toggle visibility Search & Display Options

Select All    Deselect All
 |   | 
Details
   print
  Records Links
Author Nelson, G.C.; van der Mensbrugghe, D.; Ahammad, H.; Blanc, E.; Calvin, K.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; Heyhoe, E.; Kyle, P.; Lotze-Campen, H.; von Lampe, M.; Mason, d’C., Daniel; van Meijl, H.; Müller, C.; Reilly, J.; Robertson, R.; Sands, R.D.; Schmitz, C.; Tabeau, A.; Takahashi, K.; Valin, H.; Willenbockel, D. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don’t the models agree Type Journal Article
  Year 2014 Publication Agricultural Economics Abbreviated Journal Agric. Econ.  
  Volume 45 Issue 1 Pages 85-101  
  Keywords climate change impacts; economic models of agriculture; scenarios; system model; demand; CMIP5  
  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.  
  Address  
  Corporate Author Thesis  
  Publisher Place of Publication Editor  
  Language English Summary Language Original Title  
  Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title  
  Series Volume Series Issue Edition  
  ISSN 0169-5150 ISBN Medium Article  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes CropM, TradeM, ft_macsur Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial (up) 4536  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Popp, A.; Humpenöder, F.; Weindl, I.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Bonsch, M.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Müller, C.; Biewald, A.; Rolinski, S.; Stevanovic, M.; Dietrich, J.P. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Land-use protection for climate change mitigation Type Journal Article
  Year 2014 Publication Nature Climate Change Abbreviated Journal Nat. Clim. Change  
  Volume 4 Issue 12 Pages 1095-1098  
  Keywords avoided deforestation; forest conservation; carbon emissions; co2 emissions; productivity; scarcity; stocks; redd  
  Abstract Land-use change, mainly the conversion of tropical forests to agricultural land, is a massive source of carbon emissions and contributes substantially to global warming(1-3). Therefore, mechanisms that aim to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation are widely discussed, A central challenge is the avoidance of international carbon leakage if forest conservation is not implemented globally’’, Here, We show that forest conservation schemes, even if implemented globally, could lead to another type of carbon leakage by driving cropland expansion in non-forested areas that are not subject to forest conservation schemes (non-forest leakage). These areas have a smaller. but still considerable potential to store carbon(5,6). We show that a global forest policy could reduce carbon emissions by 77 Gt CO2, but would still allow for decreases in carbon stocks of non-forest land by 96 Gt CO2, until 2100 due to non-forest leakage effects. Furthermore; abandonment of agricultural hand and associated carbon uptake through vegetation regrowth is hampered. Effective mitigation measures thus require financing structures and conservation investments that cover the full range of carbon-rich ecosystems. However, our analysis indicates that greater agricultural productivity increases would be needed to compensate for such restrictions on agricultural expansion.  
  Address  
  Corporate Author Thesis  
  Publisher Place of Publication Editor  
  Language English Summary Language Original Title  
  Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title  
  Series Volume Series Issue Edition  
  ISSN 1758-678x 1758-6798 ISBN Medium Article  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes CropM, LiveM, TradeM Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial (up) 4540  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Rolinski, S.; Weindl, I.; Heinke, J.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Biewald, A.; Lotze-Campen, H. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Pasture harvest, carbon sequestration and feeding potentials under different grazing intensities Type Journal Article
  Year 2015 Publication Advances in Animal Biosciences Abbreviated Journal Advances in Animal Biosciences  
  Volume 6 Issue 01 Pages 43-45  
  Keywords global dynamic vegetation model; LPJmL; grasslands; livestock production  
  Abstract  
  Address  
  Corporate Author Thesis  
  Publisher Place of Publication Editor  
  Language English Summary Language Original Title  
  Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title  
  Series Volume Series Issue Edition  
  ISSN ISBN Medium Article  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes CropM, LiveM, ft_macsur Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial (up) 4541  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Lotze-Campen, H. openurl 
  Title Bevölkerungswachstum und Ressourcenknappheit Type Journal Article
  Year 2013 Publication AMOSinternational Abbreviated Journal AMOSinternational  
  Volume 7 Issue 1 Pages 13-19  
  Keywords  
  Abstract  
  Address  
  Corporate Author Thesis  
  Publisher Place of Publication Editor  
  Language English Summary Language Original Title  
  Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title  
  Series Volume Series Issue Edition  
  ISSN ISBN Medium Article  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes TradeM Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial (up) 4610  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Humpenöder, F.; Popp, A.; Dietrich, J.P.; Klein, D.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Bonsch, M.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Weindl, I.; Stevanovic, M.; Müller, C. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies Type Journal Article
  Year 2014 Publication Environmental Research Letters Abbreviated Journal Environ. Res. Lett.  
  Volume 9 Issue 6 Pages 064029  
  Keywords climate change mitigation; afforestation; bioenergy; carbon capture and storage; land-use modeling; land-based mitigation; carbon sequestration; land-use change; crop productivity; carbon capture; energy; storage; model; food; conservation; agriculture; scenarios  
  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.  
  Address  
  Corporate Author Thesis  
  Publisher Place of Publication Editor  
  Language English Summary Language Original Title  
  Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title  
  Series Volume Series Issue Edition  
  ISSN 1748-9326 ISBN Medium Article  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes CropM, TradeM Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial (up) 4627  
Permanent link to this record
Select All    Deselect All
 |   | 
Details
   print

Save Citations:
Export Records: