Agricultural non-CO2 emission reduction potential in the context of the 1.5 °C target (original) (raw)

• IPCC Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
• Global Anthropogenic Non-CO 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990–2030 (EPA, 2012).
• Tubiello, F. N. et al. The contribution of agriculture, forestry and other land use activities to global warming, 1990–2012. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 2655–2660 (2015).
  Article Google Scholar
• West, P. C. et al. Leverage points for improving global food security and the environment. Science 345, 325–328 (2014).
  Article CAS Google Scholar
• Smith, K. A. Changing views of nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soil: key controlling processes and assessment at different spatial scales. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 68, 137–155 (2017).
  Article CAS Google Scholar
• Tubiello, F. et al. The FAOSTAT database of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 015009 (2013).
  Article Google Scholar
• IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
• Burney, J. A., Davis, S. J. & Lobell, D. B. Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 12052–12057 (2010).
  Article CAS Google Scholar
• Schellnhuber, H. J., Rahmstorf, S. & Winkelmann, R. Why the right climate target was agreed in Paris. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 649–653 (2016).
  Article Google Scholar
• Millar, R. J. et al. Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C. Nat. Geosci. 10, 741–747 (2017).
  Article CAS Google Scholar
• Rockström, J. et al. A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science 355, 1269–1271 (2017).
  Article Google Scholar
• Rogelj, J. et al. Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 519–527 (2015).
  Article Google Scholar
• Rogelj, J. et al. Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 325–332 (2018).
  Article CAS Google Scholar
• Frank, S. et al. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security? Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 105004 (2017).
  Article Google Scholar
• Obersteiner, M. et al. How to spend a dwindling greenhouse gas budget. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 7–10 (2018).
  Article Google Scholar
• Doelman, J. C. et al. Exploring SSP land-use dynamics using the IMAGE model: regional and gridded scenarios of land-use change and land-based climate change mitigation. Glob. Environ. Change 48, 119–135 (2018).
  Article Google Scholar
• Kreidenweis, U. et al. Afforestation to mitigate climate change: impacts on food prices under consideration of albedo effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 085001 (2016).
  Article Google Scholar
• Hasegawa, T. et al. Consequence of climate mitigation on the risk of hunger. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 7245–7253 (2015).
  Article CAS Google Scholar
• Van Meijl, H. et al. Comparing impacts of climate change and mitigation on global agriculture by 2050. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 064021 (2018).
  Article Google Scholar
• Fuss, S. et al. Betting on negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 850–853 (2014).
  Article CAS Google Scholar
• Smith, P. