| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 >> |
|
Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Stevanovic, M., Müller, C., Bodirsky, B. L., Bonsch, M., et al. (2015). Land-use and carbon cycle responses to moderate climate change: implications for land-based mitigation. Environ Sci Technol, 49(11), 6731–6739.
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.
|
|
Stevanović, M., Popp, A., Bodirsky, B. L., Humpenöder, F., Müller, C., Weindl, I., et al. (2017). Mitigation Strategies for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture and Land-Use Change: Consequences for Food Prices. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(1), 365–374.
Abstract: The land use sector of agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) plays a central role in ambitious climate change mitigation efforts. Yet, mitigation policies in agriculture may be in conflict with food security related targets. Using a global agro-economic model, we analyze the impacts on food prices under mitigation policies targeting either incentives for producers (e.g., through taxes) or consumer preferences (e.g., through education programs). Despite having a similar reduction potential of 43-44% in 2100, the two types of policy instruments result in opposite outcomes for food prices. Incentive-based mitigation, such as protecting carbon-rich forests or adopting low-emission production techniques, increase land scarcity and production costs and thereby food prices. Preference-based mitigation, such as reduced household waste or lower consumption of animal-based products, decreases land scarcity, prevents emissions leakage, and concentrates production on the most productive sites and consequently lowers food prices. Whereas agricultural emissions are further abated in the combination of these mitigation measures, the synergy of strategies fails to substantially lower food prices. Additionally, we demonstrate that the efficiency of agricultural emission abatement is stable across a range of greenhouse-gas (GHG) tax levels, while resulting food prices exhibit a disproportionally larger spread.
|
|
Biewald, A. (2015). Ethical aspects in the economic modeling of water policy options (Vol. 5).
|
|
Biewald, A. (2015). Climate dependent equilibrium model (Vol. 6).
Abstract: In the framework of AgMIP (Agricultural Model Intercomparison Project; www.agmip.org), several articles have been published in which about 10 leading, agro-economic models analysed the impact of climate change on agricultural yields, area, consumption and food prices (Lotze-Campen et al. 2014, Nelson et. al 2014a,b Schmitz et al. 2014). A part of these articles are available freely through the publisher (e.g. http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3274). PIK has not only contributed through model simulations with the spatially explicit, agro-economic model MAgPIE, but also by coordinating this activity. Starting with AgMIP phase II in 2015, AgMIP has now for the first time conducted the model-analysis for different “Shared Socio-economic Pathways” (short SSPs). A first study has been published in the renowned journal “Environmental Research Letters” (Wiebe et al. 2015). These are important contributions to task 2.3 which aimed at simulating the impact of global climate changes on agricultural systems.Another study which is under revision in the journal PNAS, investigates the impact of climate change on agricultural welfare. The results of this paper are based on simulations with 20 different General Circulation Models (GCMs). This provides the opportunity to understand the uncertainty inherent in the different climate models better and improves the credibility of results.All mentioned articles and results are based on harmonized yield changes, which are a result of multi-model simulations, conducted in the framework of ISI-MIP (Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project) and coordinated at PIK. These model results are publicly available (www.isi-mip.org) and part of an open source strategy of the institute. The modelling group around the agro-economic model MAgPIE (Model of Agriculture and its Impact on the Environment) currently discusses an open source strategy for publishing the model code. As a first step, a detailed description of the model will be available shortly (http://redmine.pik-potsdam.de/projects/magpie/wiki).PIK and the modelling group around MAgPIE have also contributed to the geoportal GLUES (Global Assessment of Land Use Dynamics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Ecosystem Services) where project partners can publish and share global and regional data sets as well as model results on scenarios of land use, climate change and economic development. MAgPIE results on landuse change, emissions and deforestation for different socio-economic scenarios have been made available there (http://catalog-glues.ufz.de/terraCatalog/Start.do;jsessionid=80F6A3D2C446674B898881D0589887E4). No Label
|
|
Biewald, A. (2016). Representative Agricultural Pathways for Europe (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: Agricultural aspects have been covered in the scenario process on shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs), but only to a limited extent. In order to analyze the future dynamics of agricultural development they need to be complemented and specified by Representative Agricultural Pathways (RAPs), which cover different aspects of agricultural development as for example European agricultural and domestic policy, environmental policies, different livestock management systems, cropping systems or irrigation efficiencies.In this paper we will develop a general framework for RAPs where we define for each SSP the corresponding specific agricultural development. Some aspects of the above mentioned specifics can be derived from the definitions in the SSPs, as for example irrigation efficiencies which are linked to technological development. Agricultural policies on the other hand are not included in the SSP definitions. Here we will define agricultural and environmental policies, including the available funding in each area of the common agricultural policy (CAP) (pillars 1 and 2). As RAPs can only to a small degree be developed as European guidelines and implemented unilaterally, it is important to translate the overall storylines into specific scenario parameterization at national levels. Concerned by this are 1. national policies, as well as the agri-environmental schemes of the CAP in Pillar II, 2. livestock efficiencies and the development of extensive and intensive farm management, and 3. crop management systems.Additionally we will define which respresentative concentration pathways (RCPs) will match best the future agricultural and agro-economic trajectories. The following 5 preliminary RAPs for Europe will be further developed in our analysis:EU-RAP1 (Sustainable Europe) : strong CAP, strong shift on environmental regulation, no producer support, green CAP with strong mititgation componentEU-RAP2 (Middle of the road): BAU or things will stay as they are.EU-RAP3 (Fragmented Europe): Europe breaks up, rich countries support farmers with national subsidies, poor countries do not. There is no CAP anymoreEU-RAP4 (Two Europes): Europe is divided in a poor and a rich part. In the rich part a green and environmental friendly CAP will be implemented, in the poor part of Europe, the CAP will cease to existEU-RAP5(Fossil fueled Europe): free market world, strong institutions, weak on enviromental regulations, low domestic polices? Local green CAP without mitigation
|