From carbon neutral to climate neutral: Dynamic life cycle assessment for wood‐based panels produced in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The forestry sector is crucial in supporting climate change mitigation, where the mitigation potential is assessed by combining forest carbon analysis and wood product life cycle assessment (LCA). Static LCA (sLCA) is the approach commonly used in national forestry mitigation models worldwide. Static GHG effects are calculated as a running total of emissions and removals, which are often used to imply climate effects. Also, carbon neutrality, a state when the GHG effects equal zero, is used to imply neutral climate effects. However, until carbon neutrality is achieved, the increased emissions contribute to climate warming. Dynamic LCA (dLCA) is an improved method to estimate climate effects by considering the atmospheric dynamics and heat trapping capacity of different GHGs. Climate neutrality is a state when the warming effects caused by increased emissions are fully compensated by warming reduction contributed by removals. We applied dLCA and sLCA to China‐made wood‐based panels produced from 1990 to 2018 by harvesting poplar plantations. Our results suggested that, compared to dLCA results, static GHG effects largely underestimated climate warming effects or overestimated mitigation contributions. Also, decades or longer was required to achieve climate neutrality following carbon neutrality, if achievable. So, within a given timeframe, a forestry mitigation activity can achieve carbon neutrality but increase climate warming, hindering the goal of limiting global temperature rise that was set in the 2015 Paris Agreement. Thus, to assess climate warming effects, using dLCA in addition to GHG effects is essential for forestry mitigation analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".