Abstract: • This study combines crop, livestock and economic models.
• Models interaction is through use of relevant input and output variables.
• Future climate change will result in increased grass and wheat dry matter yields.
• Changes in grass, wheat and milk yields in future reduce farm emissions intensity.
• Changes in future dry matter yields and emissions lead to increased profitability.
There is a scientific consensus that the future climate change will affect grass and crop dry matter (DM) yields. Such yield changes may entail alterations to farm management practices to fulfill the feed requirements and reduce the farm greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from dairy farms. While a large number of studies have focused on the impacts of projected climate change on a single farm output (e.g. GHG emissions or economic performance), several attempts have been made to combine bio-economic systems models with GHG accounting frameworks. In this study, we aimed to determine the physical impacts of future climate scenarios on grass and wheat DM yields, and demonstrate the effects such changes in future feed supply may have on farm GHG emissions and decision-making processes. For this purpose, we combined four models: BASGRA and CSM-CERES-Wheat models for simulating forage grass DM and wheat DM grain yields respectively; HolosNor for estimating the farm GHG emissions; and JORDMOD for calculating the impacts of changes in the climate and management on land use and farm economics. Four locations, with varying climate and soil conditions were included in the study: south-east Norway, south-west Norway, central Norway and northern Norway. Simulations were carried out for baseline (1961–1990) and future (2046–2065) climate conditions (projections based on two global climate models and the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A1B GHG emission scenario), and for production conditions with and without a milk quota. The GHG emissions intensities (kilogram carbon dioxide equivalent: kgCO2e emissions per kg fat and protein corrected milk: FPCM) varied between 0.8 kg and 1.23 kg CO2e (kg FPCM)− 1, with the lowest and highest emissions found in central Norway and south-east Norway, respectively. Emission intensities were generally lower under future compared to baseline conditions due mainly to higher future milk yields and to some extent to higher crop yields. The median seasonal above-ground timothy grass yield varied between 11,000 kg and 16,000 kg DM ha− 1 and was higher in all projected future climate conditions than in the baseline. The spring wheat grain DM yields simulated for the same weather conditions within each climate projection varied between 2200 kg and 6800 kg DM ha− 1. Similarly, the farm profitability as expressed by total national land rents varied between 1900 million Norwegian krone (NOK) for median yields under baseline climate conditions up to 3900 million NOK for median yield under future projected climate conditions.

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: Agriculture is unique among economic sectors in the nature of impacts from climate change. The production activity that transforms inputs into agricultural outputs involves direct use of weather inputs (temperature, solar radiation available to the plant, and precipitation). Previous studies of the impacts of climate change on agriculture have reported substantial differences in outcomes such as prices, production, and trade arising from differences in model inputs and model specification. This article presents climate change results and underlying determinants from a model comparison exercise with 10 of the leading global economic models that include significant representation of agriculture. By harmonizing key drivers that include climate change effects, differences in model outcomes were reduced. The particular choice of climate change drivers for this comparison activity results in large and negative productivity effects. All models respond with higher prices. Producer behavior differs by model with some emphasizing area response and others yield response. Demand response is least important. The differences reflect both differences in model specification and perspectives on the future. The results from this study highlight the need to more fully compare the deep model parameters, to generate a call for a combination of econometric and validation studies to narrow the degree of uncertainty and variability in these parameters and to move to Monte Carlo type simulations to better map the contours of economic uncertainty.