Ronald D. Sands

Climate change effects on agriculture: Economic responses to biophysical shocks

Significance Plausible estimates of climate change impacts on agriculture require integrated use of climate, crop, and economic models. We investigate the contribution of economic models to uncertainty in this impact chain. In the nine economic models included, the direction of management intensity, area, consumption, and international trade responses to harmonized crop yield shocks from climate change are similar. However, the magnitudes differ significantly. The differences depend on model structure, in particular the specification of endogenous yield effects, land use change, and propensity to trade. These results highlight where future research on modeling climate change impacts on agriculture should focus. Agricultural production is sensitive to weather and thus directly affected by climate change. Plausible estimates of these climate change impacts require combined use of climate, crop, and economic models. Results from previous studies vary substantially due to differences in models, scenarios, and data. This paper is part of a collective effort to systematically integrate these three types of models. We focus on the economic component of the assessment, investigating how nine global economic models of agriculture represent endogenous responses to seven standardized climate change scenarios produced by two climate and five crop models. These responses include adjustments in yields, area, consumption, and international trade. We apply biophysical shocks derived from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s representative concentration pathway with end-of-century radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m2. The mean biophysical yield effect with no incremental CO2 fertilization is a 17% reduction globally by 2050 relative to a scenario with unchanging climate. Endogenous economic responses reduce yield loss to 11%, increase area of major crops by 11%, and reduce consumption by 3%. Agricultural production, cropland area, trade, and prices show the greatest degree of variability in response to climate change, and consumption the lowest. The sources of these differences include model structure and specification; in particular, model assumptions about ease of land use conversion, intensification, and trade. This study identifies where models disagree on the relative responses to climate shocks and highlights research activities needed to improve the representation of agricultural adaptation responses to climate change.

Climate change impacts on agriculture in 2050 under a range of plausible socioeconomic and emissions scenarios

Previous studies have combined climate, crop and economic models to examine the impact of climate change on agricultural production and food security, but results have varied widely due to differences in models, scenarios and input data. Recent work has examined (and narrowed) these differences through systematic model intercomparison using a high-emissions pathway to highlight the differences. This paper extends that analysis to explore a range of plausible socioeconomic scenarios and emission pathways. Results from multiple climate and economic models are combined to examine the global and regional impacts of climate change on agricultural yields, area, production, consumption, prices and trade for coarse grains, rice, wheat, oilseeds and sugar crops to 2050. We find that climate impacts on global average yields, area, production and consumption are similar across shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP 1, 2 and 3, as we implement them based on population, income and productivity drivers), except when changes in trade policies are included. Impacts on trade and prices are higher for SSP 3 than SSP 2, and higher for SSP 2 than for SSP 1. Climate impacts for all variables are similar across low to moderate emissions pathways (RCP 4.5 and RCP 6.0), but increase for a higher emissions pathway (RCP 8.5). It is important to note that these global averages may hide regional variations. Projected reductions in agricultural yields due to climate change by 2050 are larger for some crops than those estimated for the past half century, but smaller than projected increases to 2050 due to rising demand and intrinsic productivity growth. Results illustrate the sensitivity of climate change impacts to differences in socioeconomic and emissions pathways. Yield impacts increase at high emissions levels and vary with changes in population, income and technology, but are reduced in all cases by endogenous changes in prices and other variables.

Hotspots of uncertainty in land use and land cover change projections: a global scale model comparison

Abstract Model‐based global projections of future land‐use and land‐cover (LULC) change are frequently used in environmental assessments to study the impact of LULC change on environmental services and to provide decision support for policy. These projections are characterized by a high uncertainty in terms of quantity and allocation of projected changes, which can severely impact the results of environmental assessments. In this study, we identify hotspots of uncertainty, based on 43 simulations from 11 global‐scale LULC change models representing a wide range of assumptions of future biophysical and socioeconomic conditions. We attribute components of uncertainty to input data, model structure, scenario storyline and a residual term, based on a regression analysis and analysis of variance. From this diverse set of models and scenarios, we find that the uncertainty varies, depending on the region and the LULC type under consideration. Hotspots of uncertainty appear mainly at the edges of globally important biomes (e.g., boreal and tropical forests). Our results indicate that an important source of uncertainty in forest and pasture areas originates from different input data applied in the models. Cropland, in contrast, is more consistent among the starting conditions, while variation in the projections gradually increases over time due to diverse scenario assumptions and different modeling approaches. Comparisons at the grid cell level indicate that disagreement is mainly related to LULC type definitions and the individual model allocation schemes. We conclude that improving the quality and consistency of observational data utilized in the modeling process and improving the allocation mechanisms of LULC change models remain important challenges. Current LULC representation in environmental assessments might miss the uncertainty arising from the diversity of LULC change modeling approaches, and many studies ignore the uncertainty in LULC projections in assessments of LULC change impacts on climate, water resources or biodiversity.

