| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–13] |
|
| Records | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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. | ||||
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 | 4540 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Humpenöder, F.; Popp, A.; Stevanovic, M.; Müller, C.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Bonsch, M.; Dietrich, J.P.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Weindl, I.; Biewald, A.; Rolinski, S. | ||||
| Title |
Land-use and carbon cycle responses to moderate climate change: implications for land-based mitigation | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2015 | Publication | Environmental Science and Technology | Abbreviated Journal | Environ Sci Technol |
| Volume | 49 | Issue | 11 | Pages | 6731-6739 |
| Keywords | |||||
| 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. | ||||
| Address | |||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | Summary Language | Original Title | |||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | 0013-936x | ISBN | Medium | ||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | TradeM, ftnotmacsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4998 | ||
| 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. | ||||
| 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 | 4627 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Kollas, C.; Kersebaum, C.; Bindi, M.; Wu, L.; Sharif, B.; Öztürk, I.; Trnka, M.; Hlavinka, P.; Nendel, C.; Palosuo, T.; Müller, C.; Waha, K.; Herrera, C.; Olesen, E.; Eitzinger, J.; Roggero, P.-P.; Conradt, T.; Martre, P.; Ferrise, R.; Moriondo, M.; Ramos, M.; Ventrella, D.; Rötter, P.; Wegehenkel, M.; Eckersten, H.; Torres, I.; Hernandez, C.; Launay, M.; Witt, A.; Hoffmann, H. | ||||
| Title |
Improving yield predictions by crop rotation modelling? a multi-model comparison | Type | Conference Article | ||
| Year | 2014 | Publication | Abbreviated Journal | ||
| Volume | Issue | Pages | |||
| Keywords | CropM | ||||
| Abstract | |||||
| Address | |||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | Summary Language | Original Title | |||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | ISBN | Medium | |||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | MACSUR CropM International Symposium and Workshop: Modelling climate change impacts on crop production for food security, Oslo, Norway, 2014-02-10 to 2014-02-12 | ||
| Notes | Approved | no | |||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 2560 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Challinor, A.J.; Müller, C.; Asseng, S.; Deva, C.; Nicklin, K.J.; Wallach, D.; Vanuytrecht, E.; Whitfield, S.; Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Koehler, A.-K. | ||||
| Title |
Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2017 | Publication | Agricultural Systems | Abbreviated Journal | Agric. Syst. |
| Volume | 159 | Issue | Pages | 296-306 | |
| Keywords | Crop model; Risk assessment; Climate change impacts; Adaptation; Climate models; Uncertainty | ||||
| Abstract | Highlights • 14 criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk • Working with stakeholders to identify timing of risks is key to risk assessments. • Multiple methods needed to critically assess the use of climate model output • Increasing transparency and inter-comparability needed in risk assessments Abstract Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1. Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk? 2. Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output. 3. Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper. |
||||
| Address | |||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | Summary Language | phase 2+ | Original Title | ||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | 0308521x | ISBN | Medium | ||
| Area | CropM | Expedition | Conference | ||
| Notes | CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 5175 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||