4 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- ItemCombining ambitious climate policies with efforts to eradicate poverty([London] : Nature Publishing Group UK, 2021) Soergel, Bjoern; Kriegler, Elmar; Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon; Bauer, Nico; Leimbach, Marian; Popp, AlexanderClimate change threatens to undermine efforts to eradicate extreme poverty. However, climate policies could impose a financial burden on the global poor through increased energy and food prices. Here, we project poverty rates until 2050 and assess how they are influenced by mitigation policies consistent with the 1.5 °C target. A continuation of historical trends will leave 350 million people globally in extreme poverty by 2030. Without progressive redistribution, climate policies would push an additional 50 million people into poverty. However, redistributing the national carbon pricing revenues domestically as an equal-per-capita climate dividend compensates this policy side effect, even leading to a small net reduction of the global poverty headcount (−6 million). An additional international climate finance scheme enables a substantial poverty reduction globally and also in Sub-Saharan Africa. Combining national redistribution with international climate finance thus provides an important entry point to climate policy in developing countries.
- 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.