Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways
Alexander Popp1, Katherine Calvin2, Shinichiro Fujimori3, Petr Havlik4, Florian Humpenöder1, Elke Stehfest5, Benjamin Leon Bodirsky6, Benjamin Leon Bodirsky1, Jan Philipp Dietrich1, Jonathan C. Doelmann5, Mykola Gusti7, Mykola Gusti4, Tomoko Hasegawa3, Page Kyle2, Michael Obersteiner4, Andrzej Tabeau8, Kiyoshi Takahashi3, Hugo Valin4, Stephanie Waldhoff2, Isabelle Weindl1, Isabelle Weindl9, Marshall Wise2, Elmar Kriegler1, Hermann Lotze-Campen1, Hermann Lotze-Campen10, Oliver Fricko4, Keywan Riahi11, Keywan Riahi4, Detlef P. van Vuuren12, Detlef P. van Vuuren11 •
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research1, Joint Global Change Research Institute2, National Institute for Environmental Studies3, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis4, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency5, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation6, Lviv Polytechnic7, Wageningen University and Research Centre8, Leibniz Association9, Humboldt University of Berlin10, Graz University of Technology11, Utrecht University12
01 Jan 2017-Global Environmental Change-human and Policy Dimensions (Elsevier BV)-Vol. 42, pp 331-345
TL;DR: In this paper, a systematic interpretation of the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) in terms of possible land-use changes and their consequences for the agricultural system, food provision and prices as well as greenhouse gas emissions is presented.
Abstract: In the future, the land system will be facing new intersecting challenges While food demand, especially for resource-intensive livestock based commodities, is expected to increase, the terrestrial system has large potentials for climate change mitigation through improved agricultural management, providing biomass for bioenergy, and conserving or even enhancing carbon stocks of ecosystems However, uncertainties in future socio-economic land use drivers may result in very different land-use dynamics and consequences for land-based ecosystem services This is the first study with a systematic interpretation of the Shared Socio-Economic Pathways (SSPs) in terms of possible land-use changes and their consequences for the agricultural system, food provision and prices as well as greenhouse gas emissions Therefore, five alternative Integrated Assessment Models with distinctive land-use modules have been used for the translation of the SSP narratives into quantitative projections The model results reflect the general storylines of the SSPs and indicate a broad range of potential land-use futures with global agricultural land of 4900 mio ha in 2005 decreasing by 743 mio ha until 2100 at the lower (SSP1) and increasing by 1080 mio ha (SSP3) at the upper end Greenhouse gas emissions from land use and land use change, as a direct outcome of these diverse land-use dynamics, and agricultural production systems differ strongly across SSPs (eg cumulative land use change emissions between 2005 and 2100 range from −54 to 402 Gt CO2) The inclusion of land-based mitigation efforts, particularly those in the most ambitious mitigation scenarios, further broadens the range of potential land futures and can strongly affect greenhouse gas dynamics and food prices In general, it can be concluded that low demand for agricultural commodities, rapid growth in agricultural productivity and globalized trade, all most pronounced in a SSP1 world, have the potential to enhance the extent of natural ecosystems, lead to lowest greenhouse gas emissions from the land system and decrease food prices over time The SSP-based land use pathways presented in this paper aim at supporting future climate research and provide the basis for further regional integrated assessments, biodiversity research and climate impact analysis
Citations
More filters
Keywan Riahi1, Detlef P. van Vuuren2, Elmar Kriegler3, Jae Edmonds4, Brian C. O'Neill5, Shinichiro Fujimori6, Nico Bauer3, Katherine Calvin4, Rob Dellink7, Oliver Fricko1, Wolfgang Lutz1, Alexander Popp3, Jesus Crespo Cuaresma1, Samir Kc1, Samir Kc8, Marian Leimbach3, Leiwen Jiang5, Tom Kram2, Shilpa Rao1, Johannes Emmerling9, Kristie L. Ebi10, Tomoko Hasegawa6, Petr Havlik1, Florian Humpenöder3, Lara Aleluia Da Silva9, Steve Smith4, Elke Stehfest2, Valentina Bosetti11, Valentina Bosetti9, Jiyong Eom12, Jiyong Eom4, David E.H.J. Gernaat2, Toshihiko Masui6, Joeri Rogelj1, Jessica Strefler3, Laurent Drouet9, Volker Krey1, Gunnar Luderer3, Mathijs Harmsen2, Kiyoshi Takahashi6, Lavinia Baumstark3, Jonathan C. Doelman2, Mikiko Kainuma6, Zbigniew Klimont1, Giacomo Marangoni9, Hermann Lotze-Campen13, Hermann Lotze-Campen3, Michael Obersteiner1, Andrzej Tabeau14, Massimo Tavoni9, Massimo Tavoni15 •
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis1, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency2, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research3, Joint Global Change Research Institute4, National Center for Atmospheric Research5, National Institute for Environmental Studies6, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development7, Shanghai University8, Eni9, University of Washington10, Bocconi University11, KAIST12, Humboldt University of Berlin13, Wageningen University and Research Centre14, Polytechnic University of Milan15
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present the overview of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and their energy, land use, and emissions implications, and find that associated costs strongly depend on three factors: (1) the policy assumptions, (2) the socioeconomic narrative, and (3) the stringency of the target.
