8 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
- ItemEnvironmental co-benefits and adverse side-effects of alternative power sector decarbonization strategies([London] : Nature Publishing Group UK, 2019) Luderer, Gunnar; Pehl, Michaja; Arvesen, Anders; Gibon, Thomas; Bodirsky, Benjamin L.; de Boer, Harmen Sytze; Fricko, Oliver; Hejazi, Mohamad; Humpenöder, Florian; Iyer, Gokul; Mima, Silvana; Mouratiadou, Ioanna; Pietzcker, Robert C.; Popp, Alexander; van den Berg, Maarten; van Vuuren, Detlef; Hertwich, Edgar G.A rapid and deep decarbonization of power supply worldwide is required to limit global warming to well below 2 °C. Beyond greenhouse gas emissions, the power sector is also responsible for numerous other environmental impacts. Here we combine scenarios from integrated assessment models with a forward-looking life-cycle assessment to explore how alternative technology choices in power sector decarbonization pathways compare in terms of non-climate environmental impacts at the system level. While all decarbonization pathways yield major environmental co-benefits, we find that the scale of co-benefits as well as profiles of adverse side-effects depend strongly on technology choice. Mitigation scenarios focusing on wind and solar power are more effective in reducing human health impacts compared to those with low renewable energy, while inducing a more pronounced shift away from fossil and toward mineral resource depletion. Conversely, non-climate ecosystem damages are highly uncertain but tend to increase, chiefly due to land requirements for bioenergy.
- ItemKey determinants of global land-use projections([London] : Nature Publishing Group UK, 2019) Stehfest, Elke; van Zeist, Willem-Jan; Valin, Hugo; Havlik, Petr; Popp, Alexander; Kyle, Page; Tabeau, Andrzej; Mason-D’Croz, Daniel; Hasegawa, Tomoko; Bodirsky, Benjamin L.; Calvin, Katherine; Doelman, Jonathan C.; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Humpenöder, Florian; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; van Meijl, Hans; Wiebe, KeithLand use is at the core of various sustainable development goals. Long-term climate foresight studies have structured their recent analyses around five socio-economic pathways (SSPs), with consistent storylines of future macroeconomic and societal developments; however, model quantification of these scenarios shows substantial heterogeneity in land-use projections. Here we build on a recently developed sensitivity approach to identify how future land use depends on six distinct socio-economic drivers (population, wealth, consumption preferences, agricultural productivity, land-use regulation, and trade) and their interactions. Spread across models arises mostly from diverging sensitivities to long-term drivers and from various representations of land-use regulation and trade, calling for reconciliation efforts and more empirical research. Most influential determinants for future cropland and pasture extent are population and agricultural efficiency. Furthermore, land-use regulation and consumption changes can play a key role in reducing both land use and food-security risks, and need to be central elements in sustainable development strategies.
- ItemOvercoming global inequality is critical for land-based mitigation in line with the Paris Agreement([London] : Nature Publishing Group UK, 2022) Humpenöder, Florian; Popp, Alexander; Schleussner, Carl-Friedrich; Orlov, Anton; Windisch, Michael Gregory; Menke, Inga; Pongratz, Julia; Havermann, Felix; Thiery, Wim; Luo, Fei; v. Jeetze, Patrick; Dietrich, Jan Philipp; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Weindl, Isabelle; Lejeune, QuentinTransformation pathways for the land sector in line with the Paris Agreement depend on the assumption of globally implemented greenhouse gas (GHG) emission pricing, and in some cases also on inclusive socio-economic development and sustainable land-use practices. In such pathways, the majority of GHG emission reductions in the land system is expected to come from low- and middle-income countries, which currently account for a large share of emissions from agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). However, in low- and middle-income countries the economic, financial and institutional barriers for such transformative changes are high. Here, we show that if sustainable development in the land sector remained highly unequal and limited to high-income countries only, global AFOLU emissions would remain substantial throughout the 21st century. Our model-based projections highlight that overcoming global inequality is critical for land-based mitigation in line with the Paris Agreement. While also a scenario purely based on either global GHG emission pricing or on inclusive socio-economic development would achieve the stringent emissions reductions required, only the latter ensures major co-benefits for other Sustainable Development Goals, especially in low- and middle-income regions.
- ItemThe global economic long-term potential of modern biomass in a climate-constrained world(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2014) Klein, David; Humpenöder, Florian; Bauer, Nico; Dietrich, Jan Philipp; Popp, Alexander; Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon; Bonsch, Markus; Lotze-Campen, HermannLow-stabilization scenarios consistent with the 2 °C target project large-scale deployment of purpose-grown lignocellulosic biomass. In case a GHG price regime integrates emissions from energy conversion and from land-use/land-use change, the strong demand for bioenergy and the pricing of terrestrial emissions are likely to coincide. We explore the global potential of purpose-grown lignocellulosic biomass and ask the question how the supply prices of biomass depend on prices for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the land-use sector. Using the spatially explicit global land-use optimization model MAgPIE, we construct bioenergy supply curves for ten world regions and a global aggregate in two scenarios, with and without a GHG tax. We find that the implementation of GHG taxes is crucial for the slope of the supply function and the GHG emissions from the land-use sector. Global supply prices start at $5 GJ−1 and increase almost linearly, doubling at 150 EJ (in 2055 and 2095). The GHG tax increases bioenergy prices by $5 GJ−1 in 2055 and by $10 GJ−1 in 2095, since it effectively stops deforestation and thus excludes large amounts of high-productivity land. Prices additionally increase due to costs for N2O emissions from fertilizer use. The GHG tax decreases global land-use change emissions by one-third. However, the carbon emissions due to bioenergy production increase by more than 50% from conversion of land that is not under emission control. Average yields required to produce 240 EJ in 2095 are roughly 600 GJ ha−1 yr−1 with and without tax.
- ItemInvestigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2014) Humpenöder, Florian; Popp, Alexander; Dietrich, Jan Philip; Klein, David; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Bonsch, Markus; Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon; Weindl, Isabelle; Stevanovic, Miodrag; Müller, ChristophThe 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 GtCO2), 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 GtCO2) 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.
- ItemAfforestation to mitigate climate change: Impacts on food prices under consideration of albedo effects(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2016) Kreidenweis, Ulrich; Humpenöder, Florian; Stevanović, Miodrag; Bodirsky, Benjamin Leo; Kriegler, Elmar; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Popp, AlexanderAmbitious climate targets, such as the 2 °C target, are likely to require the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Afforestation is one such mitigation option but could, through the competition for land, also lead to food prices hikes. In addition, afforestation often decreases land-surface albedo and the amount of short-wave radiation reflected back to space, which results in a warming effect. In particular in the boreal zone, such biophysical warming effects following from afforestation are estimated to offset the cooling effect from carbon sequestration. We assessed the food price response of afforestation, and considered the albedo effect with scenarios in which afforestation was restricted to certain latitudinal zones. In our study, afforestation was incentivized by a globally uniform reward for carbon uptake in the terrestrial biosphere. This resulted in large-scale afforestation (2580 Mha globally) and substantial carbon sequestration (860 GtCO2) up to the end of the century. However, it was also associated with an increase in food prices of about 80% by 2050 and a more than fourfold increase by 2100. When afforestation was restricted to the tropics the food price response was substantially reduced, while still almost 60% cumulative carbon sequestration was achieved. In the medium term, the increase in prices was then lower than the increase in income underlying our scenario projections. Moreover, our results indicate that more liberalised trade in agricultural commodities could buffer the food price increases following from afforestation in tropical regions..
- ItemLarge-scale bioenergy production: How to resolve sustainability trade-offs?(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2018) Humpenöder, Florian; Popp, Alexander; Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon; Weindl, Isabelle; Biewald, Anne; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Dietrich, Jan Philipp; Klein, David; Kreidenweis, Ulrich; Müller, Christoph; Rolinski, Susanne; Stevanovic, MiodragLarge-scale 2nd generation bioenergy deployment is a key element of 1.5 °C and 2 °C transformation pathways. However, large-scale bioenergy production might have negative sustainability implications and thus may conflict with the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) agenda. Here, we carry out a multi-criteria sustainability assessment of large-scale bioenergy crop production throughout the 21st century (300 EJ in 2100) using a global land-use model. Our analysis indicates that large-scale bioenergy production without complementary measures results in negative effects on the following sustainability indicators: deforestation, CO2 emissions from land-use change, nitrogen losses, unsustainable water withdrawals and food prices. One of our main findings is that single-sector environmental protection measures next to large-scale bioenergy production are prone to involve trade-offs among these sustainability indicators—at least in the absence of more efficient land or water resource use. For instance, if bioenergy production is accompanied by forest protection, deforestation and associated emissions (SDGs 13 and 15) decline substantially whereas food prices (SDG 2) increase. However, our study also shows that this trade-off strongly depends on the development of future food demand. In contrast to environmental protection measures, we find that agricultural intensification lowers some side-effects of bioenergy production substantially (SDGs 13 and 15) without generating new trade-offs—at least among the sustainability indicators considered here. Moreover, our results indicate that a combination of forest and water protection schemes, improved fertilization efficiency, and agricultural intensification would reduce the side-effects of bioenergy production most comprehensively. However, although our study includes more sustainability indicators than previous studies on bioenergy side-effects, our study represents only a small subset of all indicators relevant for the SDG agenda. Based on this, we argue that the development of policies for regulating externalities of large-scale bioenergy production should rely on broad sustainability assessments to discover potential trade-offs with the SDG agenda before implementation.
- ItemThe impact of high-end climate change on agricultural welfare(Washington, DC : American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2016) Stevanović, Miodrag; Popp, Alexander; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Dietrich, Jan Philipp; Müller, Christoph; Bonsch, Markus; Schmitz, Christoph; Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon; Humpenöder, Florian; Weindl, IsabelleClimate change threatens agricultural productivity worldwide, resulting in higher food prices. Associated economic gains and losses differ not only by region but also between producers and consumers and are affected by market dynamics. On the basis of an impact modeling chain, starting with 19 different climate projections that drive plant biophysical process simulations and ending with agro-economic decisions, this analysis focuses on distributional effects of high-end climate change impacts across geographic regions and across economic agents. By estimating the changes in surpluses of consumers and producers, we find that climate change can have detrimental impacts on global agricultural welfare, especially after 2050, because losses in consumer surplus generally outweigh gains in producer surplus. Damage in agriculture may reach the annual loss of 0.3% of future total gross domestic product at the end of the century globally, assuming further opening of trade in agricultural products, which typically leads to interregional production shifts to higher latitudes. Those estimated global losses could increase substantially if international trade is more restricted. If beneficial effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide fertilization can be realized in agricultural production, much of the damage could be avoided. Although trade policy reforms toward further liberalization help alleviate climate change impacts, additional compensation mechanisms for associated environmental and development concerns have to be considered.