Markus Bonsch

Reactive nitrogen requirements to feed the world in 2050 and potential to mitigate nitrogen pollution

Reactive nitrogen (Nr) is an indispensable nutrient for agricultural production and human alimentation. Simultaneously, agriculture is the largest contributor to Nr pollution, causing severe damages to human health and ecosystem services. The trade-off between food availability and Nr pollution can be attenuated by several key mitigation options, including Nr efficiency improvements in crop and animal production systems, food waste reduction in households and lower consumption of Nr-intensive animal products. However, their quantitative mitigation potential remains unclear, especially under the added pressure of population growth and changes in food consumption. Here we show by model simulations, that under baseline conditions, Nr pollution in 2050 can be expected to rise to 102-156% of the 2010 value. Only under ambitious mitigation, does pollution possibly decrease to 36-76% of the 2010 value. Air, water and atmospheric Nr pollution go far beyond critical environmental thresholds without mitigation actions. Even under ambitious mitigation, the risk remains that thresholds are exceeded.

Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies.

The 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.

Trade‐offs between land and water requirements for large‐scale bioenergy production

Bioenergy is expected to play an important role in the future energy mix as it can substitute fossil fuels and contribute to climate change mitigation. However, large‐scale bioenergy cultivation may put substantial pressure on land and water resources. While irrigated bioenergy production can reduce the pressure on land due to higher yields, associated irrigation water requirements may lead to degradation of freshwater ecosystems and to conflicts with other potential users. In this article, we investigate the trade‐offs between land and water requirements of large‐scale bioenergy production. To this end, we adopt an exogenous demand trajectory for bioenergy from dedicated energy crops, targeted at limiting greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector to 1100 Gt carbon dioxide equivalent until 2095. We then use the spatially explicit global land‐ and water‐use allocation model MAgPIE to project the implications of this bioenergy target for global land and water resources. We find that producing 300 EJ yr−1 of bioenergy in 2095 from dedicated bioenergy crops is likely to double agricultural water withdrawals if no explicit water protection policies are implemented. Since current human water withdrawals are dominated by agriculture and already lead to ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss, such a doubling will pose a severe threat to freshwater ecosystems. If irrigated bioenergy production is prohibited to prevent negative impacts of bioenergy cultivation on water resources, bioenergy land requirements for meeting a 300 EJ yr−1 bioenergy target increase substantially (+ 41%) – mainly at the expense of pasture areas and tropical forests. Thus, avoiding negative environmental impacts of large‐scale bioenergy production will require policies that balance associated water and land requirements.

Land-Use and Carbon Cycle Responses to Moderate Climate Change: Implications for Land-Based Mitigation?

Climate change has impacts on agricultural yields, which could alter cropland requirements and hence deforestation rates. Thus, land-use responses to climate change might influence terrestrial carbon stocks. Moreover, climate change could alter the carbon storage capacity of the terrestrial biosphere and hence the land-based mitigation potential. We use a global spatially explicit economic land-use optimization model to (a) estimate the mitigation potential of a climate policy that provides economic incentives for carbon stock conservation and enhancement, (b) simulate land-use and carbon cycle responses to moderate climate change (RCP2.6), and (c) investigate the combined effects throughout the 21st century. The climate policy immediately stops deforestation and strongly increases afforestation, resulting in a global mitigation potential of 191 GtC in 2100. Climate change increases terrestrial carbon stocks not only directly through enhanced carbon sequestration (62 GtC by 2100) but also indirectly through less deforestation due to higher crop yields (16 GtC by 2100). However, such beneficial climate impacts increase the potential of the climate policy only marginally, as the potential is already large under static climatic conditions. In the broader picture, this study highlights the importance of land-use dynamics for modeling carbon cycle responses to climate change in integrated assessment modeling.

The global economic long-term potential of modern biomass in a climate-constrained world

Low-stabilization scenarios consistent with the 2 °C target project large-scale deployment of purpose-grown lignocellulosic biomass. In case a GHG price regime integrates emissions from energy conversion and from land-use/land-use change, the strong demand for bioenergy and the pricing of terrestrial emissions are likely to coincide. We explore the global potential of purpose-grown lignocellulosic biomass and ask the question how the supply prices of biomass depend on prices for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the land-use sector. Using the spatially explicit global land-use optimization model MAgPIE, we construct bioenergy supply curves for ten world regions and a global aggregate in two scenarios, with and without a GHG tax. We find that the implementation of GHG taxes is crucial for the slope of the supply function and the GHG emissions from the land-use sector. Global supply prices start at

The impact of high-end climate change on agricultural welfare

5 GJ−1 and increase almost linearly, doubling at 150 EJ (in 2055 and 2095). The GHG tax increases bioenergy prices by

Robust strategies of climate change mitigation in interacting energy, economy and land use systems

5 GJ−1 in 2055 and by

Fossil-fueled development (SSP5): An energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century

10 GJ−1 in 2095, since it effectively stops deforestation and thus excludes large amounts of high-productivity land. Prices additionally increase due to costs for N2O emissions from fertilizer use. The GHG tax decreases global land-use change emissions by one-third. However, the carbon emissions due to bioenergy production increase by more than 50% from conversion of land that is not under emission control. Average yields required to produce 240 EJ in 2095 are roughly 600 GJ ha−1 yr−1 with and without tax.

Land-use protection for climate change mitigation

Welfare losses from climate change in agriculture will mainly affect consumers, particularly in the low-latitude regions. Climate 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.

Conservation of undisturbed natural forests and economic impacts on agriculture

Purpose Bioenergy is a key component of climate change mitigation strategies aiming at low stabilization. Its versatility and capacity to generate negative emissions when combined with carbon capture and storage add degrees of freedom to the timing of emission reductions. This paper aims to explore the robustness of a bioenergy-based mitigation strategy by addressing several dimensions of uncertainty on biomass potential, bioenergy use and induced land use change emissions. Design/methodology/approach Different mitigation scenarios were explored by two different energy-economy optimization models coupled to the same land use model, which provides a common basis for the second generation bioenergy dynamics in the two energy-economy models. Findings Using bioenergy is found to be a robust mitigation strategy as demonstrated by high biomass shares in primary energy demand in both models and in all mitigation scenarios. Practical implications A variety of possible storylines about future uses of biomass exist. The comparison of the technology choices preferred by the applied models helps understand how future emission reductions can be achieved under alternative storylines. Originality/value The presented comparison-based assessment goes beyond other comparison studies because both energy-economy models are coupled to the same land use model.