Abstract: This paper presents the overview of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and their energy, land use, and emissions implications. The SSPs are part of a new scenario framework, established by the climate change research community in order to facilitate the integrated analysis of future climate impacts, vulnerabilities, adaptation, and mitigation. The pathways were developed over the last years as a joint community effort and describe plausible major global developments that together would lead in the future to different challenges for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. The SSPs are based on five narratives describing alternative socio-economic developments, including sustainable development, regional rivalry, inequality, fossil-fueled development, and middle-of-the-road development. The long-term demographic and economic projections of the SSPs depict a wide uncertainty range consistent with the scenario literature. A multi-model approach was used for the elaboration of the energy, land-use and the emissions trajectories of SSP-based scenarios. The baseline scenarios lead to global energy consumption of 400–1200 EJ in 2100, and feature vastly different land-use dynamics, ranging from a possible reduction in cropland area up to a massive expansion by more than 700 million hectares by 2100. The associated annual CO 2 emissions of the baseline scenarios range from about 25 GtCO 2 to more than 120 GtCO 2 per year by 2100. With respect to mitigation, we find that associated costs strongly depend on three factors: (1) the policy assumptions, (2) the socio-economic narrative, and (3) the stringency of the target. The carbon price for reaching the target of 2.6 W/m 2 that is consistent with a temperature change limit of 2 °C, differs in our analysis thus by about a factor of three across the SSP marker scenarios. Moreover, many models could not reach this target from the SSPs with high mitigation challenges. While the SSPs were designed to represent different mitigation and adaptation challenges, the resulting narratives and quantifications span a wide range of different futures broadly representative of the current literature. This allows their subsequent use and development in new assessments and research projects. Critical next steps for the community scenario process will, among others, involve regional and sectoral extensions, further elaboration of the adaptation and impacts dimension, as well as employing the SSP scenarios with the new generation of earth system models as part of the 6th climate model intercomparison project (CMIP6).
2,644 citations
Brian C. O'Neill1, Claudia Tebaldi1, Detlef P. van Vuuren2, Detlef P. van Vuuren3, Veronika Eyring4, Pierre Friedlingstein5, George C. Hurtt6, Reto Knutti7, Elmar Kriegler8, Jean-Francois Lamarque1, Jason Lowe9, Gerald A. Meehl1, Richard H. Moss6, Keywan Riahi10, Keywan Riahi11, Benjamin M. Sanderson1 •
National Center for Atmospheric Research1, Utrecht University2, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency3, German Aerospace Center4, University of Exeter5, University of Maryland, College Park6, ETH Zurich7, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research8, Met Office9, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis10, Graz University of Technology11
TL;DR: The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) as discussed by the authors is the primary activity within Phase 6 of the Coupled Model Comparison Project (CMIP6) that will provide multi-model climate projections based on alternative scenarios of future emissions and land use changes produced with integrated assessment models.
