|
|
Müller, C., & Robertson, R. D. (2014). Projecting future crop productivity for global economic modeling. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 37–50.
Abstract: Assessments of climate change impacts on agricultural markets and land-use patterns rely on quantification of climate change impacts on the spatial patterns of land productivity. We supply a set of climate impact scenarios on agricultural land productivity derived from two climate models and two biophysical crop growth models to account for some of the uncertainty inherent in climate and impact models. Aggregation in space and time leads to information losses that can determine climate change impacts on agricultural markets and land-use patterns because often aggregation is across steep gradients from low to high impacts or from increases to decreases. The four climate change impact scenarios supplied here were designed to represent the most significant impacts (high emission scenario only, assumed ineffectiveness of carbon dioxide fertilization on agricultural yields, no adjustments in management) but are consistent with the assumption that changes in agricultural practices are covered in the economic models. Globally, production of individual crops decrease by 10-38% under these climate change scenarios, with large uncertainties in spatial patterns that are determined by both the uncertainty in climate projections and the choice of impact model. This uncertainty in climate impact on crop productivity needs to be considered by economic assessments of climate change.
|
|
|
|
Lotze-Campen, H., von Lampe, M., Kyle, P., Fujimori, S., Havlik, P., van Meijl, H., et al. (2014). Impacts of increased bioenergy demand on global food markets: an AgMIP economic model intercomparison. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 103–116.
Abstract: Integrated Assessment studies have shown that meeting ambitious greenhouse gas mitigation targets will require substantial amounts of bioenergy as part of the future energy mix. In the course of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), five global agro-economic models were used to analyze a future scenario with global demand for ligno-cellulosic bioenergy rising to about 100 ExaJoule in 2050. From this exercise a tentative conclusion can be drawn that ambitious climate change mitigation need not drive up global food prices much, if the extra land required for bioenergy production is accessible or if the feedstock, for example, from forests, does not directly compete for agricultural land. Agricultural price effects across models by the year 2050 from high bioenergy demand in an ambitious mitigation scenario appear to be much smaller (+5% average across models) than from direct climate impacts on crop yields in a high-emission scenario (+25% average across models). However, potential future scarcities of water and nutrients, policy-induced restrictions on agricultural land expansion, as well as potential welfare losses have not been specifically looked at in this exercise.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Biewald, A., Rolinski, S., Lotze-Campen, H., Schmitz, C., & Dietrich, J. P. (2014). Valuing the impact of trade on local blue water. Ecol. Econ., 101, 43–53.
Abstract: International trade of agricultural goods impacts local water scarcity. By quantifying the effect of trade on crop production on grid-cell level and combining it with cell- and crop-specific virtual water contents, we are able to determine green and blue water consumption and savings. Connecting the information on trade-related blue water usage to water shadow prices gives us the possibility to value the impact of international food crop trade on local blue water resources. To determine the trade-related value of the blue water usage, we employ two models: first, an economic land- and water-use model, simulating agricultural trade, production and water-shadow prices and second, a global vegetation and agricultural model, modeling the blue and green virtual water content of the traded crops. Our study found that globally, the international trade of food crops saves blue water worth 2.4 billion US$. This net saving occurs despite the fact that Europe exports virtual blue water in food crops worth 3.1 billion US$. Countries in the Middle East and South Asia profit from trade by importing water intensive crops, countries in Southern Europe on the other hand export water intensive agricultural goods from water scarce sites, deteriorating local water scarcity. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
