Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5 °C climate goal

Fujimori, Shinichiro; Hasegawa, Tomoko; Rogelj, Joeri; Su, Xuanming; Havlík, Petr; Krey, Volker; Toko, Kiyoshi; Riahi, Keywan

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aad0f7

Cited by 57 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(36 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The exploration of future global land use in international assessments started in the 1990s (SRES) 1 and gained increasing importance in environmental outlooks and assessments 2,3 . During the last decade, the number of studies and models on global land-use projections has increased tremendously, reflecting concerns about land scarcity, climate change impacts or bioenergy threatening food security 4–7 , loss of natural areas and biodiversity, and sustainable development in general 8,9 . However, despite the central role of land use in future environmental change, the modeling and systematic model comparison of global land-use projections is still in its infancy 10,11 and the uncertainty in results is large 12–15 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Key determinants of global land-use projections

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land use is at the core of various sustainable development goals. Long-term climate foresight studies have structured their recent analyses around five socio-economic pathways (SSPs), with consistent storylines of future macroeconomic and societal developments; however, model quantification of these scenarios shows substantial heterogeneity in land-use projections. Here we build on a recently developed sensitivity approach to identify how future land use depends on six distinct socio-economic drivers (population, wealth, consumption preferences, agricultural productivity, land-use regulation, and trade) and their interactions. Spread across models arises mostly from diverging sensitivities to long-term drivers and from various representations of land-use regulation and trade, calling for reconciliation efforts and more empirical research. Most influential determinants for future cropland and pasture extent are population and agricultural efficiency. Furthermore, land-use regulation and consumption changes can play a key role in reducing both land use and food-security risks, and need to be central elements in sustainable development strategies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Key determinants of global land-use projections

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The global community agreed with the Paris agreement to limiting global warming to 2.0°C, with the stated ambition to attempt to cap warming at 1.5°C (UNFCCC, ). While limiting the extent of climate change is critical, the more ambitious 1.5°C mitigation strategy will likely require considerable mitigation effort in the agricultural land use sector (Fujimori et al, ), with some studies suggesting this would actually have more negative consequence for food security than climate change impacts of 2.0°C (Frank et al, ; Ruane, Antle, et al, ; van Meijl et al, ). However, these economic land use studies generally only consider the average effects of climate change and not the changes in yield variability and risk of yield failure, key factors constraining intensification efforts in many developing regions (Kalkuhl, Braun, & Torero, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global wheat production with 1.5 and 2.0°C above pre‐industrial warming

Liu

Martre

Ewert

et al. 2019

Global Change Biology

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efforts to limit global warming to below 2°C in relation to the pre‐industrial level are under way, in accordance with the 2015 Paris Agreement. However, most impact research on agriculture to date has focused on impacts of warming >2°C on mean crop yields, and many previous studies did not focus sufficiently on extreme events and yield interannual variability. Here, with the latest climate scenarios from the Half a degree Additional warming, Prognosis and Projected Impacts (HAPPI) project, we evaluated the impacts of the 2015 Paris Agreement range of global warming (1.5 and 2.0°C warming above the pre‐industrial period) on global wheat production and local yield variability. A multi‐crop and multi‐climate model ensemble over a global network of sites developed by the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) for Wheat was used to represent major rainfed and irrigated wheat cropping systems. Results show that projected global wheat production will change by −2.3% to 7.0% under the 1.5°C scenario and −2.4% to 10.5% under the 2.0°C scenario, compared to a baseline of 1980–2010, when considering changes in local temperature, rainfall, and global atmospheric CO2 concentration, but no changes in management or wheat cultivars. The projected impact on wheat production varies spatially; a larger increase is projected for temperate high rainfall regions than for moderate hot low rainfall and irrigated regions. Grain yields in warmer regions are more likely to be reduced than in cooler regions. Despite mostly positive impacts on global average grain yields, the frequency of extremely low yields (bottom 5 percentile of baseline distribution) and yield inter‐annual variability will increase under both warming scenarios for some of the hot growing locations, including locations from the second largest global wheat producer—India, which supplies more than 14% of global wheat. The projected global impact of warming <2°C on wheat production is therefore not evenly distributed and will affect regional food security across the globe as well as food prices and trade.

show abstract

“…Consistent emission budgets and pathways are derived from previous climate model simulations [26]. Additional constraints ensure energy demands are consistent with universal energy access, prevent bioenergy from being sourced from irrigated crops, and limit the carbon price of land-based mitigation measures to avoid impacts to food pricing in low-income regions [20,29,30].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balancing clean water-climate change mitigation trade-offs

Parkinson

Krey

Huppmann

et al. 2019

Environ. Res. Lett.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Energy systems support technical solutions fulfilling the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal for clean water and sanitation (SDG6), with implications for future energy demands and greenhouse gas emissions. The energy sector is also a large consumer of water, making water efficiency targets ingrained in SDG6 important constraints for long-term energy planning. Here, we apply a global integrated assessment model to quantify the cost and characteristics of infrastructure pathways balancing SDG6 targets for water access, scarcity, treatment and efficiency with long-term energy transformations limiting climate warming to 1.5°C. Under a mid-range human development scenario, we find that approximately 1 trillion USD2010 per year is required to close water infrastructure gaps and operate water systems consistent with achieving SDG6 goals by 2030. Adding a 1.5°C climate policy constraint increases these costs by up to 8%. In the reverse direction, when the SDG6 targets are added on top of the 1.5°C policy constraint, the cost to transform and operate energy systems increases 2%-9% relative to a baseline 1.5°C scenario that does not achieve the SDG6 targets by 2030. Cost increases in the SDG6 pathways are due to expanded use of energy-intensive water treatment and costs associated with water conservation measures in power generation, municipal, manufacturing and agricultural sectors. Combined global spending (capital and operational expenditures) to 2030 on water, energy and land systems increases 92%-125% in the integrated SDG6-1.5°C scenarios relative to a baseline 'no policy' scenario. Evaluation of the multi-sectoral policies underscores the importance of water conservation and integrated water-energy planning for avoiding costs from interacting water, energy and climate goals.

show abstract

Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5 °C climate goal

Cited by 57 publications

References 30 publications

Key determinants of global land-use projections

Key determinants of global land-use projections

Global wheat production with 1.5 and 2.0°C above pre‐industrial warming

Balancing clean water-climate change mitigation trade-offs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About