9 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 9 of 9
- ItemGlobal consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2017) Krause, Andreas; Pugh, Thomas A.M.; Bayer, Anita D.; Doelman, Jonathan C.; Humpenöder, Florian; Anthoni, Peter; Olin, Stefan; Bodirsky, Benjamin L.; Popp, Alexander; Stehfest, Elke; Arneth, AlmutLand management for carbon storage is discussed as being indispensable for climate change mitigation because of its large potential to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and to avoid further emissions from deforestation. However, the acceptance and feasibility of land-based mitigation projects depends on potential side effects on other important ecosystem functions and their services. Here, we use projections of future land use and land cover for different land-based mitigation options from two land-use models (IMAGE and MAgPIE) and evaluate their effects with a global dynamic vegetation model (LPJ-GUESS). In the land-use models, carbon removal was achieved either via growth of bioenergy crops combined with carbon capture and storage, via avoided deforestation and afforestation, or via a combination of both. We compare these scenarios to a reference scenario without land-based mitigation and analyse the LPJ-GUESS simulations with the aim of assessing synergies and trade-offs across a range of ecosystem service indicators: carbon storage, surface albedo, evapotranspiration, water runoff, crop production, nitrogen loss, and emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds. In our mitigation simulations cumulative carbon storage by year 2099 ranged between 55 and 89 GtC. Other ecosystem service indicators were influenced heterogeneously both positively and negatively, with large variability across regions and land-use scenarios. Avoided deforestation and afforestation led to an increase in evapotranspiration and enhanced emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds, and to a decrease in albedo, runoff, and nitrogen loss. Crop production could also decrease in the afforestation scenarios as a result of reduced crop area, especially for MAgPIE land-use patterns, if assumed increases in crop yields cannot be realized. Bioenergy-based climate change mitigation was projected to affect less area globally than in the forest expansion scenarios, and resulted in less pronounced changes in most ecosystem service indicators than forest-based mitigation, but included a possible decrease in nitrogen loss, crop production, and biogenic volatile organic compounds emissions.
- 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.
- ItemImpacts of enhanced weathering on biomass production for negative emission technologies and soil hydrology(Katlenburg-Lindau [u.a.] : Copernicus, 2020) De Oliveira Garcia, Wagner; Amann, Thorben; Hartmann, Jens; Karstens, Kristine; Popp, Alexander; Boysen, Lena R.; Smith, Pete; Goll, DanielLimiting global mean temperature changes to well below 2 °C likely requires a rapid and large-scale deployment of negative emission technologies (NETs). Assessments so far have shown a high potential of biomass-based terrestrial NETs, but only a few assessments have included effects of the commonly found nutrient-deficient soils on biomass production. Here, we investigate the deployment of enhanced weathering (EW) to supply nutrients to areas of afforestation-reforestation and naturally growing forests (AR) and bioenergy grasses (BG) that are deficient in phosphorus (P), besides the impacts on soil hydrology. Using stoichiometric ratios and biomass estimates from two established vegetation models, we calculated the nutrient demand of AR and BG. Insufficient geogenic P supply limits C storage in biomass. For a mean P demand by AR and a lowgeogenic-P-supply scenario, AR would sequester 119 Gt C in biomass; for a high-geogenic-P-supply and low-AR-Pdemand scenario, 187 Gt C would be sequestered in biomass; and for a low geogenic P supply and high AR P demand, only 92 GtC would be accumulated by biomass. An average amount of ∼ 150 Gt basalt powder applied for EW would be needed to close global P gaps and completely sequester projected amounts of 190 Gt C during the years 2006-2099 for the mean AR P demand scenario (2-362 Gt basalt powder for the low-AR-P-demand and for the high-AR-P-demand scenarios would be necessary, respectively). The average potential of carbon sequestration by EW until 2099 is ∼ 12 GtC (∼ 0:2-∼ 27 Gt C) for the specified scenarios (excluding additional carbon sequestration via alkalinity production). For BG, 8 kg basaltm2 a1 might, on average, replenish the exported potassium (K) and P by harvest. Using pedotransfer functions, we show that the impacts of basalt powder application on soil hydraulic conductivity and plant-Available water, to close predicted P gaps, would depend on basalt and soil texture, but in general the impacts are marginal. We show that EW could potentially close the projected P gaps of an AR scenario and nutrients exported by BG harvest, which would decrease or replace the use of industrial fertilizers. Besides that, EW ameliorates the soil's capacity to retain nutrients and soil pH and replenish soil nutrient pools. Lastly, EW application could improve plant-Available-water capacity depending on deployed amounts of rock powder - adding a new dimension to the coupling of land-based biomass NETs with EW. © 2020 Royal Society of Chemistry. All rights reserved.
