|
|
Schmitz, C., Kreidenweis, U., Lotze-Campen, H., Popp, A., Krause, M., Dietrich, J. P., et al. (2014). Agricultural trade and tropical deforestation: interactions and related policy options. Reg Environ Change, 15(8), 1757–1772.
Abstract: The extensive clearing of tropical forests throughout past decades has been partly assigned to increased trade in agricultural goods. Since further trade liberalisation can be expected, remaining rainforests are likely to face additional threats with negative implications for climate mitigation and the local environment. We apply a spatially explicit economic land-use model coupled to a biophysical vegetation model to examine linkages and associated policies between trade and tropical deforestation in the future. Results indicate that further trade liberalisation leads to an expansion of deforestation in Amazonia due to comparative advantages of agriculture in South America. Globally, between 30 and 60 million ha (5-10 %) of tropical rainforests would be cleared additionally, leading to 20-40 Gt additional emissions by 2050. By applying different forest protection policies, those values could be reduced substantially. Most effective would be the inclusion of avoided deforestation into a global emissions trading scheme. Carbon prices corresponding to the concentration target of 550 ppm would prevent deforestation after 2020. Investing in agricultural productivity reduces pressure on tropical forests without the necessity of direct protection. In general, additional trade-induced demand from developed and emerging countries should be compensated by international efforts to protect natural resources in tropical regions.
|
|
|
|
Dass, P., Müller, C., Brovkin, V., & Cramer, W. (2013). Can bioenergy cropping compensate high carbon emissions from large-scale deforestation of high latitudes. Earth System Dynamics, 4(2), 409–424.
Abstract: Numerous studies have concluded that deforestation of the high latitudes result in a global cooling. This is mainly because of the increased albedo of deforested land which dominates over other biogeophysical and biogeochemical mechanisms in the energy balance. This dominance, however, may be due to an underestimation of the biogeochemical response, as carbon emissions are typically at or below the lower end of estimates. Here, we use the dynamic global vegetation model LPJmL for a better estimate of the carbon cycle under such large-scale deforestation. These studies are purely theoretical in order to understand the role of vegetation in the energy balance and the earth system. They must not be mistaken as possible mitigation options, because of the devastating effects on pristine ecosystems. For realistic assumptions of land suitability, the total emissions computed in this study are higher than that of previous studies assessing the effects of boreal deforestation. The warming due to biogeochemical effects ranges from 0.12 to 0.32 degrees C, depending on the climate sensitivity. Using LPJmL to assess the mitigation potential of bioenergy plantations in the suitable areas of the deforested region, we find that the global biophysical bioenergy potential is 68.1 +/- 5.6 EJ yr(-1) of primary energy at the end of the 21st century in the most plausible scenario. The avoided combustion of fossil fuels over the time frame of this experiment would lead to further cooling. However, since the carbon debt caused by the cumulative emissions is not repaid by the end of the 21st century, the global temperatures would increase by 0.04 to 0.11 degrees C. The carbon dynamics in the high latitudes especially with respect to permafrost dynamics and long-term carbon losses, require additional attention in the role for the Earth’s carbon and energy budget.
|
|
|
|
Klein, D., Luderer, G., Kriegler, E., Strefler, J., Bauer, N., Leimbach, M., et al. (2014). The value of bioenergy in low stabilization scenarios: an assessment using REMIND-MAgPIE. Clim. Change, 123(3-4), 705–718.
Abstract: This study investigates the use of bioenergy for achieving stringent climate stabilization targets and it analyzes the economic drivers behind the choice of bioenergy technologies. We apply the integrated assessment framework REMIND-MAgPIE to show that bioenergy, particularly if combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a crucial mitigation option with high deployment levels and high technology value. If CCS is available, bioenergy is exclusively used with CCS. We find that the ability of bioenergy to provide negative emissions gives rise to a strong nexus between biomass prices and carbon prices. Ambitious climate policy could result in bioenergy prices of 70 $/GJ (or even 430 $/GJ if bioenergy potential is limited to 100 EJ/year), which indicates a strong demand for bioenergy. For low stabilization scenarios with BECCS availability, we find that the carbon value of biomass tends to exceed its pure energy value. Therefore, the driving factor behind investments into bioenergy conversion capacities for electricity and hydrogen production are the revenues generated from negative emissions, rather than from energy production. However, in REMIND modern bioenergy is predominantly used to produce low-carbon fuels, since the transport sector has significantly fewer low-carbon alternatives to biofuels than the power sector. Since negative emissions increase the amount of permissible emissions from fossil fuels, given a climate target, bioenergy acts as a complement to fossils rather than a substitute. This makes the short-term and long-term deployment of fossil fuels dependent on the long-term availability of BECCS.
|
|
|
|
Elliott, J., Müller, C., Deryng, D., Chryssanthacopoulos, J., Boote, K. J., Büchner, M., et al. (2015). The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison: data and modeling protocols for Phase 1 (v1.0). Geosci. Model Dev., 8(2), 261–277.
Abstract: We present protocols and input data for Phase 1 of the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison, a project of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP). The project includes global simulations of yields, phenologies, and many land-surface fluxes using 12-15 modeling groups for many crops, climate forcing data sets, and scenarios over the historical period from 1948 to 2012. The primary outcomes of the project include (1) a detailed comparison of the major differences and similarities among global models commonly used for large-scale climate impact assessment, (2) an evaluation of model and ensemble hindcasting skill, (3) quantification of key uncertainties from climate input data, model choice, and other sources, and (4) a multi-model analysis of the agricultural impacts of large-scale climate extremes from the historical record.
|
|
|
|
Schönhart, M., Mitter, H., Schmid, E., Heinrich, G., & Gobiet, A. (2014). Integrated analysis of climate change impacts and adaptation measures in Austrian agriculture. German Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63(3), 156–176.
Abstract: An integrated modelling framework (IMF) has been developed and applied to analyse climate change impacts and the effectiveness of adaptation measures in Austrian agriculture. The IMF couples the crop rotation model CropRota, the bio-physical process model EPIC and the bottom-up economic land use model PASMA at regional level (NUTS-3) considering agri-environmental indicators. Four contrasting regional climate model (RCM) simulations represent climate change until 2050. The RCM simulations are applied to a baseline and three adaptation and policy scenarios. Climate change increases crop productivity on national average in the IMF. Changes in average gross margins at national level range from 0% to + 5% between the baseline and the three adaptation and policy scenarios. The impacts at NUTS-3 level range from -5% to + 7% between the baseline and the three adaptation and policy scenarios. Adaptation measures such as planting of winter cover crops, reduced tillage and irrigation are effective in reducing yield losses, increasing revenues, or in improving environmental states under climate change. Future research should account for extreme weather events in order to analyse whether average productivity gains at the aggregated level suffice to cover costs from expected higher climate variability.
|
|
