|
|
Llonch, P., Lawrence, A. B., Haskell, M. J., Blanco-Penedo, I., & Turner, S. P. (2015). The need for a quantitative assessment of animal welfare trade-offs in climate change mitigation scenarios. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 6(01), 9–11.
|
|
|
|
Katajajuuri, J. - M., Pulkkinen, H., Hietala, S., Järvenranta, K., Virkajärvi, P., Nousiainen, J. I., et al. (2015). A holistic, dynamic model to quantify and mitigate the environmental impacts of cattle farming. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 6(01), 35–36.
|
|
|
|
Özkan, Ş., Farquharson, R. J., Hill, J., & Malcolm, B. (2015). A stochastic analysis of the impact of input parameters on profit of Australian pasture-based dairy farms under variable carbon price scenarios. Environmental Science & Policy, 48, 163–171.
Abstract: The imposition of a carbon tax in the economy will have indirect impacts on dairy farmers in Australia. Although there is a great deal of information available regarding mitigation strategies both in Australia and internationally, there seems to be a lack of research investigating the variable prices of carbon-based emissions on dairy farm operating profits in Australia. In this study, a stochastic analysis comparing the uncertainty in income in response to different prices on carbon-based emissions was conducted. The impact of variability in pasture consumption and variable prices of concentrates and hay on farm profitability was also investigated. The two different feeding systems examined were a ryegrass pasture-based system (RM) and a complementary forage-based system (CF). Imposing a carbon price ($20-$60) and not changing the systems reduced the farm operating profits by 28.4% and 25.6% in the RM and CF systems, respectively compared to a scenario where no carbon price was imposed. Different farming businesses will respond to variability in the rapidly changing operating environment such as fluctuations in pasture availability, price of purchased feeds and price of milk or carbon emissions differently. Further, in case there is a carbon price imposed for GHG emissions emanated from dairy farming systems, changing from pasture-based to more complex feeding systems incorporating home-grown double crops may reduce the reductions in farm operating profits. There is opportunity for future studies to focus on the impacts of different mitigation strategies and policy applications on farm operating profits. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Schmitz, C., Kreidenweis, U., Lotze-Campen, H., Popp, A., Krause, M., Dietrich, J. P., et al. (2014). Agricultural trade and tropical deforestation: interactions and related policy options. Reg Environ Change, 15(8), 1757–1772.
Abstract: The extensive clearing of tropical forests throughout past decades has been partly assigned to increased trade in agricultural goods. Since further trade liberalisation can be expected, remaining rainforests are likely to face additional threats with negative implications for climate mitigation and the local environment. We apply a spatially explicit economic land-use model coupled to a biophysical vegetation model to examine linkages and associated policies between trade and tropical deforestation in the future. Results indicate that further trade liberalisation leads to an expansion of deforestation in Amazonia due to comparative advantages of agriculture in South America. Globally, between 30 and 60 million ha (5-10 %) of tropical rainforests would be cleared additionally, leading to 20-40 Gt additional emissions by 2050. By applying different forest protection policies, those values could be reduced substantially. Most effective would be the inclusion of avoided deforestation into a global emissions trading scheme. Carbon prices corresponding to the concentration target of 550 ppm would prevent deforestation after 2020. Investing in agricultural productivity reduces pressure on tropical forests without the necessity of direct protection. In general, additional trade-induced demand from developed and emerging countries should be compensated by international efforts to protect natural resources in tropical regions.
|
|
|
|
Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Dietrich, J. P., Klein, D., Lotze-Campen, H., Bonsch, M., et al. (2014). Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies. Environ. Res. Lett., 9(6), 064029.
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.
|
|
