Popp, A., Rose, S. K., Calvin, K., Van Vuuren, D. P., Dietrich, J. P., Wise, M., et al. (2014). Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options. Clim. Change, 123(3-4), 495–509.
Abstract: In this article, we evaluate and compare results from three integrated assessment models (GCAM, IMAGE, and ReMIND/MAgPIE) regarding the drivers and impacts of bioenergy production on the global land system. The considered model frameworks employ linked energy, economy, climate and land use modules. By the help of these linkages the direct competition of bioenergy with other energy technology options for greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, based on economic costs and GHG emissions from bioenergy production, has been taken into account. Our results indicate that dedicated bioenergy crops and biomass residues form a potentially important and cost-effective input into the energy system. At the same time, however, the results differ strongly in terms of deployment rates, feedstock composition and land-use and greenhouse gas implications. The current paper adds to earlier work by specific looking into model differences with respect to the land-use component that could contribute to the noted differences in results, including land cover allocation, land use constraints, energy crop yields, and non-bioenergy land mitigation options modeled. In scenarios without climate change mitigation, bioenergy cropland represents 10-18 % of total cropland by 2100 across the different models, and boosts cropland expansion at the expense of carbon richer ecosystems. Therefore, associated emissions from land-use change and agricultural intensification as a result of bio-energy use range from 14 and 113 Gt CO2-eq cumulatively through 2100. Under climate policy, bioenergy cropland increases to 24-36 % of total cropland by 2100.
|
|
Thornton, P., & Ewert, F. (2014). Making the most of climate impacts ensembles (vol 4, pg 77, 2014) – Correction. Nat. Clim. Change, 4(3), 166.
|
Banse, M., Brouwer, F., Palatnik, R. R., & Sinabell, F. (2014). The Economics of European Agriculture under Conditions of Climate Change (Editorial). German Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63(3), 131–132.
Abstract: This Special Issue on “The Economics of European Agriculture under Conditions of Climate Change” brings together a selection of papers that contribute to the understanding of recent developments related to agriculture and climate change in four European coun- tries. The focus of the Special Issue is on quantitative modeling and empirical analyses. The papers presented here not only cover the heterogeneity of agriculture in Europe with case studies from the Mediterranean (Italy), central (Austria) and north-western Europe (Ireland and Scotland) but also give insights into the diversity of quantitative modeling approaches in agriculture.
|
Shrestha, S., Hennessy, T., Abdalla, M., Forristal, D., & Jones, M. J. (2014). Determining short term responses of Irish dairy farms under climate change. German Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63(3), 143–155.
Abstract: This study aimed to determine short term farm responses of Irish dairy farms under climate change. The Irish National Farm Survey data and Irish weather data were the main datasets used in this study. A set of simulation models were used to determine grass yields and field time under a baseline scenario and a future climate scenario. An optimising farm level model which maximises farm net income under limiting farm resources was then run under these scenarios. Changes in farm net incomes under the climate change scenario compared to the baseline scenario were taken as a measure to determine the effect of climate change on farms. Any changes in farm activities under the climate run compared to the baseline run were considered as farm’s responses to maximise farm profits. The results showed that there was a substantial increase in yields of grass (49% to 56%) in all regions. The impact of climate change on farms was different based on the regions. Dairy farms in the Border, Midlands and South East regions suffered whereas dairy farms in other regions generally fared better under the climate change scenario. For a majority of farms, a substitution of concentrate feed with grass based feeds and increasing stocking rate were identified as the most common farm responses. However, farms replaced concentrate feed at varying degree. Dairy farms in the Mid East showed a move towards beef production system where medium dairy farms in the South East regions shifted entire tillage land to grass land. Farms in the South East region also kept animals on grass longer under the climate change scenario compared to the baseline scenario.
|
Dono, G., Raffaele, C., Luca, G., & Roggero, P. P. (2014). Income Impacts of Climate Change: Irrigated Farming in the Mediterranean and Expected Changes in Probability of Favorable and Adverse Weather Conditions. German Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63(3), 177–186.
Abstract: EU rural development policy (RDP) regulation 1305/2013 aims to protect farmers’ incomes from ongoing change of climate variability (CCV), and the increase in frequency of adverse climatic events. An income stabilization tool (IST) is provided to compensate drastic drops in income, including those caused by climatic events. The present study examines some aspect of its application focussing on Mediterranean irrigation area where frequent water shortages may generate significant income reductions in the current climate conditions, and may be further exacerbated by climate change. This enhanced loss of income in the future would occur due to a change in climate variability. This change would appreciably reduce the probability of weather conditions that are favourable for irrigation, but would not significantly increase either the probability of unfavourable weather conditions or the magnitude of their impact. As the IST and other insurance tools that protect against adversity and catastrophic events are only activated under extreme conditions, farmers may not consider them to be suitable in dealing with the new climate regime. This would leave a portion of the financial resources allocated by the RDP unused, resulting in less support for climate change adaptation.
|
