Local-Scale Carbon Budgets and Mitigation Opportunities for the Northeastern United States
Economic and political realities present challenges for implementing an aggressive climate change abatement program in the United States. A high-efficiency approach will be essential. In this synthesis, we compare carbon budgets and evaluate the carbon-mitigation potential for nine counties in the n...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Bioscience 2012-01, Vol.62 (1), p.23-38 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 38 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 23 |
container_title | Bioscience |
container_volume | 62 |
creator | Raciti, Steve M Fahey, Timothy J Thomas, R. Quinn Woodbury, Peter B Driscoll, Charles T Carranti, Frederick J Foster, David R Gwyther, Philip S Hall, Brian R Hamburg, Steven P Jenkins, Jennifer C Neill, Christopher Peery, Brandon W Quigley, Erin E Sherman, Ruth Vadeboncoeur, Matt A Weinstein, David A Wilson, Geoff |
description | Economic and political realities present challenges for implementing an aggressive climate change abatement program in the United States. A high-efficiency approach will be essential. In this synthesis, we compare carbon budgets and evaluate the carbon-mitigation potential for nine counties in the northeastern United States that represent a range of biophysical, demographic, and socioeconomic conditions. Most counties are net sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, with the exception of rural forested counties, in which sequestration in vegetation and soils exceed emissions. Protecting forests will ensure that the region's largest CO2 sink does not become a source of emissions. For rural counties, afforestation, sustainable fuelwood harvest for bioenergy, and utility-scale wind power could provide the largest and most cost-effective mitigation opportunities among those evaluated. For urban and suburban counties, energy-efficiency measures and energy-saving technologies would be most cost effective. Through the implementation of locally tailored management and technology options, large reductions in CO2 emissions could be achieved at relatively low costs. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.7 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_918822731</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.7</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.7</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b384t-697906bfb33f74acaf157b3ebe15f205fed350da9463b82b0b4ceae28c61433e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkD1PwzAQhi0EEqUws1rMJPVH4iQjVHxJhQ6lC4tlJ-c2VYmD7Qz8exyFHZY73XvP3elehK4pSWnO8oVubcoIZalgKU2LEzQb5YSzLDtFM0KISHguynN04f0hljTj1Qx9rGytjskmBsBL5bTt8P3Q7CB4rLoGv7ah3anQRnnd99aFoYsKeGysw2EP-C1qe1A-gOvwNjahwZugAvhLdGbU0cPVb56j7ePD-_I5Wa2fXpZ3q0TzMguJqIqKCG0056bIVK0MzQvNQQPNDSO5gYbnpFFVJrgumSY6q0EBK2sRX-DA5-hm2ts7-zWAD_JgB9fFk7KiZclYwWmEFhNUO-u9AyN7134q9y0pkaNRMvonR_-kYJLKIk7cThMHH6z7B55MeGzYDv7kfwBBYYFG</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>918822731</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Local-Scale Carbon Budgets and Mitigation Opportunities for the Northeastern United States</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>Raciti, Steve M ; Fahey, Timothy J ; Thomas, R. Quinn ; Woodbury, Peter B ; Driscoll, Charles T ; Carranti, Frederick J ; Foster, David R ; Gwyther, Philip S ; Hall, Brian R ; Hamburg, Steven P ; Jenkins, Jennifer C ; Neill, Christopher ; Peery, Brandon W ; Quigley, Erin E ; Sherman, Ruth ; Vadeboncoeur, Matt A ; Weinstein, David A ; Wilson, Geoff</creator><creatorcontrib>Raciti, Steve M ; Fahey, Timothy J ; Thomas, R. Quinn ; Woodbury, Peter B ; Driscoll, Charles T ; Carranti, Frederick J ; Foster, David R ; Gwyther, Philip S ; Hall, Brian R ; Hamburg, Steven P ; Jenkins, Jennifer C ; Neill, Christopher ; Peery, Brandon W ; Quigley, Erin E ; Sherman, Ruth ; Vadeboncoeur, Matt A ; Weinstein, David A ; Wilson, Geoff</creatorcontrib><description>Economic and political realities present challenges for implementing an aggressive climate change abatement program in the United States. A high-efficiency approach will be essential. In this synthesis, we compare carbon budgets and evaluate the carbon-mitigation potential for nine counties in the northeastern United States that represent a range of biophysical, demographic, and socioeconomic conditions. Most counties are net sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, with the exception of rural forested counties, in which sequestration in vegetation and soils exceed emissions. Protecting forests will ensure that the region's largest CO2 sink does not become a source of emissions. For rural counties, afforestation, sustainable fuelwood harvest for bioenergy, and utility-scale wind power could provide the largest and most cost-effective mitigation opportunities among those evaluated. For urban and suburban counties, energy-efficiency measures and energy-saving technologies would be most cost effective. Through the implementation of locally tailored management and technology options, large reductions in CO2 emissions could be achieved at relatively low costs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0006-3568</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3244</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.7</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BISNAS</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: University of California Press</publisher><subject>Aggression ; Agricultural land ; carbon ; Carbon dioxide ; Carbon dioxide emissions ; Carbon sequestration ; Climate ; Climate change ; Consumer Economics ; Counties ; Emissions ; Emissions reduction ; Energy ; Energy conservation ; Energy crops ; Environmental protection ; Forest cover ; Forest protection ; Governance ; Housing ; Land Use ; Local Government ; Opportunities ; OVERVIEW ARTICLES ; Pollutant emissions ; Population density ; Socioeconomics ; Studies ; Topography ; Wind power</subject><ispartof>Bioscience, 2012-01, Vol.62 (1), p.23-38</ispartof><rights>2012 by American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights reserved. Request permission to photocopy or reproduce article content at the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions Web site at www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintinfo.asp.</rights><rights>2012 by American Institute of Biological Sciences.</rights><rights>Copyright University of California Press Jan 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b384t-697906bfb33f74acaf157b3ebe15f205fed350da9463b82b0b4ceae28c61433e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b384t-697906bfb33f74acaf157b3ebe15f205fed350da9463b82b0b4ceae28c61433e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Raciti, Steve M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fahey, Timothy J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomas, R. Quinn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Woodbury, Peter B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Driscoll, Charles T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carranti, Frederick J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foster, David R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gwyther, Philip S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hall, Brian R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamburg, Steven P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jenkins, Jennifer C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neill, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peery, Brandon W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quigley, Erin E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sherman, Ruth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vadeboncoeur, Matt A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weinstein, David A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Geoff</creatorcontrib><title>Local-Scale Carbon Budgets and Mitigation Opportunities for the Northeastern United States</title><title>Bioscience</title><description>Economic and political realities present challenges for implementing an aggressive climate change abatement program in the United States. A high-efficiency approach will be essential. In this synthesis, we compare carbon budgets and evaluate the carbon-mitigation potential for nine counties in the northeastern United States that represent a range of biophysical, demographic, and socioeconomic conditions. Most counties are net sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, with the exception of rural forested counties, in which sequestration in vegetation and soils exceed emissions. Protecting forests will ensure that the region's largest CO2 sink does not become a source of emissions. For rural counties, afforestation, sustainable fuelwood harvest for bioenergy, and utility-scale wind power could provide the largest and most cost-effective mitigation opportunities among those evaluated. For urban and suburban counties, energy-efficiency measures and energy-saving technologies would be most cost effective. Through the implementation of locally tailored management and technology options, large reductions in CO2 emissions could be achieved at relatively low costs.</description><subject>Aggression</subject><subject>Agricultural land</subject><subject>carbon</subject><subject>Carbon dioxide</subject><subject>Carbon dioxide emissions</subject><subject>Carbon sequestration</subject><subject>Climate</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>Consumer Economics</subject><subject>Counties</subject><subject>Emissions</subject><subject>Emissions reduction</subject><subject>Energy</subject><subject>Energy conservation</subject><subject>Energy crops</subject><subject>Environmental protection</subject><subject>Forest cover</subject><subject>Forest protection</subject><subject>Governance</subject><subject>Housing</subject><subject>Land Use</subject><subject>Local Government</subject><subject>Opportunities</subject><subject>OVERVIEW ARTICLES</subject><subject>Pollutant emissions</subject><subject>Population density</subject><subject>Socioeconomics</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Topography</subject><subject>Wind power</subject><issn>0006-3568</issn><issn>1525-3244</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkD1PwzAQhi0EEqUws1rMJPVH4iQjVHxJhQ6lC4tlJ-c2VYmD7Qz8exyFHZY73XvP3elehK4pSWnO8oVubcoIZalgKU2LEzQb5YSzLDtFM0KISHguynN04f0hljTj1Qx9rGytjskmBsBL5bTt8P3Q7CB4rLoGv7ah3anQRnnd99aFoYsKeGysw2EP-C1qe1A-gOvwNjahwZugAvhLdGbU0cPVb56j7ePD-_I5Wa2fXpZ3q0TzMguJqIqKCG0056bIVK0MzQvNQQPNDSO5gYbnpFFVJrgumSY6q0EBK2sRX-DA5-hm2ts7-zWAD_JgB9fFk7KiZclYwWmEFhNUO-u9AyN7134q9y0pkaNRMvonR_-kYJLKIk7cThMHH6z7B55MeGzYDv7kfwBBYYFG</recordid><startdate>201201</startdate><enddate>201201</enddate><creator>Raciti, Steve M</creator><creator>Fahey, Timothy J</creator><creator>Thomas, R. Quinn</creator><creator>Woodbury, Peter B</creator><creator>Driscoll, Charles T</creator><creator>Carranti, Frederick J</creator><creator>Foster, David R</creator><creator>Gwyther, Philip S</creator><creator>Hall, Brian R</creator><creator>Hamburg, Steven P</creator><creator>Jenkins, Jennifer C</creator><creator>Neill, Christopher</creator><creator>Peery, Brandon W</creator><creator>Quigley, Erin E</creator><creator>Sherman, Ruth</creator><creator>Vadeboncoeur, Matt A</creator><creator>Weinstein, David A</creator><creator>Wilson, Geoff</creator><general>University of California Press</general><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>R05</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201201</creationdate><title>Local-Scale Carbon Budgets and Mitigation Opportunities for the Northeastern United States</title><author>Raciti, Steve M ; Fahey, Timothy J ; Thomas, R. Quinn ; Woodbury, Peter B ; Driscoll, Charles T ; Carranti, Frederick J ; Foster, David R ; Gwyther, Philip S ; Hall, Brian R ; Hamburg, Steven P ; Jenkins, Jennifer C ; Neill, Christopher ; Peery, Brandon W ; Quigley, Erin E ; Sherman, Ruth ; Vadeboncoeur, Matt A ; Weinstein, David A ; Wilson, Geoff</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b384t-697906bfb33f74acaf157b3ebe15f205fed350da9463b82b0b4ceae28c61433e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Aggression</topic><topic>Agricultural