Abstract: . Projections of future climate change play a fundamental role in improving understanding of the climate system as well as characterizing societal risks and response options. The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) is the primary activity within Phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) that will provide multi-model climate projections based on alternative scenarios of future emissions and land use changes produced with integrated assessment models. In this paper, we describe ScenarioMIP's objectives, experimental design, and its relation to other activities within CMIP6. The ScenarioMIP design is one component of a larger scenario process that aims to facilitate a wide range of integrated studies across the climate science, integrated assessment modeling, and impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability communities, and will form an important part of the evidence base in the forthcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments. At the same time, it will provide the basis for investigating a number of targeted science and policy questions that are especially relevant to scenario-based analysis, including the role of specific forcings such as land use and aerosols, the effect of a peak and decline in forcing, the consequences of scenarios that limit warming to below 2 °C, the relative contributions to uncertainty from scenarios, climate models, and internal variability, and long-term climate system outcomes beyond the 21st century. To serve this wide range of scientific communities and address these questions, a design has been identified consisting of eight alternative 21st century scenarios plus one large initial condition ensemble and a set of long-term extensions, divided into two tiers defined by relative priority. Some of these scenarios will also provide a basis for variants planned to be run in other CMIP6-Endorsed MIPs to investigate questions related to specific forcings. Harmonized, spatially explicit emissions and land use scenarios generated with integrated assessment models will be provided to participating climate modeling groups by late 2016, with the climate model simulations run within the 2017–2018 time frame, and output from the climate model projections made available and analyses performed over the 2018–2020 period.
1,758 citations
Sabine Fuss, William F. Lamb, Max Callaghan1, Jérôme Hilaire2, Felix Creutzig3, Thorben Amann4, Tim Beringer, Wagner de Oliveira Garcia4, Jens Hartmann4, Tarun Khanna, Gunnar Luderer2, Gregory F. Nemet5, Joeri Rogelj6, Joeri Rogelj7, Pete Smith8, Jose Luis Vicente Vicente, Jennifer Wilcox9, Maria del Mar Zamora Dominguez, Jan C. Minx1 •
TL;DR: In this paper, a comprehensive review of negative emissions technologies (NETs) is presented, focusing on seven technologies: bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), afforestation and reforestation, enhanced weathering, ocean fertilisation, biochar, and soil carbon sequestration.
Abstract: The most recent IPCC assessment has shown an important role for negative emissions technologies (NETs) in limiting global warming to 2 °C cost-effectively. However, a bottom-up, systematic, reproducible, and transparent literature assessment of the different options to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is currently missing. In part 1 of this three-part review on NETs, we assemble a comprehensive set of the relevant literature so far published, focusing on seven technologies: bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), afforestation and reforestation, direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS), enhanced weathering, ocean fertilisation, biochar, and soil carbon sequestration. In this part, part 2 of the review, we present estimates of costs, potentials, and side-effects for these technologies, and qualify them with the authors' assessment. Part 3 reviews the innovation and scaling challenges that must be addressed to realise NETs deployment as a viable climate mitigation strategy. Based on a systematic review of the literature, our best estimates for sustainable global NET potentials in 2050 are 0.5–3.6 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ for afforestation and reforestation, 0.5–5 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ for BECCS, 0.5–2 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ for biochar, 2–4 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ for enhanced weathering, 0.5–5 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ for DACCS, and up to 5 GtCO2 yr⁻¹ for soil carbon sequestration. Costs vary widely across the technologies, as do their permanency and cumulative potentials beyond 2050. It is unlikely that a single NET will be able to sustainably meet the rates of carbon uptake described in integrated assessment pathways consistent with 1.5 °C of global warming.
772 citations
Joeri Rogelj1, Joeri Rogelj2, Alexander Popp3, Katherine Calvin4, Gunnar Luderer3, Johannes Emmerling5, David E.H.J. Gernaat6, David E.H.J. Gernaat7, Shinichiro Fujimori1, Shinichiro Fujimori8, Jessica Strefler3, Tomoko Hasegawa8, Tomoko Hasegawa1, Giacomo Marangoni5, Volker Krey1, Elmar Kriegler3, Keywan Riahi1, Detlef P. van Vuuren6, Detlef P. van Vuuren7, Jonathan C. Doelman6, Laurent Drouet5, Jae Edmonds4, Oliver Fricko1, Mathijs Harmsen7, Mathijs Harmsen6, Petr Havlik1, Florian Humpenöder3, Elke Stehfest6, Massimo Tavoni5, Massimo Tavoni9 •
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis1, ETH Zurich2, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research3, Joint Global Change Research Institute4, Eni5, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency6, Utrecht University7, National Institute for Environmental Studies8, Polytechnic University of Milan9
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe scenarios that limit end-of-century radiative forcing to 1.9 Wm−2, and consequently restrict median warming in the year 2100 to below 1.5 W m−2.
