Bioenergy is a critical element in many national and international climate change mitigation efforts, including as a carbon dioxide removal strategy combined with the capture and durable geological storage of flue gas emissions (BECCS). However, divergent results on the effectiveness of bioenergy as a climate change mitigation measure are reported in the scientific literature. Climate impacts of bioenergy depend on case‐specific factors, primarily biophysical features of the biomass production system, and the design and efficiency of conversion and capture processes. Estimates of climate impacts are also strongly affected by methodological choices and assumptions, and much of the divergence between studies derives from differences in the assumed alternate use of the land or feedstock, the alternate energy source and the system boundaries applied. We present a methodology to support robust estimates of the climate change effects of bioenergy systems, updating the standard methodology developed by the International Energy Agency's Technology Collaboration Program on Bioenergy. We provide guidance on the key choices including the reference land use and energy system that bioenergy is assumed to displace, spatial and temporal system boundaries, co‐product handling, climate forcers considered, metrics applied and time horizon of impact assessment. Researchers should consider the whole bioenergy system including all life cycle stages, and choose system boundaries, reference systems and treatment of co‐products that are consistent with the intended application of the results. The assessment should be normalised to a functional unit that can be compared with other systems delivering an equivalent quantity of the same function. All significant climate forcers should be included, and climate effects should be quantified using appropriate impact assessment methods that distinguish the impact of time. Consistency in methodology and interpretation will facilitate comparison between studies of different bioenergy systems.

The construction sector accounts for one-third of Europe’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, offering significant potential for emission reduction. Emission reduction can be achieved by substituting conventional building materials with wood- or bio-based alternatives; the difference in GHG emissions is referred to as the substitution potential (SP). In this study, a literature review was conducted to identify studies in which SPs had been determined. The calculation methods used for these SPs were then analysed in detail. The analysis considered the general conditions, outcomes, and scaling effects, revealing that differing initial conditions lead to inconsistent results. Therefore, transparent allocation of SPs and comparable product life cycle assessments (LCAs) based on functional equivalence are essential. To reliably extrapolate the benefits of wood use to the entire construction sector, scaling effects must be justified by consistent functional equivalence. For policy relevance, it is crucial that SPs are determined using the standardised rules and that the building level, as the actual place of material use, is not overlooked. This is particularly important when scaling up the effects of increased wood use to the landscape level. Only with these measures SPs at the product level can provide reliable results in a broader context. Additionally, the studies reviewed indicate that changes in forest management have not yet been considered.