Article in Journal
Identifying Spatiotemporal Circles of Residents’ Daily Walking in Historic and Modern Districts: An Empirical Study in Nanjing, China
Previous Article in Journal
Reducing Efficiency Loss Caused by Land Investment Introduction Based on Factor-Biased Technological Progress
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 14
Issue 7
10.3390/land14071320
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Climate Change Mitigation vs. Renewable Energy Consumption and Biomass Demand

by
Renata Dagiliūtė
and
Vaiva Kazanavičiūtė
*
Department of Environmental Sciences, Vytautas Magnus University, LT-44248 Kaunas, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2025, 14(7), 1320; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14071320 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 27 April 2025 / Revised: 4 June 2025 / Accepted: 16 June 2025 / Published: 21 June 2025
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) sector plays a crucial role in climate change mitigation; therefore, it is included in national and international climate change policies. However, renewable energy and bioeconomy development increase the demand for biomass for energy and material needs and challenge greenhouse gas (GHG) removal in LULUCF. Therefore, this study aims to analyze whether climate change mitigation and bioeconomy goals are compatible from an LULUCF perspective at the EU level. This study mainly covers the 2000–2020 period, looking at decoupling trends and LULUCF removal as well as estimating the substitution effect, which enables a broader view of the LULUCF GHG removal potential. The results reveal that decoupling is taking place at the EU level regarding economic growth and GHG, with a steady increase in renewables. The share of biomass in renewables is increasing at a slower pace, and the reduction in LULUCF GHG removal is proportionally lower compared to the pace of wood being harvested from forest land at the EU level. Still, biomass demand raises the pressure for LULUCF GHG removal, considering the sector itself is highly uncertain. Despite this, some possibilities to align climate and bioeconomy goals could remain, especially if the substitution effect is considered. Based on historical data, the estimated substitution effect is even higher (−367 mill. t CO2 eq. on average in 2000–2020) than the sector’s removal (−300 mill. t CO2 eq. on average in 2000–2020) and is dominated by material substitution (61%). Hence, LULUCF contributes to a reduction in GHG in other sectors, but it is still seldom acknowledged and not accounted for.

1. Introduction

Economic and population growth are driving the increased consumption of various resources and pollution, including GHG emissions [1,2,3]. Hence, seeking to achieve well-being without compromising climate change mitigation and environmental protection is of importance. This explains the prioritization of resource and energy efficiency as well as the low-carbon economic policy of the European Union [4], showing the potential way forward for developed and developing countries [5]. The European Union has established an ambitious goal to become the first climate-neutral continent via the application of various actions and corresponding policies included in the roadmap of the European Green Deal [6]. The actions of this roadmap suggest potential pillars of green/sustainable development in relation to carbon mitigation, such as decarbonizing the energy sector, ensuring buildings are more energy efficient, etc. Climate neutrality in 2050—a legally binding target introduced by Climate Law [7]—is supported by midterm goals to reach 55% lower GHG emissions in 2030 compared to 1990, including a 40% renewable energy target.
As energy-related activities play the greatest role in overall EU GHG emissions [8], decarbonization of the energy sector is one of the most important goals in the European Climate and Energy Framework. This cannot be achieved without the transition to renewable energy resources, considering that biomass has been the largest renewable energy resource used so far [9]. In addition to that, to contribute to the ambition to reduce greenhouse gas net emissions, binding annual targets for net greenhouse gas removal will be set out for the first time for each Member State in the land use, land-use change, and forestry sector (LULUCF) in the period from 2026 to 2030 (in comparison to the annual emission allocations set out in Regulation (EU) 2018/842 [10]). In total, the removal of 310 million tons of CO2, compared to the current sink of 268 million tons of CO2, is estimated for LULUCF in the EU.
Hence, the role of renewables, including biomass, is of importance. A review of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) required under UNFCCC showed that actions related to the LULUCF sector should provide 25% of planned GHG emission reductions [11]. A literature and modeling review [12] confirmed that the LULUCF sector will play an important role in GHG emission reduction via enhanced natural sinks, avoided deforestation, and bioenergy use. The whole land use, land-use change, and forestry sector is planned to be a crucial factor not only for climate change mitigation but also bioeconomy pledges—ensuring human needs while using renewable biological resources to obtain food, materials, and energy [13]. Those aims are set in the European Commission’s strategy release, “A clean planet for all” [14], which, while contributing to the overall goal for Europe to become climate neutral by 2050, also focuses on generating wealth from bioeconomic activities like bio-innovations, bio-based products, bio-based, recyclable, and marine biodegradable substitutes to fossil-based materials, reducing dependence on non-renewable resources, ensuring food security, mitigating climate change, creating jobs, and increasing EU competitiveness. The European Commission in the EU Bioeconomy Progress Report [15] claims that actions are well on track; however, issues with biomass availability and pressure on land (uses) may rise. This includes contradictions between lower deforestation, greenhouse gas absorption, increased need for wood products, and more intensive exploitation of land to produce different types of biomass. It is estimated that, in contrast to increasing demand and technically assessed potential supply, sustainable biomass supply has already been reached [16].
Despite possible tensions, the potential of bioeconomy to contribute to climate neutrality is acknowledged, and possible negative effects on CO2 removal in the LULUCF sector can be outweighed by biomass substitution for fossil fuels for energy needs and material substitution for other products. Hence, the substitution effect could be a good measure to evaluate the effect of bioeconomy in relation to woody biomass. A substitution effect “describes how much greenhouse gas emissions would be avoided if a wood-based product is used instead of another product to provide the same function” [17]. Some woody biomass extracted from the forest is used directly for energy production and thus substitutes for fossil fuels. Woody biomass used to produce different products substitutes other materials like plastics, cement, steel, etc., and can become a fossil fuel substitution (i.e., used for energy needs) at the end of its life cycle.
Hence, meeting both renewable energy and bioeconomy demand and climate mitigation needs is an important task. Therefore, this paper aims to analyze European countries’ accomplishments in renewable energy, bioeconomy, and climate change mitigation policy goals, taking into account the role of the substitution effect and the LULUCF sector as the cornerstone element to achieve carbon-neutral development in the EU. The main research question is whether the decrease in carbon removal in the LULUCF sector due to increased biomass demand will be greater than the substitution effect created.
This paper is structured as follows: first, Section 2 is presented; second, data and Section 3 issues are discussed; then, Section 4 are presented; followed by Section 5 and Section 6; finally, Section 7 end the paper.

2. Literature Review

Clean energy is defined as energy produced using renewable resources and is an essential aspect to tackle climate change [18] and seek sustainable development. Biomass is one of the renewable energy resources [19,20,21,22]. However, the possibility of using bioenergy as a climate change mitigation measure in order to reduce the use of non-renewable energy resources has sparked a discussion of whether and how bioenergy production contributes to sustainable development [23]. There are contradictory opinions regarding biomass as a renewable and carbon-neutral energy source. While there is no doubt it is renewable, its carbon neutrality is argued [24,25]. Elbein [26] states that biomass accounting is not fair, since it releases large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during combustion. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has claimed that “carbon neutrality cannot be assumed for all biomass energy a priori” [27], and even wood residues burnt for energy are not climate neutral [26].
Despite the abovementioned concerns about whether bioenergy is carbon/climate neutral, bioenergy is believed to be the most promising alternative to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and lower GHG emissions, not only by the environmental scientists [19,28,29,30], but also by governments and global society. It is clearly documented in the global sustainability agenda [31], particularly in the SDG7 (Affordable and clean energy) and SDG13 (Climate action) goals. Renewable energy is also a part of the EU Climate Action and European Green Deal [6], stressing the importance of climate change mitigation, raising the goal to become climate neutral in 2050 [6]. Bioenergy importance was recognized and acknowledged by the largest economies in the world, such as the US Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), the Alternative Energy Development Plan (AEDP) in Thailand, the Indian National Policy on Biofuels, and China’s Strategic Energy Action Plan [22,32,33,34].
On the EU level, the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) [35], amended in 2021 to fit with the GHG 2030 reduction target of 55%, sets a binding target for the renewable energy share in total energy production to reach 40% in 2030. The EU is on track regarding the use of renewables. It is acknowledged to be a global leader in renewables, with over 1.4 million persons employed in the RE sector, and the bioenergy sector (including production of energy crops) constituting the largest share [36]. The EU is also a major consumer and producer of woody biomass, i.e., in 2016, energy from solid biomass (mainly wood) accounted for about 7.5% of the EU’s gross final energy consumption and about 44% of its total renewable energy consumption [37]. In 2014, 42% of the total wood harvested in the EU was used for energy production [37]. Based on several studies, Andersen et al. [16] conclude that energy and material consumption accounts for some 48–60% of woody biomass consumption in the EU, the energy sector being the main end user of wood residues and by-products. In addition to that, forest biomass is a significant resource for the bioeconomy, as it can act as a substitute for fossil fuels and non-renewable, emission-intensive construction materials, or store carbon in wood products after the harvest of living trees [38,39,40,41]. It was estimated that the demand for biomass will triple, and material consumption will increase by 50% in the EU by 2050 [16].
In addition to the role of renewables in climate neutrality, the significance of greenhouse gas emissions removal should not be neglected. However, while the targets for greenhouse gas emissions reduction since the first Kyoto Protocol Commitment period are gradually increasing, no specific targets were adopted for greenhouse gas removal in the EU until the European Commission proposed the LULUCF Regulation in 2016. The aforementioned Regulation (ES) 2018/841 [42] sets accounting rules for the land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) sector, and, together with the so-called Effort Sharing Regulation [10], aims for GHG removal and includes the GHG removing sector in climate change mitigation. Therefore, a rather important role is set for the land use, land-use change, and forestry sector. The amount of carbon sequestered by forest carbon sinks in the EU has remained rather stable, and the sector offsets about 9–10% of total EU greenhouse gas emissions [43,44]. LULUCF sector’s GHG removal fluctuated from −340.9 Mt CO2 eq. in 1999 (largest sink) to −249.1 Mt CO2 eq. in 2019 [45]. According to the European Environment Agency [46], only EU forests during the recent 15 years (2000–2016) sequestered around 430 million tons of CO2 eq. per year. Hence, enhancing carbon sinks and reducing emissions from deforestation in forests ensures climate change mitigation [10].
Nevertheless, an ambitious target to become carbon neutral may also raise a conflicting situation between the most important energy and LULUCF sectors due to the demand for biomass both for decreasing emissions and enhancing removal. The need to increase the harvest (not only for bioenergy but also for material substitution purposes) can compromise the forest’s ability to sequester significant amounts of carbon in biomass due to the large share of growing stock volume increment used [47]. The ratio of harvest to forest increment varies between the European countries, but the average ratio is relatively stable and remains under 80% [46]. The country with the highest harvest-to-increment ratio is Sweden, with a ratio exceeding 100% in 2005 and 2010 [46]. The most recent study with satellite imagery shows that harvested areas significantly increased in Europe’s forested areas during 2016–2018 [43]. A spatial analysis of the forest biomass available for supply shows that between 357 and 551 million tons of dry matter each year [48], which is equal to approx. 650–1000 million tons of CO2 eq., is stored in woody biomass. However, researchers [48] state that a large portion of this biomass has already been used for wood products or energy production. Another study [16] also suggests that sustainable forest biomass supply is already exceeded in the EU.
Nevertheless, forests contribute to climate change mitigation not only by directly accumulating carbon but also by providing products for fossil fuels and other carbon-intensive materials’ substitution [49], and, in turn, can ensure carbon emission savings in other sectors. There are only a few studies estimating the overall substitution impact on climate change mitigation. On a global level, the substitution effect is estimated to be 0.25–1 Gt CO2 eq./year [12], on the European level, it is estimated to be 410 mill. t CO2 eq./year [50]. The case of Finland [51] indicates an approximate 16.6–35 Mt CO2 eq./year substitution effect. Another study on the national level shows that the substitution effect for the energy sector of Lithuanian forests in the long run could contribute to carbon sequestration even more than forest biomass or harvested wood products [49]. In addition, a recent study by Brunet-Navarro and colleagues [52] indicates that the material substitution effect is projected to decrease toward 2100 and equal 3.3% of total European (EU-28) emission reduction targets by 2030 (a 33% lower mitigation effect than previously predicted). Although the substitution effect is not reported under the UNFCCC and thus may be invisible [53], substitution should be considered for inclusion in climate policy [51]. Hence, considering the substitution effect not only in terms of forest land, but also the whole LULUCF sector, is of importance.
Considering there are only a few studies quantifying the substitution effect and specifically a lack of such studies on the EU level showcasing the potential compatibility of climate change mitigation and bioeconomy goals, this study contributes to fulfilling this gap. The focus on historical data also enables us to see the role of the LULUCF sector in a broader context, especially after the inclusion of the LULUCF sector into climate change mitigation goals.

