|
Kahiluoto, H., Rötter, R., Webber, H., & Ewert, F. (2014). The Role of Modelling in Adapting and Building the Climate Resilience of Cropping Systems. In J. Fuhrer, & P. J. Gregory (Eds.), (pp. 204–215). Climate Change Impact and Adaptation in Agricultural Systems. Wallingford: CAB International.
|
Angelova, D. (2014). The state-contingent approach to production and choice under uncertainty: usefulness as a basis for economic modeling (Vol. 3). FACCE MACSUR Reports, 3.
Abstract: The state-contingent approach developed by Chambers and Quiggin (2000) constitutes an attractive blend of a theory of production analysis under uncertainty and a theory of decision-making under uncertainty.One of the goals of this contribution is to introduce the reader to the approach by outlining its contents while comparing and contrasting it to related theories. With respect to production analysis: an emphasis is made on the ability of the approach to deliver well defined cost functions corresponding to stochastic production technologies. With respect to decision-making under uncertainty: the comparison with other theories consistent with a rational agent emphasizes the production theoretical basis of the state-contingent approach.It is the author’s belief that appropriately categorizing the state-contingent approach serves the primary goal of this work: to explore its usefulness as a basis for economic modeling. Some challenges regarding an empirical implementation are discussed: challenges in estimating the parameters of a state-contingent technology representation in general, as well as challenges arising from the fact that the approach is constructed around the argument pioneered by Leonard J Savage: that probabilities underlying economic decision-making are inherently subjective.(The financial support of ScienceCampus Halle is gratefully acknowledged.) No Label
|
Angelova, D. (2014). The state-contingent approach to production and choice under uncertainty: usefulness as a basis for economic modeling. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: The state-contingent approach developed by Chambers and Quiggin (2000) constitutes an attractive blend of a theory of production analysis under uncertainty and a theory of decision-making under uncertainty. One of the goals of this contribution is to introduce the reader to the approach by outlining its contents while comparing and contrasting it to related theories. With respect to production analysis: an emphasis is made on the ability of the approach to deliver well defined cost functions corresponding to stochastic production technologies. With respect to decision-making under uncertainty: the comparison with other theories consistent with a rational agent emphasizes the production theoretical basis of the state-contingent approach. It is the author’s belief that appropriately categorizing the state-contingent approach serves the primary goal of this work: to explore its usefulness as a basis for economic modeling. Some challenges regarding an empirical implementation are discussed: challenges in estimating the parameters of a state-contingent technology representation in general, as well as challenges arising from the fact that the approach is constructed around the argument pioneered by Leonard J Savage: that probabilities underlying economic decision-making are inherently subjective.(The financial support of ScienceCampus Halle is gratefully acknowledged.)
|
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.
|
Bennett, E., Carpenter, S. R., Gordon, L. J., Ramankutty, N., Balvanera, P., Campbell, B., et al. (2014). Toward a more resilient agriculture. The Solutions Journal, 5(5), 65–75.
Abstract: Agriculture is a key driver of change in the Anthropocene. It is both a critical factor for human well-being and development and a major driver of environmental decline. As the human population expands to more than 9 billion by 2050, we will be compelled to find ways to adequately feed this population while simultaneously decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, even as global change is creating new circumstances to which agriculture must respond. Many proposals to accomplish this dual goal of increasing agricultural production while reducing its environmental impact are based on increasing the efficiency of agricultural production relative to resource use and relative to unintended outcomes such as water pollution, biodiversity loss, and greenhouse gas emissions. While increasing production efficiency is almost certainly necessary, it is unlikely to be sufficient and may in some instances reduce long-term agricultural resilience, for example, by degrading soil and increasing the fragility of agriculture to pest and disease outbreaks and climate shocks. To encourage an agriculture that is both resilient and sustainable, radically new approaches to agricultural development are needed. These approaches must build on a diversity of solutions operating at nested scales, and they must maintain and enhance the adaptive and transformative capacity needed to respond to disturbances and avoid critical thresholds. Finding such approaches will require that we encourage experimentation, innovation, and learning, even if they sometimes reduce short-term production efficiency in some parts of the world.
|
