6 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
- 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.
- 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.
- ItemLivestock in a changing climate: Production system transitions as an adaptation strategy for agriculture(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2015) Weindl, Isabelle; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Popp, Alexander; Müller, Christoph; Havlík, Petr; Herrero, Mario; Schmitz, Christoph; Rolinski, SusanneLivestock 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.
- 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.
- ItemThe ongoing nutrition transition thwarts long-term targets for food security, public health and environmental protection([London] : Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature, 2020) Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon; Dietrich, Jan Philipp; Martinelli, Eleonora; Stenstad, Antonia; Pradhan, Prajal; Gabrysch, Sabine; Mishra, Abhijeet; Weindl, Isabelle; Le Mouël, Chantal; Rolinski, Susanne; Baumstark, Lavinia; Wang, Xiaoxi; Waid, Jillian L.; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Popp, AlexanderThe nutrition transition transforms food systems globally and shapes public health and environmental change. Here we provide a global forward-looking assessment of a continued nutrition transition and its interlinked symptoms in respect to food consumption. These symptoms range from underweight and unbalanced diets to obesity, food waste and environmental pressure. We find that by 2050, 45% (39–52%) of the world population will be overweight and 16% (13–20%) obese, compared to 29% and 9% in 2010 respectively. The prevalence of underweight approximately halves but absolute numbers stagnate at 0.4–0.7 billion. Aligned, dietary composition shifts towards animal-source foods and empty calories, while the consumption of vegetables, fruits and nuts increases insufficiently. Population growth, ageing, increasing body mass and more wasteful consumption patterns are jointly pushing global food demand from 30 to 45 (43–47) Exajoules. Our comprehensive open dataset and model provides the interfaces necessary for integrated studies of global health, food systems, and environmental change. Achieving zero hunger, healthy diets, and a food demand compatible with environmental boundaries necessitates a coordinated redirection of the nutrition transition. Reducing household waste, animal-source foods, and overweight could synergistically address multiple symptoms at once, while eliminating underweight would not substantially increase food demand.