3. Materials and Methods

Research covers the 1990–2020 period and includes 27 countries of the EU. Analysis of trends is based on the indicators following literature review (see, for ex., [54,55,56]) and focuses on GHGs, energy consumption, GDP, biomass share in renewable energy resources, and renewable energy resources’ share of total energy production. Changes in GDP, total GHG emissions and other indicators in relation to the base year, 1990 (except GDP), were estimated to evaluate if economic development was decoupled from resource use (final energy consumption) and environmental impact, i.e., GHG emissions. To plot wood extraction in contrast to the share of renewables, changes in % over the 2010–2020 period were calculated. The data analysis and graphical presentation were carried out using MS Excel and IBM SPSS v29.
For carbon removal analysis, data of countries’ total GHG emissions, energy sector emissions, LULUCF GHG removal, forest land GHG removal, and harvested wood products’ carbon stock changes from the UNFCCC National Inventory submissions (covering 1990–2021), as provided in the UNFCCC database 2023 submission, was used. GHG removal pattern in the LULUCF sector was analyzed compared to the total EU GHG emissions in order to evaluate LULUCF GHG potential to contribute to climate-neutral economy target, considering the substitution effect as well. Data for the main indicators (GDP, final energy consumption, renewable energy consumption, wood fuel extracted from forest land, and share of renewable energy sources) was retrieved from the Eurostat database.
The potential contribution of bioeconomy to the climate change mitigation is estimated by applying substitution effect of (1) biomass substitution for fossil fuels, i.e., in energy sector (energy substitution), (2) wood substitution for other materials via harvested wood products (material substitution), and (3) wood (wood products) used afterward for fossil fuel substitution in energy sector (secondary energy substitution). Conversion/substitution factors applied are presented in Table 1 and are based on displacement factors.
Biomass substitution for fossil fuels in the energy sector is estimated as avoided emissions in the energy sector due to the biomass used, calculated as a share of emissions equivalent to biomass used (in kilotons oil equivalent (ktoe)). For that, the biomass used for energy (in kilotons) is recalculated into kilotons of oil equivalent by applying conversion factors (Table 1): 1 kWh = 8.59845 × 10−5 kt of oil equivalent, 1 kg = 5.2 kWh [57]. Afterward, potential avoided emissions due to the biomass used are estimated as a share of total energy emissions (biomass used for energy (ktoe)/final energy consumption (ktoe) × total energy emissions (kt CO2 eq.)).
Displacement factor (1.2) used to estimate harvested wood products’ (biomass) substitution for various GHG-intensive materials was obtained from the research project implemented by the European Forestry Institute in 2018 [17]. Carbon removal (tC) was recalculated into CO2 based on the ratio CO2/C afterwards. Secondary substitution effect of harvested wood products for energy sector was estimated from harvested wood products losses, as reported under the UNFCCC National Inventory reports, taking into account that up to 34% of harvested wood products may end up as energy [52] and applying displacement factor of 0.67 for timber used for energy [58]. It should be highlighted that harvested wood products only include forest biomass, and the wood generated outside of forests, such as in agricultural land, was excluded. Harvested wood products in the study were considered as reported in the National Inventory submissions under the UNFCCC requirements. This represents the volume of harvested wood products, particularly sawn wood, wood-based panels, and paper and paperboard.
To assess the overall bioeconomy contribution to climate change mitigation in the light of increased pressure on the LULUCF sector to provide all biomass needed, substitution effects were summed and presented in contrast to the decreased CO2 removal in the LULUCF sector to see overall positive or negative effect on the EU level.

4. Results

4.1. Trends in GDP, Energy Consumption, GHG Emissions, and LULUCF Removal

The results indicate a steadily increasing trend in the economy—gross domestic product in the European Union increased more than twice over a 30-year period, while total GHG emissions decreased significantly, showing a decoupling effect (Figure 1). Nevertheless, the decoupling of final energy consumption from economic growth is not so pronounced as in the case of GHG emissions. Energy consumption remained rather stable during the period, suggesting that overall energy efficiency increased, but to a lesser extent compared to the intensity of GHG emission reduction. The swiftly increasing share of renewables—nearly three times since 1990—could also be related to stable GHG emissions from energy with increasing GDP. However, despite significantly reduced total GHG emissions, an ambitious reduction goal (−55% in 2030 compared to 1990) set by the EU will require more and stricter actions to achieve it, taking into account that it took 30 years to reduce GHG emissions by 32%. In addition to this, incentives to stabilize or enhance LULUCF GHG removal are needed in the near future, as the results in Figure 1 show a decreasing LULUCF GHG removal trend.

4.2. Trends in Renewables Consumption and Wood Used for Production of Wood Products and Energy

The increasing renewable energy share in the final energy consumption could be related to the increasing use of various energy sources—solar, wind, and water, including biomass (wood); however, changes in biomass use for energy purposes are also important to consider in relation to GHG removal in the LULUCF sector. More than a 10% recent (2010–2020 period) reduction in final energy consumption and an even more significant 20% increase in the final renewable energy consumption look promising from a climate change mitigation perspective (Figure 2).
A significant increase in final renewable energy consumption (2.2 times during 2000–2020 period) and nearly 60% increase in wood share in renewables should not only result in lower GHG emissions from the energy sector but also shows the significance of the LULUCF sector in ensuring a sustainable wood supply not only for the product market, but also for energy sector needs. Though biomass use for energy purposes is not increasing at the same ratio as total renewable energy sources, increasing biomass use can result in a reduction in GHG removal in the LULUCF sector in the short term, while in the long term, biomass use for energy purposes can be increased together with increasing wood used for the bioeconomy.
Further analysis of the share of renewables and wood fuel extraction changes during the 2010–2020 period shows a small decreasing trend of wood fuel’s role in the renewables mix (Figure 3). While the share of renewable energy sources increased in all European countries, wood fuel and other extraction significantly decreased in many countries (Hungary, Italy, and Spain—reduced by half, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway—decreased nearly in half), or remained stable (Slovenia, Austria, Poland, and Lithuania). There are a few exceptions where wood fuel extraction more than doubled or nearly tripled during the recent 10 years: Romania (150% increase), Czechia (219% increase), and Luxembourg (265% increase). The share of wood used for energy purposes among other renewable energy sources might be decreasing, but it is important to evaluate the total impact of wood on climate change mitigation, including energy and product substitution.

