|   | 
Details
   web
Records
Author Nelson, G.C.; van der Mensbrugghe, D.; Ahammad, H.; Blanc, E.; Calvin, K.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; Heyhoe, E.; Kyle, P.; Lotze-Campen, H.; von Lampe, M.; Mason, d’C., Daniel; van Meijl, H.; Müller, C.; Reilly, J.; Robertson, R.; Sands, R.D.; Schmitz, C.; Tabeau, A.; Takahashi, K.; Valin, H.; Willenbockel, D.
Title Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don’t the models agree Type Journal Article
Year 2014 Publication Agricultural Economics Abbreviated Journal Agric. Econ.
Volume 45 Issue 1 Pages 85-101
Keywords climate change impacts; economic models of agriculture; scenarios; system model; demand; CMIP5
Abstract Agriculture is unique among economic sectors in the nature of impacts from climate change. The production activity that transforms inputs into agricultural outputs involves direct use of weather inputs (temperature, solar radiation available to the plant, and precipitation). Previous studies of the impacts of climate change on agriculture have reported substantial differences in outcomes such as prices, production, and trade arising from differences in model inputs and model specification. This article presents climate change results and underlying determinants from a model comparison exercise with 10 of the leading global economic models that include significant representation of agriculture. By harmonizing key drivers that include climate change effects, differences in model outcomes were reduced. The particular choice of climate change drivers for this comparison activity results in large and negative productivity effects. All models respond with higher prices. Producer behavior differs by model with some emphasizing area response and others yield response. Demand response is least important. The differences reflect both differences in model specification and perspectives on the future. The results from this study highlight the need to more fully compare the deep model parameters, to generate a call for a combination of econometric and validation studies to narrow the degree of uncertainty and variability in these parameters and to move to Monte Carlo type simulations to better map the contours of economic uncertainty.
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 (up) Article
Area Expedition Conference
Notes CropM, TradeM, ft_macsur Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4536
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Lotze-Campen, H.; von Lampe, M.; Kyle, P.; Fujimori, S.; Havlik, P.; van Meijl, H.; Hasegawa, T.; Popp, A.; Schmitz, C.; Tabeau, A.; Valin, H.; Willenbockel, D.; Wise, M.
Title Impacts of increased bioenergy demand on global food markets: an AgMIP economic model intercomparison Type Journal Article
Year 2014 Publication Agricultural Economics Abbreviated Journal Agric. Econ.
Volume 45 Issue 1 Pages 103-116
Keywords energy demand; agricultural markets; general equilibrium modeling; partial equilibrium modeling; model comparison; greenhouse-gas emissions; land-use; energy; productivity; scenarios; policies; capture; storage; system
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.
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 (up) Article
Area Expedition Conference
Notes CropM, TradeM Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4532
Permanent link to this record