- ItemThe role of storage dynamics in annual wheat prices(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2017) Schewe, Jacob; Otto, Christian; Frieler, Katja; Bodirsky, Benjamin Leo; Kriegler, Elmar; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Popp, AlexanderIdentifying the drivers of global crop price fluctuations is essential for estimating the risks of unexpected weather-induced production shortfalls and for designing optimal response measures. Here we show that with a consistent representation of storage dynamics, a simple supply–demand model can explain most of the observed variations in wheat prices over the last 40 yr solely based on time series of annual production and long term demand trends. Even the most recent price peaks in 2007/08 and 2010/11 can be explained by additionally accounting for documented changes in countries' trade policies and storage strategies, without the need for external drivers such as oil prices or speculation across different commodity or stock markets. This underlines the critical sensitivity of global prices to fluctuations in production. The consistent inclusion of storage into a dynamic supply-demand model closes an important gap when it comes to exploring potential responses to future crop yield variability under climate and land-use change.
- ItemA protocol for an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized land-use and climate scenarios(Katlenburg-Lindau : Copernicus, 2018) Kim, HyeJin; Rosa, Isabel M. D.; Alkemade, Rob; Leadley, Paul; Hurtt, George; Popp, Alexander; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Anthoni, Peter; Arneth, Almut; Baisero, Daniele; Caton, Emma; Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca; Chini, Louise; De Palma, Adriana; Di Fulvio, Fulvio; Di Marco, Moreno; Espinoza, Felipe; Ferrier, Simon; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Gonzalez, Ricardo E.; Gueguen, Maya; Guerra, Carlos; Harfoot, Mike; Harwood, Thomas D.; Hasegawa, Tomoko; Haverd, Vanessa; Havlík, Petr; Hellweg, Stefanie; Hill, Samantha L. L.; Hirata, Akiko; Hoskins, Andrew J.; Janse, Jan H.; Jetz, Walter; Johnson, Justin A.; Krause, Andreas; Leclère, David; Martins, Ines S.; Matsui, Tetsuya; Merow, Cory; Obersteiner, Michael; Ohashi, Haruka; Poulter, Benjamin; Purvis, Andy; Quesada, Benjamin; Rondinini, Carlo; Schipper, Aafke M.; Sharp, Richard; Takahashi, Kiyoshi; Thuiller, Wilfried; Titeux, Nicolas; Visconti, Piero; Ware, Christopher; Wolf, Florian; Pereira, Henrique M.To support the assessments of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the IPBES Expert Group on Scenarios and Models is carrying out an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized scenarios (BES-SIM). The goals of BES-SIM are (1) to project the global impacts of land-use and climate change on biodiversity and ecosystem services (i.e., nature's contributions to people) over the coming decades, compared to the 20th century, using a set of common metrics at multiple scales, and (2) to identify model uncertainties and research gaps through the comparisons of projected biodiversity and ecosystem services across models. BES-SIM uses three scenarios combining specific Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)-SSP1xRCP2.6, SSP3xRCP6.0, SSP5xRCP8.6-to explore a wide range of land-use change and climate change futures. This paper describes the rationale for scenario selection, the process of harmonizing input data for land use, based on the second phase of the Land Use Harmonization Project (LUH2), and climate, the biodiversity and ecosystem services models used, the core simulations carried out, the harmonization of the model output metrics, and the treatment of uncertainty. The results of this collaborative modeling project will support the ongoing global assessment of IPBES, strengthen ties between IPBES and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios and modeling processes, advise the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on its development of a post-2020 strategic plans and conservation goals, and inform the development of a new generation of nature-centred scenarios.
