|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Popp, A., Humpenöder, F., Weindl, I., Bodirsky, B. L., Bonsch, M., Lotze-Campen, H., et al. (2014). Land-use protection for climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change, 4(12), 1095–1098.
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.
|
|
|
|
Klein, D., Luderer, G., Kriegler, E., Strefler, J., Bauer, N., Leimbach, M., et al. (2014). The value of bioenergy in low stabilization scenarios: an assessment using REMIND-MAgPIE. Clim. Change, 123(3-4), 705–718.
Abstract: This study investigates the use of bioenergy for achieving stringent climate stabilization targets and it analyzes the economic drivers behind the choice of bioenergy technologies. We apply the integrated assessment framework REMIND-MAgPIE to show that bioenergy, particularly if combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a crucial mitigation option with high deployment levels and high technology value. If CCS is available, bioenergy is exclusively used with CCS. We find that the ability of bioenergy to provide negative emissions gives rise to a strong nexus between biomass prices and carbon prices. Ambitious climate policy could result in bioenergy prices of 70 $/GJ (or even 430 $/GJ if bioenergy potential is limited to 100 EJ/year), which indicates a strong demand for bioenergy. For low stabilization scenarios with BECCS availability, we find that the carbon value of biomass tends to exceed its pure energy value. Therefore, the driving factor behind investments into bioenergy conversion capacities for electricity and hydrogen production are the revenues generated from negative emissions, rather than from energy production. However, in REMIND modern bioenergy is predominantly used to produce low-carbon fuels, since the transport sector has significantly fewer low-carbon alternatives to biofuels than the power sector. Since negative emissions increase the amount of permissible emissions from fossil fuels, given a climate target, bioenergy acts as a complement to fossils rather than a substitute. This makes the short-term and long-term deployment of fossil fuels dependent on the long-term availability of BECCS.
|
|
|
|
Popp, A., Rose, S. K., Calvin, K., Van Vuuren, D. P., Dietrich, J. P., Wise, M., et al. (2014). Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options. Clim. Change, 123(3-4), 495–509.
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