4.3. Substitution Effect of Wood Biomass Used for Material and Energy Production in the EU

GHG savings due to the substitution effect and direct GHG removal in the LULUCF sector are compared in this section. It can be seen that the substitution effect could be equal to or even larger than the total LULUCF sink, partly due to the LULUCF sink showing a decreasing trend since 2009 (Figure 4).
The total substitution effect fluctuate throughout the period and are related to the changes in all types of substitution. The increasing trend in all substitution types is estimated during 2000–2007, while starting with 2008, the substitution effect for materials decreased by 10% and fluctuated at the same level until 2020. The peak values of wood substitution for energy were reached in 2010–2012 and decreased by 20% in 2013, remaining stable until 2020. The largest substitution is product substitution, more than twice as energy substitution, followed by energy and secondary energy substitution. Secondary energy substitution, however, was estimated to increase steadily during the whole period—a 20% increase from 2000 to 2020 was observed (Figure 4).

4.4. The Role of LULUCF in Climate Mitigation

As can be seen in Figure 5, LULUCF GHG removal covers a small, but rather stable share of total EU GHG emissions—6.5% on average, though total LULUCF GHG removal is decreasing. The European Union has set an ambitious target to reduce GHG emissions by 80% in 2050, meaning that the remaining 20% should be covered by the LULUCF sector, aiming for a carbon-neutral economy. The results in the figure indicate that there is a need to significantly enhance LULUCF GHG removal to fulfill the climate neutrality target, as well as ensure steadily decreasing total GHG emissions. Enhancing the LULUCF sink could be rather a challenge, taking into account various studies projecting a decreasing sink [43,59,60], as well as a big focus on bioeconomy and biomass for energy aims.
In addition to the GHGs sequestration in biomass and dead organic matter (dead wood, litter, and soil), LULUCF contributes to climate change mitigation via GHG capture and storage in products (wood and wood-based materials) and a reduction in fossil GHG emissions due to the use of biomass for energy purposes, including biomass and wood products which are no longer used for primary purposes. Hence, the substitution effect amounts to some 9% of all GHG emissions (Figure 5) and is driven by material substitution (61%), with substitution for energy comprising 39% (Figure 4).
The analysis also shows that wood remains an important resource for energy production (Figure 3); therefore, it could potentially create a conflict between forest land (and the LULUCF sector as a whole), the GHG removal potential in biomass, and its use for energy purposes. However, the results reveal (Figure 6) that during the whole period, despite significantly increasing fuel wood harvest volumes, forest land GHG removal has not decreased to the same extent, except for some countries, such as the Czech Republic (nearly 4 times: from −5.4 to 14.8 mill. t CO2 eq.) and Estonia (from −5.6 to 0.1 mill. t CO2 eq.).
The shift of GHG removal into huge total emissions from the LULUCF sector in the Czech Republic is determined by the high GHG emissions emerging from forest land because of storms, droughts, and subsequent pest invasions, leading to wood dieback [61], with fuel wood extraction increasing 2 times during the same period. Decreasing forest land GHG removal in Lithuania could be related to the age of forests—more stands, are reaching maturity and carbon accumulation in biomass is slowing down [49]; this could also be the case for many other European countries. Rather stable or slightly decreasing forest land GHG removal in the other EU countries confirms the results of previously mentioned studies showing that European forests’ GHG removal potential might already be exploited [43,59,60]. This might suggest that additional biomass cannot be used for renewable energy needs without compromising GHG removal in climate change mitigation in some countries.

5. Discussion

Many authors and reports [62,63,64,65,66] indicate that if climate change mitigation goals are to be achieved without compromising continuous GDP growth, an absolute decoupling is necessary. A comparison of total GHG emissions and GDP development shows a decoupling effect: gross domestic product in the European Union increased more than twice during the years 1990–2020, while total GHG emissions decreased significantly (>30%). The results of the study confirm the results of previous research, where decoupling in various separate EU countries was also estimated [67,68]. However, emission leakage or outsourcing could be a reason behind decoupling in the EU [69]. Nevertheless, results show that final energy consumption did not change significantly during the research period (1990–2020), but there was a shift from non-renewable energy sources to renewable energy sources—a nearly threefold increase since 1990, which, together with an increase in energy efficiency, could have had an impact on energy-related emissions reduction, i.e., total GHG emissions reduction as well. Other scientists [70] also state that renewable energy consumption can reduce the ecological footprint, including GHG emissions, globally. On the other hand, even with a proven effect on emissions reduction, the impact of renewable energy resource use on decoupling is not yet clear [71]. As seen in the results of this study, though the share of renewables significantly increased, GHG reduction is not proportional.
Another important result is that renewables consumption in the EU increased more than 2 times, while the wood share in renewables only increased by 60%, showcasing that the demand for renewables is fulfilled by other renewable energy sources. Still, increasing biomass use in overall terms can result in a reduction in GHG removal in the LULUCF sector. Research by other authors also shows that the increasing biomass use can reduce the potential of the LULUCF sector [46,60,72,73], especially considering that, in many cases, sustainable biomass harvesting from forests has already been achieved [14]. Contrary to the reduction in GHG removal in the LULUCF sector due to increasing biomass demand (both for energy and product purposes), the use of biomass for the substitution of non-renewable materials can have a significant impact on emissions reduction in other sectors. The EU Climate and Energy Strategy is based on fossil fuel substitution with biomass [74,75,76], but material substitution with biomass—though less promoted—is also highly effective in reducing GHG emissions, as confirmed previously by various researchers [76,77,78,79,80]. The results of this study indicate that substitution amounted to 321 to 412 mill. t CO2 eq. removal during the period analyzed. In addition, the material substitution effect was the highest. In overall terms, substitution is currently greater than LULUCF removal on the EU level; however, it is not accounted for. Other scientists [76] also declare that current methods for GHG accounting do not allow for fully acknowledging GHG savings due to substitution in national GHG inventories. Therefore, different substitution accounting methods could be further studied.
Answering the main research question of this study, it should be acknowledged that despite significantly increasing fuel wood harvest volumes, forest land GHG removal has not decreased to the same extent, showcasing some potential for the bioeconomy and alignment of the bioeconomy and climate change policies, especially taking into consideration the substitution effect. However, the exception for some countries could be observed, indicating that differences in LULUCF situations and circumstances might be of importance for GHG mitigation, such as in the Czech Republic. Hence, the development of the bioeconomy might also have a significant negative impact on the GHG balance in the LULUCF sector, leading to the generation of net GHG emissions in separate countries in the future. This also might influence the substitution effect itself and the overall impact on climate change mitigation. Nevertheless, the overall potential of the LULUCF sector to remove GHG depends on multiple factors [81,82], like climate change, sector uncertainties, the implementation of EU legislation in LULUCF, and other areas, especially the Renewable Energy Directive. Therefore, these should be considered before making climate change and bioeconomy-related decisions.
Overall, this study contributes to the ongoing discussion on climate change mitigation and bioeconomy incompatibility, suggesting that, to some extent, both climate change mitigation and bioeconomy development could be aligned. The results are also significant for substitution effect accounting practice and future development, implying that the inclusion of substitution effects in GHG accounting might be challenging, at least using current methods. Therefore, the latter should be discussed and improved to avoid double accounting and misleading climate change mitigation results at the national or EU level.
This study’s results also indicate areas for policy direction: enhancing biomass use from other land uses to avoid decreasing carbon sink in forests, promoting material substitution of long-life wood products, enhancing forest carbon sink via updated management practices, and taking into account changing environmental conditions due to climate change.