- ItemComparing impacts of climate change and mitigation on global agriculture by 2050(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2018) van Meijl, Hans; Havlik, Petr; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Stehfest, Elke; Witzke, Peter; Pérez Domínguez, Ignacio; Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon; van Dijk, Michiel; Doelman, Jonathan; Fellmann, Thomas; Humpenöder, Florian; Koopman, Jason F. L.; Müller, Christoph; Popp, Alexander; Tabeau, Andrzej; Valin, Hugo; van Zeist, Willem-JanSystematic model inter-comparison helps to narrow discrepancies in the analysis of the future impact of climate change on agricultural production. This paper presents a set of alternative scenarios by five global climate and agro-economic models. Covering integrated assessment (IMAGE), partial equilibrium (CAPRI, GLOBIOM, MAgPIE) and computable general equilibrium (MAGNET) models ensures a good coverage of biophysical and economic agricultural features. These models are harmonized with respect to basic model drivers, to assess the range of potential impacts of climate change on the agricultural sector by 2050. Moreover, they quantify the economic consequences of stringent global emission mitigation efforts, such as non-CO2 emission taxes and land-based mitigation options, to stabilize global warming at 2 °C by the end of the century under different Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. A key contribution of the paper is a vis-à-vis comparison of climate change impacts relative to the impact of mitigation measures. In addition, our scenario design allows assessing the impact of the residual climate change on the mitigation challenge. From a global perspective, the impact of climate change on agricultural production by mid-century is negative but small. A larger negative effect on agricultural production, most pronounced for ruminant meat production, is observed when emission mitigation measures compliant with a 2 °C target are put in place. Our results indicate that a mitigation strategy that embeds residual climate change effects (RCP2.6) has a negative impact on global agricultural production relative to a no-mitigation strategy with stronger climate impacts (RCP6.0). However, this is partially due to the limited impact of the climate change scenarios by 2050. The magnitude of price changes is different amongst models due to methodological differences. Further research to achieve a better harmonization is needed, especially regarding endogenous food and feed demand, including substitution across individual commodities, and endogenous technological change.
- ItemBetween Scylla and Charybdis: Delayed mitigation narrows the passage between large-scale CDR and high costs(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2018) Strefler, Jessica; Bauer, Nico; Kriegler, Elmar; Popp, Alexander; Giannousakis, Anastasis; Edenhofer, OttmarThere are major concerns about the sustainability of large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. It is therefore an urgent question to what extent CDR will be needed to implement the long term ambition of the Paris Agreement. Here we show that ambitious near term mitigation significantly decreases CDR requirements to keep the Paris climate targets within reach. Following the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) until 2030 makes 2 °C unachievable without CDR. Reducing 2030 emissions by 20% below NDC levels alleviates the trade-off between high transitional challenges and high CDR deployment. Nevertheless, transitional challenges increase significantly if CDR is constrained to less than 5 Gt CO2 a−1 in any year. At least 8 Gt CO2 a−1 CDR are necessary in the long term to achieve 1.5 °C and more than 15 Gt CO2 a−1 to keep transitional challenges in bounds.
- 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.
- ItemBioenergy for climate change mitigation: Scale and sustainability(Oxford : Wiley-Blackwell, 2021) Calvin, Katherine; Cowie, Annette; Berndes, Göran; Arneth, Almut; Cherubini, Francesco; Portugal‐Pereira, Joana; Grassi, Giacomo; House, Jo; Johnson, Francis X.; Popp, Alexander; Rounsevell, Mark; Slade, Raphael; Smith, PeteMany global climate change mitigation pathways presented in IPCC assessment reports rely heavily on the deployment of bioenergy, often used in conjunction with carbon capture and storage. We review the literature on bioenergy use for climate change mitigation, including studies that use top-down integrated assessment models or bottom-up modelling, and studies that do not rely on modelling. We summarize the state of knowledge concerning potential co-benefits and adverse side effects of bioenergy systems and discuss limitations of modelling studies used to analyse consequences of bioenergy expansion. The implications of bioenergy supply on mitigation and other sustainability criteria are context dependent and influenced by feedstock, management regime, climatic region, scale of deployment and how bioenergy alters energy systems and land use. Depending on previous land use, widespread deployment of monoculture plantations may contribute to mitigation but can cause negative impacts across a range of other sustainability criteria. Strategic integration of new biomass supply systems into existing agriculture and forest landscapes may result in less mitigation but can contribute positively to other sustainability objectives. There is considerable variation in evaluations of how sustainability challenges evolve as the scale of bioenergy deployment increases, due to limitations of existing models, and uncertainty over the future context with respect to the many variables that influence alternative uses of biomass and land. Integrative policies, coordinated institutions and improved governance mechanisms to enhance co-benefits and minimize adverse side effects can reduce the risks of large-scale deployment of bioenergy. Further, conservation and efficiency measures for energy, land and biomass can support greater flexibility in achieving climate change mitigation and adaptation.