http://www.fao.org/economic/esa/esag/en/ Climate change and the Energy-Agriculture-Climate Change nexus.

1. Center for Global Trade Analysis
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University
403 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2056 USA
contactgtap@purdue.edu
http://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu
Global Trade Analysis Project
Climate change and the Energy-
Agriculture-Climate Change nexus
Dominique van der Mensbrugghe
Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University
Long-term scenario building for food and agriculture: A global overall model for FAO
Brainstorming 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
2

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
3

4. Climate and economic impacts
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
xea xlc mex idn ssa mna tur xsa bra xha usa wld ind hic jpn eur arg xec chn rus can
TOU
END
HHE
ONJ
SEA
WAT
AGR
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
5

6. • Supply side
• Energy (machinery, irrigation, heating)
• Fertilizers
• Down-stream (transportation, food processing, preparation & cooking)
Energy-agriculture nexus
6

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
7

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
8

9. SSP5
(Mitigation challenges dominate)
Fossil-fueled Development
Taking the Highway
SSP3
(High challenges)
Regional Rivalry
A Rocky Road
SSP1
(Low challenges)
Sustainability
Taking the Green Road
SSP4
(Adaptation challenges dominate)
Inequality
A Road Divided
SSP2
(Intermediate challenges)
Middle of the Road
Two-axes: adaptation & mitigation challenges
9
Socio-economic challenges for adaptation
Socio-economic
challengesformitigation
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
10

11. • 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
12