8 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
- ItemThe mutual dependence of negative emission technologies and energy systems(Cambridge : RSC Publ., 2019) Creutzig, Felix; Breyer, Christian; Hilaire, Jérôme; Minx, Jan; Peters, Glen P.; Socolow, RobertWhile a rapid decommissioning of fossil fuel technologies deserves priority, most climate stabilization scenarios suggest that negative emission technologies (NETs) are required to keep global warming well below 2 °C. Yet, current discussions on NETs are lacking a distinct energy perspective. Prominent NETs, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS), will integrate differently into the future energy system, requiring a concerted research effort to determine adequate means of deployment. In this perspective, we discuss the importance of energy per carbon metrics, factors of future cost development, and the dynamic response of NETs in intermittent energy systems. The energy implications of NETs deployed at scale are massive, and NETs may conceivably impact future energy systems substantially. DACCS outperform BECCS in terms of primary energy required per ton of carbon sequestered. For different assumptions, DACCS displays a sequestration efficiency of 75–100%, whereas BECCS displays a sequestration efficiency of 50–90% or less if indirect land use change is included. Carbon dioxide removal costs of DACCS are considerably higher than BECCS, but if DACCS modularity and granularity helps to foster technological learning to <100$ per tCO2, DACCS may remove CO2 at gigaton scale. DACCS also requires two magnitudes less land than BECCS. Designing NET systems that match intermittent renewable energies will be key for stringent climate change mitigation. Our results contribute to an emerging understanding of NETs that is notably different to that derived from scenario modelling.
- ItemTeleconnected food supply shocks(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2016) Bren d'Amour, Christopher; Wenz, Leonie; Kalkuhl, Matthias; Steckel, Jan Christoph; Creutzig, FelixThe 2008–2010 food crisis might have been a harbinger of fundamental climate-induced food crises with geopolitical implications. Heat-wave-induced yield losses in Russia and resulting export restrictions led to increases in market prices for wheat across the Middle East, likely contributing to the Arab Spring. With ongoing climate change, temperatures and temperature variability will rise, leading to higher uncertainty in yields for major nutritional crops. Here we investigate which countries are most vulnerable to teleconnected supply-shocks, i.e. where diets strongly rely on the import of wheat, maize, or rice, and where a large share of the population is living in poverty. We find that the Middle East is most sensitive to teleconnected supply shocks in wheat, Central America to supply shocks in maize, and Western Africa to supply shocks in rice. Weighing with poverty levels, Sub-Saharan Africa is most affected. Altogether, a simultaneous 10% reduction in exports of wheat, rice, and maize would reduce caloric intake of 55 million people living in poverty by about 5%. Export bans in major producing regions would put up to 200 million people below the poverty line at risk, 90% of which live in Sub-Saharan Africa. Our results suggest that a region-specific combination of national increases in agricultural productivity and diversification of trade partners and diets can effectively decrease future food security risks.
- ItemThe concerns of the young protesters are justified: A statement by Scientists for Future concerning the protests for more climate protection(München : Oekom Verl., 2019) Hagedorn, Gregor; Loew, Thomas; Seneviratne, Sonia I.; Lucht, Wolfgang; Beck, Marie-Luise; Hesse, Janina; Knutti, Reto; Quaschning, Volker; Schleimer, Jan-Hendrik; Mattauch, Linus; Breyer, Christian; Hübener, Heike; Kirchengast, Gottfried; Chodura, Alice; Clausen, Jens; Creutzig, Felix; Darbi, Marianne; Daub, Claus-Heinrich; Ekardt, Felix; Göpel, Maja; Hardt, Judith N.; Hertin, Julia; Hickler, Thomas; Köhncke, Arnulf; Köster, Stephan; Krohmer, Julia; Kromp-Kolb, Helga; Leinfelder, Reinhold; Mederake, Linda; Neuhaus, Michael; Rahmstorf, Stefan; Schmidt, Christine; Schneider, Christoph; Schneider, Gerhard; Seppelt, Ralf; Spindler, Uli; Springmann, Marco; Staab, Katharina; Stocker, Thomas F.; Steininger, Karl; Hirschhausen, Eckart von; Winter, Susanne; Wittau, Martin; Zens, JosefIn March 2019, German-speaking scientists and scholars calling themselves Scientists for Future, published a statement in support of the youth protesters in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (Fridays for Future, Klimastreik/Climate Strike), verifying the scientific evidence that the youth protestors refer to. In this article, they provide the full text of the statement, including the list of supporting facts (in both English and German) as well as an analysis of the results and impacts of the statement. Furthermore, they reflect on the challenges for scientists and scholars who feel a dual responsibility: on the one hand, to remain independent and politically neutral, and, on the other hand, to inform and warn societies of the dangers that lie ahead. © 2019 G. Hagedorn et al.; licensee oekom verlag.This Open Access article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CCBY4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).
