4 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- 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.
- 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.
- ItemAssessing the impacts of 1.5 °C global warming – simulation protocol of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2b)(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2017) Frieler, Katja; Lange, Stefan; Piontek, Franziska; Reyer, Christopher P.O.; Schewe, Jacob; Warszawski, Lila; Zhao, Fang; Chini, Louise; Denvil, Sebastien; Emanuel, Kerry; Geiger, Tobias; Halladay, Kate; Hurtt, George; Mengel, Matthias; Murakami, Daisuke; Ostberg, Sebastian; Popp, Alexander; Riva, Riccardo; Stevanovic, Miodrag; Suzuki, Tatsuo; Volkholz, Jan; Burke, Eleanor; Ciais, Philippe; Ebi, Kristie; Eddy, Tyler D.; Elliott, Joshua; Galbraith, Eric; Gosling, Simon N.; Hattermann, Fred; Hickler, Thomas; Hinkel, Jochen; Hof, Christian; Huber, Veronika; Jägermeyr, Jonas; Krysanova, Valentina; Marcé, Rafael; Müller Schmied, Hannes; Mouratiadou, Ioanna; Pierson, Don; Tittensor, Derek P.; Vautard, Robert; van Vliet, Michelle; Biber, Matthias F.; Betts, Richard A.; Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon; Deryng, Delphine; Frolking, Steve; Jones, Chris D.; Lotze, Heike K.; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Sahajpal, Ritvik; Thonicke, Kirsten; Tian, Hanqin; Yamagata, YoshikiIn Paris, France, December 2015, the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) invited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide a "special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways". In Nairobi, Kenya, April 2016, the IPCC panel accepted the invitation. Here we describe the response devised within the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) to provide tailored, cross-sectorally consistent impact projections to broaden the scientific basis for the report. The simulation protocol is designed to allow for (1) separation of the impacts of historical warming starting from pre-industrial conditions from impacts of other drivers such as historical land-use changes (based on pre-industrial and historical impact model simulations); (2) quantification of the impacts of additional warming up to 1.5°C, including a potential overshoot and long-term impacts up to 2299, and comparison to higher levels of global mean temperature change (based on the low-emissions Representative Concentration Pathway RCP2.6 and a no-mitigation pathway RCP6.0) with socio-economic conditions fixed at 2005 levels; and (3) assessment of the climate effects based on the same climate scenarios while accounting for simultaneous changes in socio-economic conditions following the middle-of-the-road Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP2, Fricko et al., 2016) and in particular differential bioenergy requirements associated with the transformation of the energy system to comply with RCP2.6 compared to RCP6.0. With the aim of providing the scientific basis for an aggregation of impacts across sectors and analysis of cross-sectoral interactions that may dampen or amplify sectoral impacts, the protocol is designed to facilitate consistent impact projections from a range of impact models across different sectors (global and regional hydrology, lakes, global crops, global vegetation, regional forests, global and regional marine ecosystems and fisheries, global and regional coastal infrastructure, energy supply and demand, temperature-related mortality, and global terrestrial biodiversity).
- ItemFossil-fueled development (SSP5): An energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century(Amsterdam : Elsevier, 2016) Kriegler, Elmar; Bauer, Nico; Popp, Alexander; Humpenöder, Florian; Leimbach, Marian; Strefler, Jessica; Baumstark, Lavinia; Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon; Hilaire, Jérôme; Klein, David; Mouratiadou, Ioanna; Weindl, Isabelle; Bertram, Christoph; Dietrich, Jan-Philipp; Luderer, Gunnar; Pehl, Michaja; Pietzcker, Robert; Piontek, Franziska; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Biewald, Anne; Bonsch, Markus; Giannousakis, Anastasis; Kreidenweis, Ulrich; Müller, Christoph; Rolinski, Susanne; Schultes, Anselm; Schwanitz, Jana; Stevanovic, Miodrag; Calvin, Katherine; Emmerling, Johannes; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Edenhofer, OttmarThis paper presents a set of energy and resource intensive scenarios based on the concept of Shared Socio-Economic Pathways (SSPs). The scenario family is characterized by rapid and fossil-fueled development with high socio-economic challenges to mitigation and low socio-economic challenges to adaptation (SSP5). A special focus is placed on the SSP5 marker scenario developed by the REMIND-MAgPIE integrated assessment modeling framework. The SSP5 baseline scenarios exhibit very high levels of fossil fuel use, up to a doubling of global food demand, and up to a tripling of energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions over the course of the century, marking the upper end of the scenario literature in several dimensions. These scenarios are currently the only SSP scenarios that result in a radiative forcing pathway as high as the highest Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP8.5). This paper further investigates the direct impact of mitigation policies on the SSP5 energy, land and emissions dynamics confirming high socio-economic challenges to mitigation in SSP5. Nonetheless, mitigation policies reaching climate forcing levels as low as in the lowest Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP2.6) are accessible in SSP5. The SSP5 scenarios presented in this paper aim to provide useful reference points for future climate change, climate impact, adaption and mitigation analysis, and broader questions of sustainable development.