Abstract: The impacts of global climate change on different aspects of humanity’s diverse life-support systems are complex and often difficult to predict. To facilitate policy decisions on mitigation and adaptation strategies, it is necessary to understand, quantify, and synthesize these climate-change impacts, taking into account their uncertainties. Crucial to these decisions is an understanding of how impacts in different sectors overlap, as overlapping impacts increase exposure, lead to interactions of impacts, and are likely to raise adaptation pressure. As a first step we develop herein a framework to study coinciding impacts and identify regional exposure hotspots. This framework can then be used as a starting point for regional case studies on vulnerability and multifaceted adaptation strategies. We consider impacts related to water, agriculture, ecosystems, and malaria at different levels of global warming. Multisectoral overlap starts to be seen robustly at a mean global warming of 3 °C above the 1980-2010 mean, with 11% of the world population subject to severe impacts in at least two of the four impact sectors at 4 °C. Despite these general conclusions, we find that uncertainty arising from the impact models is considerable, and larger than that from the climate models. In a low probability-high impact worst-case assessment, almost the whole inhabited world is at risk for multisectoral pressures. Hence, there is a pressing need for an increased research effort to develop a more comprehensive understanding of impacts, as well as for the development of policy measures under existing uncertainty.

Abstract: The land-use sector can contribute to climate change mitigation not only by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also by increasing carbon uptake from the atmosphere and thereby creating negative CO2 emissions. In this paper, we investigate two land-based climate change mitigation strategies for carbon removal: (1) afforestation and (2) bioenergy in combination with carbon capture and storage technology (bioenergy CCS). In our approach, a global tax on GHG emissions aimed at ambitious climate change mitigation incentivizes land-based mitigation by penalizing positive and rewarding negative CO2 emissions from the land-use system. We analyze afforestation and bioenergy CCS as standalone and combined mitigation strategies. We find that afforestation is a cost-efficient strategy for carbon removal at relatively low carbon prices, while bioenergy CCS becomes competitive only at higher prices. According to our results, cumulative carbon removal due to afforestation and bioenergy CCS is similar at the end of 21st century (600-700 GtCO(2)), while land-demand for afforestation is much higher compared to bioenergy CCS. In the combined setting, we identify competition for land, but the impact on the mitigation potential (1000 GtCO(2)) is partially alleviated by productivity increases in the agricultural sector. Moreover, our results indicate that early-century afforestation presumably will not negatively impact carbon removal due to bioenergy CCS in the second half of the 21st century. A sensitivity analysis shows that land-based mitigation is very sensitive to different levels of GHG taxes. Besides that, the mitigation potential of bioenergy CCS highly depends on the development of future bioenergy yields and the availability of geological carbon storage, while for afforestation projects the length of the crediting period is crucial.

Abstract: The objective of this research was to determine the capacity of a soil tillage system in soil conservation, in productivity and in energy efficiency. The minimum tillage and no-tillage systems represent good alternatives to the conventional (plough) system of soil tillage, due to their conservation effects on soil and to the good production of crops (Maize, 96%-98% of conventional tillage for minimum tillage, and 99.8% of conventional tillage for no till; Soybeans, 103%-112% of conventional tillage for minimum tillage and 117% of conventional tillage for no till; Wheat, 93%-97% of conventional tillage for minimum tillage and 117% of conventional tillage for no till. The choice of the right soil tillage system for crops in rotation help reduce energy consumption, thus for maize: 97%-98% energy consumption of conventional tillage when using minimum tillage and 91% when using no-tillage; for soybeans: 98% energy consumption of conventional tillage when using minimum tillage and 93 when using no-tillage; for wheat: 97%-98% energy consumption of conventional tillage when using minimum tillage and 92% when using no-tillage. Energy efficiency is in relation to reductions in energy use, but also might include the efficiency and impact of the tillage system on the cultivated plant. For all crops in rotation, energy efficiency (energy produced from 1 MJ consumed) was the best in no-tillage — 10.44 MJ ha− 1 for maize, 6.49 MJ ha− 1 for soybean, and 5.66 MJ ha− 1 for wheat. An analysis of energy-efficiency in agricultural systems includes the energy consumed-energy produced-energy yield comparisons, but must be supplemented by soil energy efficiency, based on the conservative effect of the agricultural system. Only then will the agricultural system be sustainable, durable in agronomic, economic and ecological terms. The implementation of minimum and no-tillage soil systems has increased the organic matter content from 2% to 7.6% and water stable aggregate content from 5.6% to 9.6%, at 0–30 cm depth, as compared to the conventional system. Accumulated water supply was higher (with 12.4%-15%) for all minimum and no-tillage systems and increased bulk density values by 0.01%-0.03% (no significant difference) While the soil fertility and the wet aggregate stability have initially been low, the effect of conservation practices on the soil characteristics led to a positive impact on the water permeability in the soil. Availability of soil moisture during the crop growth period led to a better plant watering condition. Subsequent release of conserved soil water regulated the plant water condition and soil structure.