Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security?
•
2 j'aime•763 vues
Presentation by Stefan Frank, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) International conference on agricultural emissions and food security: Connecting research to policy and practice 10-13 September 2018 Berlin, Germany
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
Similaire à Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security?
Similaire à Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security? (20)
Plus de CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
Plus de CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security?
- 1. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security? Stefan Frank, Petr Havlík, JF. Soussana, R. Beach, H. Valin, E. Wollenberg, O. Fricko, M. Gusti, T. Hasegawa, and many more….
- 2. Challenges for the land use sector AFOLU sector is key for climate change mitigation: 24% of global GHG emissions Increased biomass demand and emission reduction potential Trade-offs with other SDGs? Source: Rogelj et al., 2018
- 3. Agri GHG Conference, Berlin, 2018
- 4. GHG mitigation in GLOBIOM Technical livestock- and crop non-CO2 add-on options (EPA, 2015) E.g. anaerobic digesters, animal feed supplements etc. Structural adjustments (Havlík et al., 2014) Reallocation of production within a region Transition of livestock and crop production systems International trade Demand side (Valin et al., 2015) Consumers’ response to food prices Diet shifts (not considered in this study) Soil carbon sequestration options (Smith et al., 2008) E.g. improved crop & grassland management, restoration of degraded soils etc. Agri GHG Conference, Berlin, 2018
- 5. Key scenario drivers Scenario name Radiative forcing levels in 2100 Carbon price in 2050 Bioenergy in 2050 3.1 °C scenario 6.0 W/m2 2 $/tCO2eq 53 EJ 2.6 °C scenario 4.5 W/m2 10 $/tCO2eq 61 EJ 2.2 °C scenario 3.4 W/m2 25 $/tCO2eq 70 EJ 2.0 °C scenario 2.6 W/m2 65 $/tCO2eq 81 EJ 1.5 °C scenario 1.9 W/m2 190 $/tCO2eq 103 EJ SSP2 (Fricko et al., 2016): Population, GDP, technological change, diets… Agri GHG Conference, Berlin, 2018
- 6. Scenario design Full global participation in mitigation efforts Radiative forcing levels 6.0 – 1.9 W/m2 (1.5 C target) based on MESSAGE-GLOBIOM Only regional participation in mitigation efforts Carbon price for AFOLU in developed countries only Carbon price for AFOLU in developed countries and Brazil Carbon price for AFOLU in developed countries and India + 5 additional scenarios…. SOC sequestration scenarios No SOC sequestration considered SOC sequestration SOC sequestration + yield co-benefits Sensitivity analysis Agri GHG Conference, Berlin, 2018
- 7. Carbon tax impact on food prices Agri GHG Conference, Berlin, 2018 Source: Frank et al., 2017
- 8. Regional land use mitigation hot-spots Land rich countries with LUC emissions offer significant mitigation potential with limited food security trade-offs Highly populated countries with intensive agriculture show limited potential with large trade- offs 2 C stabilization 1.5 C target 2.6 C stabilization 3.1 C stabilization Levelofeffort + Brazil + Congo BasinDeveloped + China + India 2.2 C stabilization Agri GHG Conference, Berlin, 2018 Source: Frank et al., 2017
- 9. SOC sequestration and food security Developed + China + 3.5 GtCO2eq No SOC Incl. SOC sequestration Agri GHG Conference, Berlin, 2018 Source: Frank et al., 2017
- 10. Reduced marginal impact on undernourishment from 80 – 300 million people to 20-75! SOC sequestration and food security Agri GHG Conference, Berlin, 2018 Source: Frank et al., 2017
- 11. Non-CO2 mitigation in agriculture Agri GHG Conference, Berlin, 2018 Source: Frank et al., 2018
- 12. Regional non-CO2 mitigation in agriculture Agri GHG Conference, Berlin, 2018 1.7 GtCO2eq at 40 USD/tCO2eq in 2050 Source: Frank et al., 2018
- 13. Conclusions Globally coordinated efforts even with lower ambition outperform regional or sectorial approaches Significant potential for GHG abatement in the AFOLU sector with limited trade-offs: Mitigation of land use change emissions: regional mitigation hot- spots i.e. Indonesia or Congo Basin countries should be targeted SOC sequestration through improved crop- and grassland management, and restoration of organic and degraded soils Non-CO2 mitigation through structural changes & technological options Full mitigation portfolio needed to manage trade-offs with other objectives aside climate change mitigation Agri GHG Conference, Berlin, 2018
- 14. Thank you !