Assessing uncertainties in land cover projections

Understanding uncertainties in land cover projections is critical to investigating land-based climate mitigation policies, assessing the potential of climate adaptation strategies and quantifying the impacts of land cover change on the climate system. Here, we identify and quantify uncertainties in global and European land cover projections over a diverse range of model types and scenarios, extending the analysis beyond the agro-economic models included in previous comparisons. The results from 75 simulations over 18 models are analysed and show a large range in land cover area projections, with the highest variability occurring in future cropland areas. We demonstrate systematic differences in land cover areas associated with the characteristics of the modelling approach, which is at least as great as the differences attributed to the scenario variations. The results lead us to conclude that a higher degree of uncertainty exists in land use projections than currently included in climate or earth system projections. To account for land use uncertainty, it is recommended to use a diverse set of models and approaches when assessing the potential impacts of land cover change on future climate. Additionally, further work is needed to better understand the assumptions driving land use model results and reveal the causes of uncertainty in more depth, to help reduce model uncertainty and improve the projections of land cover.

Bio-electricity and land use in the Future Agricultural Resources Model (FARM)

Bio-electricity is an important technology for Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-27) mitigation scenarios, especially with the possibility of negative carbon dioxide emissions when combined with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). With a strong economic foundation, and broad coverage of economic activity, computable general equilibrium models have proven useful for analysis of alternative climate change policies. However, embedding energy technologies in a general equilibrium model is a challenge, especially for a negative emissions technology with joint products of electricity and carbon dioxide storage. We provide a careful implementation of bio-electricity with CCS in a general equilibrium context, and apply it to selected EMF-27 mitigation scenarios through 2100. Representing bio-electricity and its land requirements requires consideration of competing land uses, including crops, pasture, and forests. Land requirements for bio-electricity start at 200 kilohectares per terawatt-hour declining to approximately 70 kilohectares per terwatt-hour by year 2100 in scenarios with high bioenergy potential.

EUROPEAN-LED CLIMATE POLICY VERSUS GLOBAL MITIGATION ACTION: IMPLICATIONS ON TRADE, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENERGY ¤

This paper examines how changes in an international climate regime would affect the European decarbonization strategy and costs through the mechanisms of trade, technology, and innovation. We present the results from the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) model comparison study on European climate policy to 2050. Moving from a no-policy scenario to an existing-policies case reduces all energy imports, on average. Introducing a more stringent climate policy target for the EU only leads to slightly greater global emission reductions. Consumers and producers in Europe bear most of the additional burden and inevitably face some economic losses. More ambitious mitigation action outside Europe, especially when paired with a well-operating global carbon market, could reduce the burden for Europe significantly. Because of global learning, the costs of wind and especially solar-PV in Europe would decline below the levels observed in the existing-policy case and increased R&D spending outside the EU would leverage EU R&D investments as well.

Coordinating AgMIP data and models across global and regional scales for 1.5°C and 2.0°C assessments

The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) has developed novel methods for Coordinated Global and Regional Assessments (CGRA) of agriculture and food security in a changing world. The present study aims to perform a proof of concept of the CGRA to demonstrate advantages and challenges of the proposed framework. This effort responds to the request by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for the implications of limiting global temperature increases to 1.5°C and 2.0°C above pre-industrial conditions. The protocols for the 1.5°C/2.0°C assessment establish explicit and testable linkages across disciplines and scales, connecting outputs and inputs from the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs), Representative Agricultural Pathways (RAPs), Half a degree Additional warming, Prognosis and Projected Impacts (HAPPI) and Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) ensemble scenarios, global gridded crop models, global agricultural economics models, site-based crop models and within-country regional economics models. The CGRA consistently links disciplines, models and scales in order to track the complex chain of climate impacts and identify key vulnerabilities, feedbacks and uncertainties in managing future risk. CGRA proof-of-concept results show that, at the global scale, there are mixed areas of positive and negative simulated wheat and maize yield changes, with declines in some breadbasket regions, at both 1.5°C and 2.0°C. Declines are especially evident in simulations that do not take into account direct CO2 effects on crops. These projected global yield changes mostly resulted in increases in prices and areas of wheat and maize in two global economics models. Regional simulations for 1.5°C and 2.0°C using site-based crop models had mixed results depending on the region and the crop. In conjunction with price changes from the global economics models, productivity declines in the Punjab, Pakistan, resulted in an increase in vulnerable households and the poverty rate. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

Representing technology in CGE models: a comparison of SGM and AMIGA for electricity sector CO2 mitigation

The goal of this effort is to compare two climate economic models – the Second Generation Model (SGM) and All Modular Industry Growth Assessment Model (AMIGA) – and highlight the consequences of different modelling approaches and structures on the estimation of climate change policy results. We show that different assumptions about how technology choices are made in the US electricity sector in response to a carbon charge can lead to differences in estimates of environmental, fuel market, and economy-wide impacts. If the differences among models can be better understood, improvements in the models may be made and policy makers will be better informed by the insights provided by the models.