6. Limitations

This study is based on some assumptions and has some limitations. First, the biomass considered for the substitution effect only included forest biomass; the biomass generated outside of forests, for example, in agriculture, was excluded. Hence, the estimated negative effect on forest carbon removal might be slightly overestimated. Second, the estimations were performed on a rather aggregated level; therefore, some overlap might be possible if separate countries’ substitution effects were added. Though some timber and wood products are imported, it was considered that all the wood needed is obtained within the EU; this assumption also might influence the results.

7. Conclusions

This study reveals that the decoupling of economic growth from GHG emissions is taking place at the EU level, and the share of renewables in the final energy consumption is steadily increasing. Though the share of biomass in renewables is decreasing, total biomass demand for energy and material needs raises the pressure on GHG removal in the LULUCF sector. Despite that, the results suggest that climate change mitigation and bioeconomy goals could be aligned to some extent, but country-specific peculiarities and sector uncertainties should be considered. In most EU countries, LULUCF GHG removal proportionally decreased less compared to wood extracted from forest land. If the substitution effect were included in accounting, the LULUCF sector’s potential to contribute to the GHG emission reduction would be much more pronounced. The analysis indicates that the substitution effect is greater than LULUCF GHG removal in the EU, with material substitution being a dominant one.
Nevertheless, further analysis is needed to reveal the impact of the projected increase in biomass demand on LULUCF GHG removal in the future. One of the future research directions is determining the accuracy of substitution effect estimations, taking into account also the biomass available for other land uses, and the possibility of including it in GHG accounting, avoiding possible risks of double counting. Country-specific analysis would also be useful as different countries have distinct situations regarding LULUCF potential, both for carbon removal and biomass production, as well as other renewables’ development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.D. and V.K.; methodology, V.K. and R.D.; validation, R.D.; formal analysis, V.K. and R.D.; investigation, R.D.; resources, V.K. and R.D.; data curation, R.D.; writing—original draft preparation, V.K.; writing—review and editing, R.D.; visualization, V.K.; supervision, R.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Abubakar, I.R.; Dano, U.L. Sustainable Urban Planning Strategies for Mitigating Climate Change in Saudi Arabia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 22, 5129–5152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hasan, M.A.; Abubakar, I.R.; Rahman, S.M.; Aina, Y.A.; Islam Chowdhury, M.M.; Khondaker, A.N. The Synergy between Climate Change Policies and National Development Goals: Implications for Sustainability. J. Clean Prod. 2020, 249, 119369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Beynon, J.; Wickstead, E. Climate Change and Development in Three Charts: An Update. 2024. Available online: https://www.cgdev.org/blog/climate-and-development-three-charts-update (accessed on 20 June 2025).
  4. Vavrek, R.; Chovancova, J. Decoupling of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Economic Growth in V4 Countries. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2016, 39, 526–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. OECD Economic Policies to Foster Green Growth. 2014. Available online: Https://Www.Oecd.Org/En/Topics/Sub-Issues/Economic-Policies-to-Foster-Green-Growth.Html (accessed on 7 June 2025).
  6. EC The European Green Deal. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, The Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (accessed on 7 June 2025).
  7. Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’). PE/27/2021/REV/1, OJ L 243, 9.7.2021, p. 1–17. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1119/oj (accessed on 15 June 2025).
  8. EEA National Emissions Reported to the UNFCCC and to the EU Greenhouse Gas Monitoring Mechanism, Oct. 2021. Total GHG Emissions and Removals in the EU. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/datahub/datahubitem-view/3b7fe76c-524a-439a-bfd2-a6e4046302a2 (accessed on 7 June 2025).
  9. Berndes, G.; Abt, B.; Asikainen, A.; Cowie, A.; Dale, V.; Egnell, G.; Lindner, M.; Marelli, L.; Paré, D.; Pingoud, K.; et al. Forest Biomass, Carbon Neutrality and Climate Change Mitigation. Sci. Policy 2016, 3, 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  10. Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 contributing to climate action to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 (Text with EEA relevance). PE/3/2018/REV/2, OJ L 156, 19.6.2018, p. 26–4. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/842/oj (accessed on 15 June 2025).
  11. Grassi, G.; House, J.; Dentener, F.; Federici, S.; Den Elzen, M.; Penman, J. The Key Role of Forests in Meeting Climate Targets Requires Science for Credible Mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 2017, 7, 220–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Roe, S.; Streck, C.; Obersteiner, M.; Frank, S.; Griscom, B.; Drouet, L.; Fricko, O.; Gusti, M.; Harris, N.; Hasegawa, T.; et al. Contribution of the Land Sector to a 1.5 °C World. Nat. Clim. Change 2019, 9, 817–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lago, C.; Herrera, I.; Caldés, N.; Lechón, Y. Nexus Bioenergy-Bioeconomy. In The Role of Bioenergy in the Emerging Bioeconomy: Resources, Technologies, Sustainability and Policy; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. EC Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank “A Clean Planet for All”. A European Strategic Long-Term Vision for a Prosperous, Modern, Competitive and Climate Neutral Economy. COM/2018/773 Final. 2018. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0773 (accessed on 7 June 2025).
  15. EC European Bioeconomy Policy: Stocktaking and Future Developments: Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, Publications Office of the European Union, 2022, pp. 1–109. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/997651 (accessed on 15 April 2025).
  16. Andersen, S.P.; Allen, B.; Domingo, G.C. Biomass in the EU Green Deal: Towards Consensus on Sustainable Use of Biomass for EU Bioenergy? Policy Report, Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP). 2021. Available online: https://ieep.eu/publications/biomass-in-the-eu-green-deal-towards-consensus-on-sustainable-use-of-biomass-for-eu-bioenergy/ (accessed on 7 June 2025).
