Center for Global Trade AnalysisDepartment of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University403 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2056 USA

contactgtap@purdue.eduhttp://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu

Global Trade Analysis Project

Climate change and the Energy-Agriculture-Climate Change

nexusDominique van der Mensbrugghe

Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University

Long-term scenario building for food and agriculture: A global overall model for FAOBrainstorming workshop, 19 February 2016

Global Perspectives Studies (GPS) Team, ESA FAO UN – Rome

2

• Greenhouse gas emissions• Agriculture and related land-use 25-33%

• Changing atmospheric chemistry and climate• Variance perhaps more critical than mean• But climate models do not agree on either• and there are variegated changes on a regional basis

• Potentially large impacts on resources and economies• Land (and capital) availability• Yields (temperature, water, pests and diseases)• Other ag and non-ag: labor productivity, health, energy demand, tourism

Climate change

3

• Mitigation• Tax/price on carbon• REDD• Regulatory

• Adaptation• Level of adaptation depends on size of climate signal• Climate smart agriculture• Changes in farming practices• Investment (e.g. irrigation)• Crop switching, crop movements• Issue: autonomous vs. exogenous

Economic reactions

Climate and economic impacts

xea xlc mex idn ssa mna tur xsa bra xha usa wld ind hic jpn eur arg xec chn rus can-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

TOUENDHHEONJSEAWATAGR

Percent change in GDP in 2050, relative to no-damage scenario

5

• Integrated assessment• Model coupling (climate, crop models, water)• Integrated EMICs

• Open loop coupling• Climate signal from GCMs• Yield/area impacts from crop models (possibly farm management

practices)• Carbon taxes

Modeling options

6

• Supply side• Energy (machinery, irrigation, heating)• Fertilizers• Down-stream (transportation, food processing, preparation & cooking)

Energy-agriculture nexus

7

• Demand side• 1st generation biofuels

• Ethanol (corn—USA, sugar—Brazil)• Biodiesel (oil crops)

• Direct competition of land for food production and/or deforestation• 2nd generation biofuels

• Dedicated wood crops• Wood and crop residues

• Impact on land uncertain, but likely reduced• Key question: Competitiveness and substitutability with

conventional technologies (and their future availability)

Energy-agriculture nexus

8

• Largely focused on mitigation efforts• To what extent is bioenergy emission reducing?

• Linked to land-use changes• Yield improvements• Source of feedstock

Energy-agriculture-climate change nexus

9

SSP5(Mitigation challenges dominate)

Fossil-fueled DevelopmentTaking the Highway

SSP3(High challenges)

Regional RivalryA Rocky Road

SSP1(Low challenges)

SustainabilityTaking the Green Road

SSP4(Adaptation challenges dominate)

InequalityA Road Divided

SSP2(Intermediate challenges)

Middle of the Road

Two-axes: adaptation & mitigation challenges

Socio-economic challenges for adaptation

Soci

o-ec

onom

ic

chal

leng

es fo

r miti

gatio

n

Source: O’Neill et al. 2015

10

SSP1 SSP2 SSP3 SSP4 SSP5

RCP 8.5 REF

RCP 6.0 REF REF REF REF

RCP 4.5

RCP 2.6 X X

Range of climate signal outcomes depends on SSPs and mitigation policies

• 3 model comparison• Significant differences in the land-use modeling across models that has implications for bioenergy deployment, feedstock composition, and GHG emissions.

Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization

Popp et al. 2014

12

• (All) land uses and carbon content• Bioenergy cost curves for various technologies• Prices of conventional energy technologies• ‘Share’ parameters for bioenergy technologies in energy

bundles (liquid fuels, power sector, other)• Recommend looking at GCAM model

• HUGE research agenda—uncertainty

Data/Modeling requirements