Abstract: The 2015 Paris Agreement calls for countries to pursue efforts to limit global-mean temperature rise to 1.5 °C. The transition pathways that can meet such a target have not, however, been extensively explored. Here we describe scenarios that limit end-of-century radiative forcing to 1.9 W m−2, and consequently restrict median warming in the year 2100 to below 1.5 °C. We use six integrated assessment models and a simple climate model, under different socio-economic, technological and resource assumptions from five Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs). Some, but not all, SSPs are amenable to pathways to 1.5 °C. Successful 1.9 W m−2 scenarios are characterized by a rapid shift away from traditional fossil-fuel use towards large-scale low-carbon energy supplies, reduced energy use, and carbon-dioxide removal. However, 1.9 W m−2 scenarios could not be achieved in several models under SSPs with strong inequalities, high baseline fossil-fuel use, or scattered short-term climate policy. Further research can help policy-makers to understand the real-world implications of these scenarios.
733 citations
References
More filters
Jonathan A. Foley1, Ruth DeFries2, Gregory P. Asner3, Carol C. Barford1, Gordon B. Bonan4, Stephen R. Carpenter1, F. Stuart Chapin5, Michael T. Coe6, Michael T. Coe1, Gretchen C. Daily7, Holly K. Gibbs1, Joseph H. Helkowski1, Tracey Holloway1, Erica A. Howard1, Christopher J. Kucharik1, Chad Monfreda1, Jonathan A. Patz1, I. Colin Prentice8, Navin Ramankutty1, Peter K. Snyder9 •
University of Wisconsin-Madison1, University of Maryland, College Park2, Carnegie Institution for Science3, National Center for Atmospheric Research4, University of Alaska Fairbanks5, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution6, Stanford University7, University of Bristol8, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign9
TL;DR: Global croplands, pastures, plantations, and urban areas have expanded in recent decades, accompanied by large increases in energy, water, and fertilizer consumption, along with considerable losses of biodiversity.
Abstract: Land use has generally been considered a local environmental issue, but it is becoming a force of global importance. Worldwide changes to forests, farmlands, waterways, and air are being driven by the need to provide food, fiber, water, and shelter to more than six billion people. Global croplands, pastures, plantations, and urban areas have expanded in recent decades, accompanied by large increases in energy, water, and fertilizer consumption, along with considerable losses of biodiversity. Such changes in land use have enabled humans to appropriate an increasing share of the planet’s resources, but they also potentially undermine the capacity of ecosystems to sustain food production, maintain freshwater and forest resources, regulate climate and air quality, and ameliorate infectious diseases. We face the challenge of managing trade-offs between immediate human needs and maintaining the capacity of the biosphere to provide goods and services in the long term.
10,117 citations
Detlef P. van Vuuren1, Detlef P. van Vuuren2, Jae Edmonds3, Mikiko Kainuma4, Keywan Riahi5, Allison M. Thomson3, Kathy Hibbard6, George C. Hurtt3, George C. Hurtt7, Tom Kram2, Volker Krey5, Jean-Francois Lamarque8, Toshihiko Masui4, Malte Meinshausen9, Nebojsa Nakicenovic10, Nebojsa Nakicenovic5, Steven J. Smith3, Steven K. Rose11 •
Utrecht University1, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency2, Joint Global Change Research Institute3, National Institute for Environmental Studies4, International Institute of Minnesota5, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory6, University of Maryland, College Park7, National Center for Atmospheric Research8, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research9, Vienna University of Technology10, Electric Power Research Institute11
TL;DR: The Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) as discussed by the authors is a set of four new pathways developed for the climate modeling community as a basis for long-term and near-term modeling experiments.