  17. Leskinen, P.; Cardellini, G.; González García, S.; Hurmekoski, E.; Sathre, R.; Seppälä, J.; Smyth, C.E.; Stern, T.; Verkerk, H. Substitution Effects of Wood-Based Products in Climate Change Mitigation. Sci. Policy 2018, 7, 28. [Google Scholar]
  18. Liu, Z. Building Global Energy Interconnection. In Global Energy Interconnection; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 183–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ekpeni, L.E.N.; Benyounis, K.Y.; Nkem-Ekpeni, F.; Stokes, J.; Olabi, A.G. Energy Diversity through Renewable Energy Source (RES)—A Case Study of Biomass. Energy Procedia 2014, 61, 1740–1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Scarlat, N.; Dallemand, J.F.; Skjelhaugen, O.J.; Asplund, D.; Nesheim, L. An Overview of the Biomass Resource Potential of Norway for Bioenergy Use. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 3388–3398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. de Wit, M.; Londo, M.; Faaij, A. Productivity Developments in European Agriculture: Relations to and Opportunities for Biomass Production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 2397–2412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yusaf, T.; Goh, S.; Borserio, J.A. Potential of Renewable Energy Alternatives in Australia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 2214–2221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Robledo-Abad, C.; Althaus, H.J.; Berndes, G.; Bolwig, S.; Corbera, E.; Creutzig, F.; Garcia-Ulloa, J.; Geddes, A.; Gregg, J.S.; Haberl, H.; et al. Bioenergy Production and Sustainable Development: Science Base for Policymaking Remains Limited. GCB Bioenergy 2017, 9, 541–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Haberl, H.; Sprinz, D.; Bonazountas, M.; Cocco, P.; Desaubies, Y.; Henze, M.; Hertel, O.; Johnson, R.K.; Kastrup, U.; Laconte, P.; et al. Correcting a Fundamental Error in Greenhouse Gas Accounting Related to Bioenergy. Energy Policy 2012, 45, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Booth, M.S. Not Carbon Neutral: Assessing the Net Emissions Impact of Residues Burned for Bioenergy. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 035001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Elbein, S. Europe’s Renewable Energy Policy Is Built on Burning American Trees | Vox. Available online: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/3/4/18216045/renewable-energy-wood-pellets-biomass (accessed on 7 June 2025).
  27. Cho, R. Is Biomass Really Renewable? In State of the Planet; Earth Institute, Colombia University: New York, NY, USA, 2011; Available online: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2011/08/18/is-biomass-really-renewable/ (accessed on 7 June 2025).
  28. Farrell, A.E.; Plevin, R.J.; Turner, B.T.; Jones, A.D.; O’Hare, M.; Kammen, D.M. Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals. Science 2006, 311, 506–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Goldemberg, J. Ethanol for a Sustainable Energy Future. Science 2007, 315, 808–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Walter, A.; Seabra, J.E.A.; Machado, P.G.; de Barros Correia, B.; de Oliveira, C.O.F. Sustainability of Biomass. In Biomass and Green Chemistry: Building a Renewable Pathway; Vaz, S., Jr., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 1–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. UN Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development | a Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/publications/transforming-our-world-2030-agenda-sustainable-development-17981 (accessed on 7 June 2025).
  32. US Energy Independence and Security Act, 2007. Public Law 110–140–DEC. 19, 2007. Available online: https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa.html (accessed on 15 June 2025).
  33. Sorda, G.; Banse, M.; Kemfert, C. An Overview of Biofuel Policies across the World. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 6977–6988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yang, X.J.; Hu, H.; Tan, T.; Li, J. China’s Renewable Energy Goals by 2050. Environ. Dev. 2016, 20, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Directive (EU) 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) (Text with EEA relevance.) PE/48/2018/REV/1, OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, p. 82–209. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/2001/oj (accessed on 15 June 2025).
  36. EU EU’s Global Leadership in Renewables; Final Synthesis Report; July 2021. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2022. [CrossRef]
  37. Brack, D.; Hewitt, J.; Marchand, T.M. Woody Biomass for Power and Heat. Demand and Supply in Selected EU Member States. Research Paper. Chatham House. Available online: https://espas.secure.europarl.europa.eu/orbis/document/woody-biomass-power-and-heat-demand-and-supply-selected-eu-member-states (accessed on 7 June 2025).
  38. Bell, J.; Paula, L.; Dodd, T.; Németh, S.; Nanou, C.; Mega, V.; Campos, P. EU Ambition to Build the World’s Leading Bioeconomy—Uncertain Times Demand Innovative and Sustainable Solutions. New Biotechnol. 2018, 40, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Brunet-Navarro, P.; Jochheim, H.; Muys, B. The Effect of Increasing Lifespan and Recycling Rate on Carbon Storage in Wood Products from Theoretical Model to Application for the European Wood Sector. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 2017, 22, 1193–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Koukios, E.; Monteleone, M.; Texeira Carrondo, M.J.; Charalambous, A.; Girio, F.; Hernández, E.L.; Mannelli, S.; Parajó, J.C.; Polycarpou, P.; Zabaniotou, A. Targeting Sustainable Bioeconomy: A New Development Strategy for Southern European Countries. The Manifesto of the European Mezzogiorno. J. Clean Prod. 2018, 172, 3931–3941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lainez, M.; González, J.M.; Aguilar, A.; Vela, C. Spanish Strategy on Bioeconomy: Towards a Knowledge Based Sustainable Innovation. New Biotechnol. 2018, 40, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Regulation (EU) 2018/841 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use change and forestry in the 2030 climate and energy framework, and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 and Decision No 529/2013/EU (Text with EEA relevance). PE/68/2017/REV/1, OJ L 156, 19.6.2018, p. 1–25. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/841/oj (accessed on 15 June 2025).