land</topic><topic>carbon</topic><topic>Carbon dioxide</topic><topic>Carbon dioxide emissions</topic><topic>Carbon sequestration</topic><topic>Climate</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>Consumer Economics</topic><topic>Counties</topic><topic>Emissions</topic><topic>Emissions reduction</topic><topic>Energy</topic><topic>Energy conservation</topic><topic>Energy crops</topic><topic>Environmental protection</topic><topic>Forest cover</topic><topic>Forest protection</topic><topic>Governance</topic><topic>Housing</topic><topic>Land Use</topic><topic>Local Government</topic><topic>Opportunities</topic><topic>OVERVIEW ARTICLES</topic><topic>Pollutant emissions</topic><topic>Population density</topic><topic>Socioeconomics</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Topography</topic><topic>Wind power</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Raciti, Steve M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fahey, Timothy J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomas, R. Quinn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Woodbury, Peter B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Driscoll, Charles T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carranti, Frederick J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foster, David R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gwyther, Philip S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hall, Brian R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamburg, Steven P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jenkins, Jennifer C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neill, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peery, Brandon W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quigley, Erin E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sherman, Ruth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vadeboncoeur, Matt A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weinstein, David A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Geoff</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>University of Michigan</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Bioscience</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Raciti, Steve M</au><au>Fahey, Timothy J</au><au>Thomas, R. Quinn</au><au>Woodbury, Peter B</au><au>Driscoll, Charles T</au><au>Carranti, Frederick J</au><au>Foster, David R</au><au>Gwyther, Philip S</au><au>Hall, Brian R</au><au>Hamburg, Steven P</au><au>Jenkins, Jennifer C</au><au>Neill, Christopher</au><au>Peery, Brandon W</au><au>Quigley, Erin E</au><au>Sherman, Ruth</au><au>Vadeboncoeur, Matt A</au><au>Weinstein, David A</au><au>Wilson, Geoff</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Local-Scale Carbon Budgets and Mitigation Opportunities for the Northeastern United States</atitle><jtitle>Bioscience</jtitle><date>2012-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>62</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>23</spage><epage>38</epage><pages>23-38</pages><issn>0006-3568</issn><eissn>1525-3244</eissn><coden>BISNAS</coden><abstract>Economic and political realities present challenges for implementing an aggressive climate change abatement program in the United States. A high-efficiency approach will be essential. In this synthesis, we compare carbon budgets and evaluate the carbon-mitigation potential for nine counties in the northeastern United States that represent a range of biophysical, demographic, and socioeconomic conditions. Most counties are net sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, with the exception of rural forested counties, in which sequestration in vegetation and soils exceed emissions. Protecting forests will ensure that the region's largest CO2 sink does not become a source of emissions. For rural counties, afforestation, sustainable fuelwood harvest for bioenergy, and utility-scale wind power could provide the largest and most cost-effective mitigation opportunities among those evaluated. For urban and suburban counties, energy-efficiency measures and energy-saving technologies would be most cost effective. Through the implementation of locally tailored management and technology options, large reductions in CO2 emissions could be achieved at relatively low costs.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>University of California Press</pub><doi>10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.7</doi><tpages>16</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0006-3568 |
ispartof | Bioscience, 2012-01, Vol.62 (1), p.23-38 |
issn | 0006-3568 1525-3244 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_918822731 |
source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current) |
subjects | Aggression Agricultural land carbon Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide emissions Carbon sequestration Climate Climate change Consumer Economics Counties Emissions Emissions reduction Energy Energy conservation Energy crops Environmental protection Forest cover Forest protection Governance Housing Land Use Local Government Opportunities OVERVIEW ARTICLES Pollutant emissions Population density Socioeconomics Studies Topography Wind power |
title | Local-Scale Carbon Budgets and Mitigation Opportunities for the Northeastern United States |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T08%3A10%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Local-Scale%20Carbon%20Budgets%20and%20Mitigation%20Opportunities%20for%20the%20Northeastern%20United%20States&rft.jtitle=Bioscience&rft.au=Raciti,%20Steve%20M&rft.date=2012-01&rft.volume=62&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=23&rft.epage=38&rft.pages=23-38&rft.issn=0006-3568&rft.eissn=1525-3244&rft.coden=BISNAS&rft_id=info:doi/10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.7&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.7%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=918822731&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.7&rfr_iscdi=true |