Abstract: This paper summarizes the development process and main characteristics of the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), a set of four new pathways developed for the climate modeling community as a basis for long-term and near-term modeling experiments. The four RCPs together span the range of year 2100 radiative forcing values found in the open literature, i.e. from 2.6 to 8.5 W/m 2 . The RCPs are the product of an innovative collaboration between integrated assessment modelers, climate modelers, terrestrial ecosystem modelers and emission inventory experts. The resulting product forms a comprehensive data set with high spatial and sectoral resolutions for the period extending to 2100. Land use and emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases are reported mostly at a 0.5×0.5 degree spatial resolution, with air pollutants also provided per sector (for well-mixed gases, a coarser resolution is used). The underlying integrated assessment model outputs for land use, atmospheric emissions and concentration data were harmonized across models and scenarios to ensure consistency with historical observations while preserving individual scenario trends. For most variables, the RCPs cover a wide range of the existing literature. The RCPs are supplemented with extensions (Extended Concentration Pathways, ECPs), which allow
6,169 citations
TL;DR: Per capita demand for crops, when measured as caloric or protein content of all crops combined, has been a similarly increasing function of per capita real income since 1960 and forecasts a 100–110% increase in global crop demand from 2005 to 2050.
Abstract: Global food demand is increasing rapidly, as are the environmental impacts of agricultural expansion. Here, we project global demand for crop production in 2050 and evaluate the environmental impacts of alternative ways that this demand might be met. We find that per capita demand for crops, when measured as caloric or protein content of all crops combined, has been a similarly increasing function of per capita real income since 1960. This relationship forecasts a 100–110% increase in global crop demand from 2005 to 2050. Quantitative assessments show that the environmental impacts of meeting this demand depend on how global agriculture expands. If current trends of greater agricultural intensification in richer nations and greater land clearing (extensification) in poorer nations were to continue, ∼1 billion ha of land would be cleared globally by 2050, with CO2-C equivalent greenhouse gas emissions reaching ∼3 Gt y−1 and N use ∼250 Mt y−1 by then. In contrast, if 2050 crop demand was met by moderate intensification focused on existing croplands of underyielding nations, adaptation and transfer of high-yielding technologies to these croplands, and global technological improvements, our analyses forecast land clearing of only ∼0.2 billion ha, greenhouse gas emissions of ∼1 Gt y−1, and global N use of ∼225 Mt y−1. Efficient management practices could substantially lower nitrogen use. Attainment of high yields on existing croplands of underyielding nations is of great importance if global crop demand is to be met with minimal environmental impacts.
5,303 citations
Related Papers (5)
Keywan Riahi, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Elmar Kriegler, Jae Edmonds, Brian C. O'Neill, Shinichiro Fujimori, Nico Bauer, Katherine Calvin, Rob Dellink, Oliver Fricko, Wolfgang Lutz, Alexander Popp, Jesus Crespo Cuaresma, Samir Kc, Samir Kc, Marian Leimbach, Leiwen Jiang, Tom Kram, Shilpa Rao, Johannes Emmerling, Kristie L. Ebi, Tomoko Hasegawa, Petr Havlik, Florian Humpenöder, Lara Aleluia Da Silva, Steve Smith, Elke Stehfest, Valentina Bosetti, Valentina Bosetti, Jiyong Eom, Jiyong Eom, David E.H.J. Gernaat, Toshihiko Masui, Joeri Rogelj, Jessica Strefler, Laurent Drouet, Volker Krey, Gunnar Luderer, Mathijs Harmsen, Kiyoshi Takahashi, Lavinia Baumstark, Jonathan C. Doelman, Mikiko Kainuma, Zbigniew Klimont, Giacomo Marangoni, Hermann Lotze-Campen, Hermann Lotze-Campen, Michael Obersteiner, Andrzej Tabeau, Massimo Tavoni, Massimo Tavoni
Detlef P. van Vuuren, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Jae Edmonds, Mikiko Kainuma, Keywan Riahi, Allison M. Thomson, Kathy Hibbard, George C. Hurtt, George C. Hurtt, Tom Kram, Volker Krey, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Toshihiko Masui, Malte Meinshausen, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Steven J. Smith, Steven K. Rose