  43. Nabuurs, G.J.; Lindner, M.; Verkerk, P.J.; Gunia, K.; Deda, P.; Michalak, R.; Grassi, G. First Signs of Carbon Sink Saturation in European Forest Biomass. Nat. Clim. Change 2013, 3, 792–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ceccherini, G.; Duveiller, G.; Grassi, G.; Lemoine, G.; Avitabile, V.; Pilli, R.; Cescatti, A. Abrupt Increase in Harvested Forest Area over Europe after 2015. Nature 2020, 583, 72–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. EEA Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry. Indicator Assessment, CLIM 057. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-land/assessment (accessed on 7 June 2025).
  46. EEA Forest: Growing Stock, Increment and Fellings. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/forest-growing-stock-increment-and-fellings-3/assessment (accessed on 7 June 2025).
  47. Arneth, A.; Sitch, S.; Pongratz, J.; Stocker, B.D.; Ciais, P.; Poulter, B.; Bayer, A.D.; Bondeau, A.; Calle, L.; Chini, L.P.; et al. Historical Carbon Dioxide Emissions Caused by Land-Use Changes Are Possibly Larger than Assumed. Nat. Geosci. 2017, 10, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Verkerk, P.J.; Fitzgerald, J.B.; Datta, P.; Dees, M.; Hengeveld, G.M.; Lindner, M.; Zudin, S. Spatial Distribution of the Potential Forest Biomass Availability in Europe. For. Ecosyst. 2019, 6, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mozgeris, G.; Kazanavičiūtė, V.; Juknelienė, D. Does Aiming for Long-Term Non-Decreasing Flow of Timber Secure Carbon Accumulation: A Lithuanian Forestry Case. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Holmgren, P. Climate Effects of the Forest-Based Sector in the European Union; FutureVistas AB: Stockholm, Sweden, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hurmekoski, E.; Seppälä, J.; Kilpeläinen, A.; Kunttu, J.; Hurmekoski, E.; Seppälä, J.; Kilpeläinen, A. Contribution of Wood-Based Products to Climate Change Mitigation. In Forest Bioeconomy and Climate Change; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 129–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Brunet-Navarro, P.; Jochheim, H.; Cardellini, G.; Richter, K.; Muys, B. Climate Mitigation by Energy and Material Substitution of Wood Products Has an Expiry Date. J. Clean Prod. 2021, 303, 127026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Holmgren, P. Report: Contribution of the Swedish Forestry Sector to Global Climate Change; Swedish Forest Industries Federation: Stockholm, Sweden, 2019; 15p. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ward, J.D.; Sutton, P.C.; Werner, A.D.; Costanza, R.; Mohr, S.H.; Simmons, C.T. Is Decoupling GDP Growth from Environmental Impact Possible? PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0164733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Newman, P.; Beatley, T.; Boyer, H. Resilient Cities: Overcoming Fossil Fuel Dependence; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; pp. 1–253. Available online: https://link.springer.com/book/10.5822/978-1-61091-686-8 (accessed on 15 June 2025).
  56. Sulaiman, C.; Abdul-Rahim, A.S.; Ofozor, C.A. Does Wood Biomass Energy Use Reduce CO2 Emissions in European Union Member Countries? Evidence from 27 Members. J. Clean Prod. 2020, 253, 119996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Schulze, E.D.; Bouriaud, O.; Irslinger, R.; Valentini, R. The Role of Wood Harvest from Sustainably Managed Forests in the Carbon Cycle. Ann. For. Sci. 2022, 79, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Knauf, M.; Köhl, M.; Mues, V.; Olschofsky, K.; Frühwald, A. Modeling the CO2-Effects of Forest Management and Wood Usage on a Regional Basis. Carbon Balance Manag. 2015, 10, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Hyyrynen, M.; Ollikainen, M.; Seppälä, J. European Forest Sinks and Climate Targets: Past Trends, Main Drivers, and Future Forecasts. Eur. J. For. Res. 2023, 142, 1207–1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Korosuo, A.; Pilli, R.; Abad Viñas, R.; Blujdea, V.N.B.; Colditz, R.R.; Fiorese, G.; Rossi, S.; Vizzarri, M.; Grassi, G. The Role of Forests in the EU Climate Policy: Are We on the Right Track? Carbon Balance Manag. 2023, 18, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Hlásny, T.; Barka, I.; Merganičová, K.; Křístek, Š.; Modlinger, R.; Turčáni, M.; Marušák, R. A New Framework for Prognosing Forest Resources under Intensified Disturbance Impacts: Case of the Czech Republic. For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 523, 120483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. UNEP Decoupling: Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth | UNEP—UN Environment Programme. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/decoupling-natural-resource-use-and-environmental-impacts-economic-growth (accessed on 7 June 2025).
  63. Hickel, J.; Kallis, G. Is Green Growth Possible? New Political Econ. 2020, 25, 469–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jackson, T.; Victor, P.A. Unraveling the Claims for (and against) Green Growth. Science 2019, 366, 950–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Parrique, T.; Barth, J.; Briens, F.; Kerschner, C.; Kraus-Polk, A.; Kuokkanen, A.; Spangenberg, J.H. Decoupling Debunked—Evidence and Arguments against Green Growth as a Sole Strategy for Sustainability—EEB—The European Environmental Bureau. 2019. Available online: https://eeb.org/library/decoupling-debunked/ (accessed on 7 June 2025).
  66. NEP Global Resources Outlook 2019: Natural Resources for the Future We Want: Summary for Policymakers; Note/: By the Secretariat; United Nations Environment Program: Paris, France, 2019.
  67. Chovancová, J.; Tej, J. Decoupling Economic Growth from Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Case of the Energy Sector in v4 Countries. Equilib. Q. J. Econ. Econ. Policy 2020, 15, 235–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bluszcz, A. Decoupling Economic Growth from Emissions in Poland on the Background of EU Countries. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 221, 012119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Liobikiene, G.; Dagiliute, R. The Relationship between Economic and Carbon Footprint Changes in EU: The Achievements of the EU Sustainable Consumption and Production Policy Implementation. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 61, 204–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wang, Q.; Zhang, F.; Li, R.; Li, L. The Impact of Renewable Energy on Decoupling Economic Growth from Ecological Footprint—An Empirical Analysis of 166 Countries. J. Clean Prod. 2022, 354, 131706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ehigiamusoe, K.U.; Dogan, E. The Role of Interaction Effect between Renewable Energy Consumption and Real Income in Carbon Emissions: Evidence from Low-Income Countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 154, 111883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ciais, P.; Schelhaas, M.J.; Zaehle, S.; Piao, S.L.; Cescatti, A.; Liski, J.; Luyssaert, S.; Le-Maire, G.; Schulze, E.D.; Bouriaud, O.; et al. Carbon Accumulation in European Forests. Nat. Geosci. 2008, 1, 425–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Repo, A.; Eyvindson, K.; Halme, P.; Mönkkönen, M. Forest Bioenergy Harvesting Changes Carbon Balance and Risks Biodiversity in Boreal Forest Landscapes. Can. J. For. Res. 2020, 50, 1184–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. EC Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Energy Roadmap 2050. COM(2011) 885. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52011DC0885 (accessed on 7 June 2025).
