Background: British Columbia’s (BC) extensive forest resources provide climate change mitigation opportunities that are available to few other jurisdictions. However, as a consequence of the Mountain Pine Beetle outbreak and large-scale wildfires, BC is anticipating reduced roundwood harvest for the next decades. Progress towards more climatically efficient utilization of forest resources is needed. This research quantitatively compared the greenhouse gas emission consequences of nine harvested wood products trade and consumption strategies. Inward-focused strategies use wood products within Canada to achieve emission reduction objectives, while outward-focused strategies encourage exports of wood products. Results: In the business-as-usual baseline scenario, average emissions arising from BC-originated harvested wood products between 2016 and 2050 were 40 MtCO₂e yr⁻¹. The estimated theoretical boundaries were 11 MtCO₂e yr⁻¹ and 54 MtCO₂e yr⁻¹, under the scenarios of using all harvests for either construction purposes or biofuel production, respectively. Due to the constrained domestic market size, inward-focused scenarios that were based on population and market capacity achieved 0.3–10% emission reductions compared to the baseline. The international markets were larger, however the emissions varied substantially between 68% reduction and 25% increase depending on wood products’ end uses. Conclusions: Future bioeconomy strategies can have a substantial impact on emissions. This analysis revealed that from a carbon storage and emission perspective, it was better to consume BC’s harvests within Canada and only export those products that would be used for long-lived construction applications, provided that construction market access beyond the US was available. However, restricting export of wood products destined for short-lived uses such as pulp and wood pellets would have significant economic and social impacts. On the other hand, inward-focused strategies had a small but politically and environmentally meaningful contribution to BC’s climate action plan. This study also revealed the conflicts between a demand-driven bioeconomy and targeted environmental outcomes. A hierarchical incentive system that could co-exist with other market drivers may help achieve emission reduction goals, but this would require a better quantitative understanding of wood products’ substitution effects. While the analyses were conducted for BC, other regions that are net exporters of wood products may face similar issues.

Globally, efforts to increase land sector contributions to net-zero emissions are pursued. Harvested wood products may retain carbon, and substitute emission-intensive products. The emission reductions achieved through substitution, or substitution benefits, can inform the design of climate-effective wood-use strategies. Mitigation analyses of a wood-based bioeconomy therefore need to include substitution to evaluate the mitigation outcomes across sectors. Substitution benefits can be estimated using displacement factors, which quantify the emissions avoided per unit of wood use. Here, we calculated the displacement factors of timber constructions and wood-derived biofuels to be around 1.03 and 0.45 tCO₂e/tCO₂e, respectively. Assuming substitution was achieved when changes in human behavior increased the share of wood use relative to the reference market share, we added the substitution benefits to a previous analysis that focused on biogenic emissions in British Columbia, Canada. At projected declining harvest rates, the theoretical maximum reduction that forest products can contribute over the period 2016 to 2050 is 66 MtCO₂e·year⁻¹ with an uncertainty range of 45–79 MtCO₂e·year⁻¹, relative to the baseline, by focusing on long-lived, high-displacement construction applications. However, because construction uses of wood in foreign markets are not guaranteed, and constrained by market access, the practical strategy that combines construction and biofuel uses can achieve 17.4 MtCO₂e·year⁻¹, equivalent to 30% of British Columbia’s 2050 target. Although a transformation of the bioeconomy may help achieve both climate and socio-economic benefits, potential conflict exists between maximizing regional and global benefits. How and where wood will be used can influence the desired mitigation outcomes.