|
|
Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Stevanovic, M., Müller, C., Bodirsky, B. L., Bonsch, M., et al. (2015). Land-use and carbon cycle responses to moderate climate change: implications for land-based mitigation. Environ Sci Technol, 49(11), 6731–6739.
Abstract: Climate change has impacts on agricultural yields, which could alter cropland requirements and hence deforestation rates. Thus, land-use responses to climate change might influence terrestrial carbon stocks. Moreover, climate change could alter the carbon storage capacity of the terrestrial biosphere and hence the land-based mitigation potential. We use a global spatially explicit economic land-use optimization model to (a) estimate the mitigation potential of a climate policy that provides economic incentives for carbon stock conservation and enhancement, (b) simulate land-use and carbon cycle responses to moderate climate change (RCP2.6), and (c) investigate the combined effects throughout the 21st century. The climate policy immediately stops deforestation and strongly increases afforestation, resulting in a global mitigation potential of 191 GtC in 2100. Climate change increases terrestrial carbon stocks not only directly through enhanced carbon sequestration (62 GtC by 2100) but also indirectly through less deforestation due to higher crop yields (16 GtC by 2100). However, such beneficial climate impacts increase the potential of the climate policy only marginally, as the potential is already large under static climatic conditions. In the broader picture, this study highlights the importance of land-use dynamics for modeling carbon cycle responses to climate change in integrated assessment modeling.
|
|
|
|
Stevanović, M., Popp, A., Bodirsky, B. L., Humpenöder, F., Müller, C., Weindl, I., et al. (2017). Mitigation Strategies for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture and Land-Use Change: Consequences for Food Prices. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(1), 365–374.
Abstract: The land use sector of agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) plays a central role in ambitious climate change mitigation efforts. Yet, mitigation policies in agriculture may be in conflict with food security related targets. Using a global agro-economic model, we analyze the impacts on food prices under mitigation policies targeting either incentives for producers (e.g., through taxes) or consumer preferences (e.g., through education programs). Despite having a similar reduction potential of 43-44% in 2100, the two types of policy instruments result in opposite outcomes for food prices. Incentive-based mitigation, such as protecting carbon-rich forests or adopting low-emission production techniques, increase land scarcity and production costs and thereby food prices. Preference-based mitigation, such as reduced household waste or lower consumption of animal-based products, decreases land scarcity, prevents emissions leakage, and concentrates production on the most productive sites and consequently lowers food prices. Whereas agricultural emissions are further abated in the combination of these mitigation measures, the synergy of strategies fails to substantially lower food prices. Additionally, we demonstrate that the efficiency of agricultural emission abatement is stable across a range of greenhouse-gas (GHG) tax levels, while resulting food prices exhibit a disproportionally larger spread.
|
|
|
|
Biewald, A., Rolinski, S., Lotze-Campen, H., & Schmitz, C. (2012). Global valuation of agricultural, virtual blue water trade measured on a local scale..
|
|
|
|
Rolinski, S., & Sætnan, E. (2013). Uncertainties in climate change prediction and modelling (Vol. 1).
Abstract: As models become increasingly complex and integrated, uncertainty among model parameters, variables and processes become critical for evaluating model outcomes and predictions. A framework for understanding uncertainty in climate modelling has been developed by the IPCC and EEA which provides a framework for discussion of uncertainty in models in general. Here we report on a review of this framework along with the results of a survey of sources of uncertainty in livestock and grassland models. Along with the identification of key sources of uncertainty in livestock and grassland modelling, the survey highlighted the need for a development of a common typology for uncertainty. When collaborating across traditionally separate research fields, or when communicating with stakeholders, differences in understanding, interpretation or emphasis can cause confusion. Further work in MACSUR should focus on improving model intercomparison methods to better understand model uncertainties, and improve availability of high quality datasets which can reduce model uncertainties. No Label
|
|
|
|
Rolinski, S., Weindl, I., Heinke, J., Bodirsky, B. L., Biewald, A., & Lotze-Campen, H. (2014). Environmental impacts of grassland management and livestock production. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: The potential of grasslands to sequester carbon and provide feed for livestock production depends on the one hand on climatic conditions but secondly on management and grazing pressure. Using a global vegetation model considering different management and grazing options, effects of livestock density on primary productivity can be assessed. It is expected that low animal densities enhance productivity whereas increasing grazing pressure may deteriorate grass plants. Thus, the optimal animal density depend on the specific primary production of the pasture and optimal grazing intensity. Using these optimal grass yields, the impacts of livestock production on resource use is assessed by applying the global land use model MAgPIE. This model integrates a detailed representation of the livestock sector and integrates socio-economic regional information with spatially explicit biophysical data. With scenario analysis we analyze the impact of livestock production on future deforestation and land use. Our results indicate that the reduction of animal derived calory demand has a huge potential to spare land for nature and reduce deforestation. On the supply side, feeding efficiency gains can help to decrease demand for land and overall biomass requirements.
|
|
