Global Biodiversity Implications of Alternative Electrification Strategies Under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways.

Addressing climate mitigation while meeting global electrification goals will require major transitions from fossil-fuel dependence to large-scale renewable energy deployment. However, renewables require significant land assets per unit energy and could come at high cost to ecosystems, creating potential conflicts between global climate mitigation and biodiversity conservation. Here, we explore the potential biodiversity implications of alternative future global electrification pathways as depicted under the Shared Socioeconomic Scenarios (SSPs), i.e., alternative trends in societal development. We examined the intersection of high-resolution estimates of global energy densities for ten renewable and conventional technologies with global richness data to estimate technology-specific biodiversity footprints (species per GWh), whereas a Cumulative Biodiversity Impact (CBI) score was used to assess land and biodiversity outcomes of alternative scenarios. Downscaled electricity generation scenarios (2020−2100) were also constrained by alternative land conservation and energy development policies. Unexpectedly, variation among SSPs did not exhibit a clear tradeoff between global climate mitigation and CBI. Rather, CBIs were an outcome of total infrastructure development to meet electricity demand (from population growth and GDP) and the total magnitude of renewable energy development and storage technologies. Renewables assembled along a spectrum from land sharing to sparing. At the land sharing end, biomass-powered electricity from dedicated crops contributed the most to biodiversity impacts due to low energy density, whereas land-sparing technologies (solar) caused more-intense land degradation, but in smaller areas. Our results suggest that local land conservation practices and strategies promoting energy diversification could have greater implications for future biodiversity conflicts than global socioeconomic drivers. • Energy transitions for climate mitigation may incur tradeoffs with biodiversity. • Alternative electrification and land conservation scenarios were assessed. • SSP 5 (high energy) had highest biodiversity impact whereas SSP 3 had lowest. • Highest impacts from large biomass, solar, wind, and hydropower expansion • Land conservation policy more important to conservation than global socioeconomics [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]