- ItemAssessing human and environmental pressures of global land-use change 2000-2010(Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019) Creutzig, Felix; Bren d'Amour, Christopher; Weddige, Ulf; Fuss, Sabine; Beringer, Tim; Gläser, Anne; Kalkuhl, Matthias; Steckel, Jan Christoph; Radebach, Alexander; Edenhofer, OttmarGlobal land is turning into an increasingly scarce resource. We here present a comprehensive assessment of co-occuring land-use change from 2000 until 2010, compiling existing spatially explicit data sources for different land uses, and building on a rich literature addressing specific land-use changes in all world regions. This review systematically categorizes patterns of land use, including regional urbanization and agricultural expansion but also globally telecoupled land-use change for all world regions. Managing land-use change patterns across the globe requires global governance. Here we present a comprehensive assessment of the extent and density of multiple drivers and impacts of land-use change. We combine and reanalyze spatially explicit data of global land-use change between 2000 and 2010 for population, livestock, cropland, terrestrial carbon and biodiversity. We find pervasive pressure on biodiversity but varying patterns of gross land-use changes across world regions. Our findings enable a classification of land-use patterns into three types. The 'consumers' type, displayed in Europe and North America, features high land footprints, reduced direct human pressures due to intensification of agriculture, and increased reliance on imports, enabling a partial recovery of terrestrial carbon and reducing pressure on biodiversity. In the 'producer' type, most clearly epitomized by Latin America, telecoupled land-use links drive biodiversity and carbon loss. In the 'mover' type, we find strong direct domestic pressures, but with a wide variety of outcomes, ranging from a concurrent expansion of population, livestock and croplands in Sub-Saharan Africa at the cost of natural habitats to strong pressure on cropland by urbanization in Eastern Asia. In addition, anthropogenic climate change has already left a distinct footprint on global land-use change. Our data- and literature-based assessment reveals region-specific opportunities for managing global land-use change. © 2019 The Author(s).
- ItemNegative emissions—Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2018) Minx, Jan C.; Lamb, William F.; Callaghan, Max W.; Fuss, Sabine; Hilaire, Jérôme; Creutzig, Felix; Amann, Thorben; Beringer, Tim; de Oliveira Garcia, Wagner; Hartmann, Jens; Khanna, Tarun; Lenzi, Dominic; Luderer, Gunnar; Nemet, Gregory F.; Rogelj, Joeri; Smith, Pete; Vicente Vicente, José Luis; Wilcox, Jennifer; del Mar Zamora Dominguez, MariaWith the Paris Agreement's ambition of limiting climate change to well below 2 °C, negative emission technologies (NETs) have moved into the limelight of discussions in climate science and policy. Despite several assessments, the current knowledge on NETs is still diffuse and incomplete, but also growing fast. Here, we synthesize a comprehensive body of NETs literature, using scientometric tools and performing an in-depth assessment of the quantitative and qualitative evidence therein. We clarify the role of NETs in climate change mitigation scenarios, their ethical implications, as well as the challenges involved in bringing the various NETs to the market and scaling them up in time. There are six major findings arising from our assessment: first, keeping warming below 1.5 °C requires the large-scale deployment of NETs, but this dependency can still be kept to a minimum for the 2 °C warming limit. Second, accounting for economic and biophysical limits, we identify relevant potentials for all NETs except ocean fertilization. Third, any single NET is unlikely to sustainably achieve the large NETs deployment observed in many 1.5 °C and 2 °C mitigation scenarios. Yet, portfolios of multiple NETs, each deployed at modest scales, could be invaluable for reaching the climate goals. Fourth, a substantial gap exists between the upscaling and rapid diffusion of NETs implied in scenarios and progress in actual innovation and deployment. If NETs are required at the scales currently discussed, the resulting urgency of implementation is currently neither reflected in science nor policy. Fifth, NETs face severe barriers to implementation and are only weakly incentivized so far. Finally, we identify distinct ethical discourses relevant for NETs, but highlight the need to root them firmly in the available evidence in order to render such discussions relevant in practice.
