| Records |
Author  |
Popp, A.; Rose, S.K.; Calvin, K.; Van Vuuren, D.P.; Dietrich, J.P.; Wise, M.; Stehfest, E.; Humpenöder, F.; Kyle, P.; Van Vliet, J.; Bauer, N.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Klein, D.; Kriegler, E. |
| Title |
Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2014 |
Publication |
Climatic Change |
Abbreviated Journal |
Clim. Change |
| Volume |
123 |
Issue |
3-4 |
Pages |
495-509 |
| Keywords |
bio-energy; miscanthus; emissions; crop |
| Abstract |
In this article, we evaluate and compare results from three integrated assessment models (GCAM, IMAGE, and ReMIND/MAgPIE) regarding the drivers and impacts of bioenergy production on the global land system. The considered model frameworks employ linked energy, economy, climate and land use modules. By the help of these linkages the direct competition of bioenergy with other energy technology options for greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, based on economic costs and GHG emissions from bioenergy production, has been taken into account. Our results indicate that dedicated bioenergy crops and biomass residues form a potentially important and cost-effective input into the energy system. At the same time, however, the results differ strongly in terms of deployment rates, feedstock composition and land-use and greenhouse gas implications. The current paper adds to earlier work by specific looking into model differences with respect to the land-use component that could contribute to the noted differences in results, including land cover allocation, land use constraints, energy crop yields, and non-bioenergy land mitigation options modeled. In scenarios without climate change mitigation, bioenergy cropland represents 10-18 % of total cropland by 2100 across the different models, and boosts cropland expansion at the expense of carbon richer ecosystems. Therefore, associated emissions from land-use change and agricultural intensification as a result of bio-energy use range from 14 and 113 Gt CO2-eq cumulatively through 2100. Under climate policy, bioenergy cropland increases to 24-36 % of total cropland by 2100. |
| 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 |
0165-0009 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4499 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Riahi, K.; van Vuuren, D.P.; Kriegler, E.; Edmonds, J.; O’Neill, B.C.; Fujimori, S.; Bauer, N.; Calvin, K.; Dellink, R.; Fricko, O.; Lutz, W.; Popp, A.; Cuaresma, J.C.; KC, S.; Leimbach, M.; Jiang, L.; Kram, T.; Rao, S.; Emmerling, J.; Ebi, K.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; Humpenöder, F.; Da Silva, L.A.; Smith, S.; Stehfest, E.; Bosetti, V.; Eom, J.; Gernaat, D.; Masui, T.; Rogelj, J.; Strefler, J.; Drouet, L.; Krey, V.; Luderer, G.; Harmsen, M.; Takahashi, K.; Baumstark, L.; Doelman, J.C.; Kainuma, M.; Klimont, Z.; Marangoni, G.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Obersteiner, M.; Tabeau, A.; Tavoni, M. |
| Title |
The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2017 |
Publication |
Global Environmental Change |
Abbreviated Journal |
Glob. Environ. Change |
| Volume |
42 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
153-168 |
| Keywords |
Shared Socioeconomic Pathways; SSP; Climate change; RCP; Community scenarios; Mitigation; Adaptation |
| Abstract |
Abstract This paper presents the overview of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and their energy, land use, and emissions implications. The SSPs are part of a new scenario framework, established by the climate change research community in order to facilitate the integrated analysis of future climate impacts, vulnerabilities, adaptation, and mitigation. The pathways were developed over the last years as a joint community effort and describe plausible major global developments that together would lead in the future to different challenges for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. The SSPs are based on five narratives describing alternative socio-economic developments, including sustainable development, regional rivalry, inequality, fossil-fueled development, and middle-of-the-road development. The long-term demographic and economic projections of the SSPs depict a wide uncertainty range consistent with the scenario literature. A multi-model approach was used for the elaboration of the energy, land-use and the emissions trajectories of SSP-based scenarios. The baseline scenarios lead to global energy consumption of 400–1200 EJ in 2100, and feature vastly different land-use dynamics, ranging from a possible reduction in cropland area up to a massive expansion by more than 700 million hectares by 2100. The associated annual CO2 emissions of the baseline scenarios range from about 25 GtCO2 to more than 120 GtCO2 per year by 2100. With respect to mitigation, we find that associated costs strongly depend on three factors: (1) the policy assumptions, (2) the socio-economic narrative, and (3) the stringency of the target. The carbon price for reaching the target of 2.6 W/m2 that is consistent with a temperature change limit of 2 °C, differs in our analysis thus by about a factor of three across the SSP marker scenarios. Moreover, many models could not reach this target from the SSPs with high mitigation challenges. While the SSPs were designed to represent different mitigation and adaptation challenges, the resulting narratives and quantifications span a wide range of different futures broadly representative of the current literature. This allows their subsequent use and development in new assessments and research projects. Critical next steps for the community scenario process will, among others, involve regional and sectoral extensions, further elaboration of the adaptation and impacts dimension, as well as employing the SSP scenarios with the new generation of earth system models as part of the 6th climate model intercomparison project (CMIP6). |
| Address |
2017-06-13 |
