Weindl, I., Lotze-Campen, H., Popp, A., Müller, C., Havlík, P., Herrero, M., et al. (2015). Livestock in a changing climate: production system transitions as an adaptation strategy for agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett., 10(9), 094021.
Abstract: Livestock farming is the world’s largest land use sector and utilizes around 60% of the global biomass harvest. Over the coming decades, climate change will affect the natural resource base of livestock production, especially the productivity of rangeland and feed crops. Based on a comprehensive impact modeling chain, we assess implications of different climate projections for agricultural production costs and land use change and explore the effectiveness of livestock system transitions as an adaptation strategy. Simulated climate impacts on crop yields and rangeland productivity generate adaptation costs amounting to 3% of total agricultural production costs in 2045 (i.e. 145 billion US$). Shifts in livestock production towards mixed crop-livestock systems represent a resource-and cost-efficient adaptation option, reducing agricultural adaptation costs to 0.3% of total production costs and simultaneously abating deforestation by about 76 million ha globally. The relatively positive climate impacts on grass yields compared with crop yields favor grazing systems inter alia in South Asia and North America. Incomplete transitions in production systems already have a strong adaptive and cost reducing effect: a 50% shift to mixed systems lowers agricultural adaptation costs to 0.8%. General responses of production costs to system transitions are robust across different global climate and crop models as well as regarding assumptions on CO2 fertilization, but simulated values show a large variation. In the face of these uncertainties, public policy support for transforming livestock production systems provides an important lever to improve agricultural resource management and lower adaptation costs, possibly even contributing to emission reduction.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Lotze-Campen, H. (2015). EU-level assessments and scenarios. In FACCE MACSUR Reports (Vol. 6, pp. SP6–8). Brussels.
Abstract: Shared socio-economic pathways are used to look at particular possible futures of major trends in global socio-economic trends (e.g. global population, GDP, urbanization, strength of political institutions, international trade). These scenarios make no inference to their likelihood of becoming true. These scenarios are used in MACSUR to assess different questions, e.g.•What is the future of agricultural prices?•How will agricultural production and food consumption evolve?•How will climate change impacts and mitigation affect…–Prices–Land use–Trade–Undernourishment No Label
|