- ItemNegative emissions—Part 3: Innovation and upscaling(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2018) Nemet, Gregory F.; Callaghan, Max W.; Creutzig, Felix; Fuss, Sabine; Hartmann, Jens; Hilaire, Jérôme; Lamb, William F.; Minx, Jan C.; Rogers, Sophia; Smith, PeteWe assess the literature on innovation and upscaling for negative emissions technologies (NETs) using a systematic and reproducible literature coding procedure. To structure our review, we employ the framework of sequential stages in the innovation process, with which we code each NETs article in innovation space. We find that while there is a growing body of innovation literature on NETs, 59% of the articles are focused on the earliest stages of the innovation process, 'research and development' (R&D). The subsequent stages of innovation are also represented in the literature, but at much lower levels of activity than R&D. Distinguishing between innovation stages that are related to the supply of the technology (R&D, demonstrations, scale up) and demand for the technology (demand pull, niche markets, public acceptance), we find an overwhelming emphasis (83%) on the supply side. BECCS articles have an above average share of demand-side articles while direct air carbon capture and storage has a very low share. Innovation in NETs has much to learn from successfully diffused technologies; appealing to heterogeneous users, managing policy risk, as well as understanding and addressing public concerns are all crucial yet not well represented in the extant literature. Results from integrated assessment models show that while NETs play a key role in the second half of the 21st century for 1.5 °C and 2 °C scenarios, the major period of new NETs deployment is between 2030 and 2050. Given that the broader innovation literature consistently finds long time periods involved in scaling up and deploying novel technologies, there is an urgency to developing NETs that is largely unappreciated. This challenge is exacerbated by the thousands to millions of actors that potentially need to adopt these technologies for them to achieve planetary scale. This urgency is reflected neither in the Paris Agreement nor in most of the literature we review here. If NETs are to be deployed at the levels required to meet 1.5 °C and 2 °C targets, then important post-R&D issues will need to be addressed in the literature, including incentives for early deployment, niche markets, scale-up, demand, and—particularly if deployment is to be hastened—public acceptance.
- ItemNegative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2018) Fuss, Sabine; Lamb, William F.; Callaghan, Max W.; Hilaire, Jérôme; Creutzig, Felix; Amann, Thorben; Beringer, Tim; de Oliveira Garcia, Wagner; Hartmann, Jens; Khanna, Tarun; Luderer, Gunnar; Nemet, Gregory F.; Rogelj, Joeri; Smith, Pete; Vicente Vicente, José Luis; Wilcox, Jennifer; del Mar Zamora Dominguez, Maria; Minx, Jan C.The most recent IPCC assessment has shown an important role for negative emissions technologies (NETs) in limiting global warming to 2 °C cost-effectively. However, a bottom-up, systematic, reproducible, and transparent literature assessment of the different options to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is currently missing. In part 1 of this three-part review on NETs, we assemble a comprehensive set of the relevant literature so far published, focusing on seven technologies: bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), afforestation and reforestation, direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS), enhanced weathering, ocean fertilisation, biochar, and soil carbon sequestration. In this part, part 2 of the review, we present estimates of costs, potentials, and side-effects for these technologies, and qualify them with the authors' assessment. Part 3 reviews the innovation and scaling challenges that must be addressed to realise NETs deployment as a viable climate mitigation strategy. Based on a systematic review of the literature, our best estimates for sustainable global NET potentials in 2050 are 0.5–3.6 GtCO2 yr−1 for afforestation and reforestation, 0.5–5 GtCO2 yr−1 for BECCS, 0.5–2 GtCO2 yr−1 for biochar, 2–4 GtCO2 yr−1 for enhanced weathering, 0.5–5 GtCO2 yr−1 for DACCS, and up to 5 GtCO2 yr−1 for soil carbon sequestration. Costs vary widely across the technologies, as do their permanency and cumulative potentials beyond 2050. It is unlikely that a single NET will be able to sustainably meet the rates of carbon uptake described in integrated assessment pathways consistent with 1.5 °C of global warming.
- ItemBioenergy production and sustainable development: Science base for policymaking remains limited(Milton Park : Taylor & Francis, 2016) Robledo‐Abad, Carmenza; Althaus, Hans‐Jörg; Berndes, Göran; Bolwig, Simon; Corbera, Esteve; Creutzig, Felix; Garcia‐Ulloa, John; Geddes, Anna; Gregg, Jay S.; Haberl, Helmut; Hanger, Susanne; Harper, Richard J.; Hunsberger, Carol; Larsen, Rasmus K.; Lauk, Christian; Leitner, Stefan; Lilliestam, Johan; Lotze‐Campen, Hermann; Muys, Bart; Nordborg, Maria; Ölund, Maria; Orlowsky, Boris; Popp, Alexander; Portugal‐Pereira, Joana; Reinhard, Jürgen; Scheiffle, Lena; Smith, PeteThe possibility of using bioenergy as a climate change mitigation measure has sparked a discussion of whether and how bioenergy production contributes to sustainable development. We undertook a systematic review of the scientific literature to illuminate this relationship and found a limited scientific basis for policymaking. Our results indicate that knowledge on the sustainable development impacts of bioenergy production is concentrated in a few well‐studied countries, focuses on environmental and economic impacts, and mostly relates to dedicated agricultural biomass plantations. The scope and methodological approaches in studies differ widely and only a small share of the studies sufficiently reports on context and/or baseline conditions, which makes it difficult to get a general understanding of the attribution of impacts. Nevertheless, we identified regional patterns of positive or negative impacts for all categories – environmental, economic, institutional, social and technological. In general, economic and technological impacts were more frequently reported as positive, while social and environmental impacts were more frequently reported as negative (with the exception of impacts on direct substitution of GHG emission from fossil fuel). More focused and transparent research is needed to validate these patterns and develop a strong science underpinning for establishing policies and governance agreements that prevent/mitigate negative and promote positive impacts from bioenergy production.