| 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 |
0959-3780 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
TradeM, ftnotmacsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5008 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Robinson, S.; van Meijl, H.; Willenbockel, D.; Valin, H.; Fujimori, S.; Masui, T.; Sands, R.; Wise, M.; Calvin, K.; Havlik, P.; Mason d’Croz, D.; Tabeau, A.; Kavallari, A.; Schmitz, C.; Dietrich, J.P.; von Lampe, M. |
| Title |
Comparing supply-side specifications in models of global agriculture and the food system |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2014 |
Publication |
Agricultural Economics |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Econ. |
| Volume |
45 |
Issue |
1 |
Pages |
21-35 |
| Keywords |
global agricultural models; global food system scenario analysis; general equilibrium; partial equilibrium; growth; trade |
| Abstract |
This article compares the theoretical and functional specification of production in partial equilibrium (PE) and computable general equilibrium (CGE) models of the global agricultural and food system included in the AgMIP model comparison study. The two model families differ in their scopepartial versus economy-wideand in how they represent technology and the behavior of supply and demand in markets. The CGE models are deep structural models in that they explicitly solve the maximization problem of consumers and producers, assuming utility maximization and profit maximization with production/cost functions that include all factor inputs. The PE models divide into two groups on the supply side: (1) shallow structural models, which essentially specify area/yield supply functions with no explicit maximization behavior, and (2) deep structural models that provide a detailed activity-analysis specification of technology and explicit optimizing behavior by producers. While the models vary in their specifications of technology, both within and between the PE and CGE families, we consider two stylized theoretical models to compare the behavior of crop yields and supply functions in CGE models with their behavior in shallow structural PE models. We find that the theoretical responsiveness of supply to changes in prices can be similar, depending on parameter choices that define the behavior of implicit supply functions over the domain of applicability defined by the common scenarios used in the AgMIP comparisons. In practice, however, the applied models are more complex and differ in their empirical sensitivity to variations in specificationcomparability of results given parameter choices is an empirical question. To illustrate the issues, sensitivity analysis is done with one global CGE model, MAGNET, to indicate how the results vary with different specification of technical change, and how they compare with the results from PE models. |
| 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 |
4735 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
von Lampe, M.; Willenbockel, D.; Ahammad, H.; Blanc, E.; Cai, Y.; Calvin, K.; Fujimori, S.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; Heyhoe, E.; Kyle, P.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Mason, d’C., Daniel; Nelson, G.C.; Sands, R.D.; Schmitz, C.; Tabeau, A.; Valin, H.; van der Mensbrugghe, D.; van Meijl, H. |
| Title |
Why do global long-term scenarios for agriculture differ? An overview of the AgMIP Global Economic Model Intercomparison |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2014 |
Publication |
Agricultural Economics |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Econ. |
| Volume |
45 |
Issue |
1 |
Pages |
3-3 |
| Keywords |
Computable general equilibrium; Partial equilibrium; Meta-analysis; Socioeconomic pathway; Climate change; Bioenergy; Land use; Model; intercomparison; land-use change; food demand; crop productivity; climate-change; future |
| Abstract |
Recent studies assessing plausible futures for agricultural markets and global food security have had contradictory outcomes. To advance our understanding of the sources of the differences, 10 global economic models that produce long-term scenarios were asked to compare a reference scenario with alternate socioeconomic, climate change, and bioenergy scenarios using a common set of key drivers. Several key conclusions emerge from this exercise: First, for a comparison of scenario results to be meaningful, a careful analysis of the interpretation of the relevant model variables is essential. For instance, the use of real world commodity prices differs widely across models, and comparing the prices without accounting for their different meanings can lead to misleading results. Second, results suggest that, once some key assumptions are harmonized, the variability in general trends across models declines but remains important. For example, given the common assumptions of the reference scenario, models show average annual rates of changes of real global producer prices for agricultural products on average ranging between -0.4% and +0.7% between the 2005 base year and 2050. This compares to an average decline of real agricultural prices of 4% p.a. between the 1960s and the 2000s. Several other common trends are shown, for example, relating to key global growth areas for agricultural production and consumption. Third, differences in basic model parameters such as income and price elasticities, sometimes hidden in the way market behavior is modeled, result in significant differences in the details. Fourth, the analysis shows that agro-economic modelers aiming to inform the agricultural and development policy debate require better data and analysis on both economic behavior and biophysical drivers. More interdisciplinary modeling efforts are required to cross-fertilize analyses at different scales. |
| Address |
2016-10-31 |
| 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 |
TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4822 |
| Permanent link to this record |