  75. Beurskens, L.W.M.; Hekkenberg, M.; Haydock, H.; Bole, T.; Bulder, B.; Gerdes, J.; Loos, M.; Pronk, L.; Rösler, H.; Volkers, C.; et al. Renewable Energy Projections as Published in the National Renewable Energy Action Plans of the European Member States Covering All 27 EU Member States; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  76. Kalt, G.; Höher, M.; Lauk, C.; Schipfer, F.; Kranzl, L. Carbon Accounting of Material Substitution with Biomass: Case Studies for Austria Investigated with IPCC Default and Alternative Approaches. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 64, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sathre, R.; Gustavsson, L. Energy and Carbon Balances of Wood Cascade Chains. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2006, 47, 332–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gustavsson, L.; Holmberg, J.; Dornburg, V.; Sathre, R.; Eggers, T.; Mahapatra, K.; Marland, G. Using Biomass for Climate Change Mitigation and Oil Use Reduction. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 5671–5691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Perez-Garcia, J.; Lippke, B.; Comnick, J.; Manriquez, C. An Assessment of Carbon Pools, Storage, and Wood Products Market Substitution Using Life-Cycle Analysis Results. Wood Fiber Sci. 2005, 37, 140–148. [Google Scholar]
  80. Sathre, R.; O’Connor, J. Meta-Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Displacement Factors of Wood Product Substitution. Environ. Sci. Policy 2010, 13, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Dagiliūtė, R.; Kazanavičiūtė, V. Impact of Land-Use Changes on Climate Change Mitigation Goals: The Case of Lithuania. Land 2024, 13, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kazanavičiūtė, V.; Dagiliūtė, R. Impact of LULUCF Accounting Rules for Climate Change Mitigation Goals: Winning or Losing? J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2023, 31, 164–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 14 01320 g001
Figure 1. Trends in final energy consumption, renewable energy share, gross domestic product at PPS market prices, total GHG emissions, and LULUCF GHG removal in EU (27 countries) during 1990–2020. *—GDP in relation to 1995.
Figure 1. Trends in final energy consumption, renewable energy share, gross domestic product at PPS market prices, total GHG emissions, and LULUCF GHG removal in EU (27 countries) during 1990–2020. *—GDP in relation to 1995.
Land 14 01320 g001
Land 14 01320 g002
Figure 2. Final energy consumption, renewable energy sources in final energy consumption, and wood for renewable energy in the EU (27 countries) during 2000–2020. For Eurostat data, timber and wood fuel values were only available after 2000.
Figure 2. Final energy consumption, renewable energy sources in final energy consumption, and wood for renewable energy in the EU (27 countries) during 2000–2020. For Eurostat data, timber and wood fuel values were only available after 2000.
Land 14 01320 g002
Land 14 01320 g003
Figure 3. Changes in woody biomass extracted domestically for energy and other purposes, as well as changes in the share of energy from renewable sources in European countries from 2010 to 2020.
Figure 3. Changes in woody biomass extracted domestically for energy and other purposes, as well as changes in the share of energy from renewable sources in European countries from 2010 to 2020.
Land 14 01320 g003
Land 14 01320 g004
Figure 4. The development of LULUCF GHG removal, material substitution, energy substitution, and secondary energy substitution in European Union, million tons CO2 eq., during 2000–2020.
Figure 4. The development of LULUCF GHG removal, material substitution, energy substitution, and secondary energy substitution in European Union, million tons CO2 eq., during 2000–2020.
Land 14 01320 g004
Land 14 01320 g005
Figure 5. The development of total emissions, energy sector emissions, LULUCF GHG removal, and total substitution (product + energy + secondary energy substitution) in European Union, million tons of CO2 eq., during 2000–2020.
Figure 5. The development of total emissions, energy sector emissions, LULUCF GHG removal, and total substitution (product + energy + secondary energy substitution) in European Union, million tons of CO2 eq., during 2000–2020.
Land 14 01320 g005
Land 14 01320 g006
Figure 6. The changes in forest land GHG removal and wood fuel extracted from forest, in %, from 2010 to 2020.
Figure 6. The changes in forest land GHG removal and wood fuel extracted from forest, in %, from 2010 to 2020.
Land 14 01320 g006
Table 1. Conversion and substitution factors used in the study.
Table 1. Conversion and substitution factors used in the study.
ItemConversion/Substitution FactorSource
Biomass (Kt) to oil equivalent
(for primary energy substitution)		1 kg = 5.2 kWh; 1 kWh = 8.59845 × 10−5 ktoeSchulze et al. [57]
Material substitution (biomass to products)1.2Leskinen et al. [17]
Secondary energy substitution—share of harvested wood product residues to energy34%Brunet-Navarro et al. [52]
Secondary energy substitution—displacement factor0.67Knauf et al. [58]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dagiliūtė, R.; Kazanavičiūtė, V. Climate Change Mitigation vs. Renewable Energy Consumption and Biomass Demand. Land 2025, 14, 1320. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14071320

AMA Style

Dagiliūtė R, Kazanavičiūtė V. Climate Change Mitigation vs. Renewable Energy Consumption and Biomass Demand. Land. 2025; 14(7):1320. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14071320

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dagiliūtė, Renata, and Vaiva Kazanavičiūtė. 2025. "Climate Change Mitigation vs. Renewable Energy Consumption and Biomass Demand" Land 14, no. 7: 1320. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14071320

APA Style

Dagiliūtė, R., & Kazanavičiūtė, V. (2025). Climate Change Mitigation vs. Renewable Energy Consumption and Biomass Demand. Land, 14(7), 1320. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14071320

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop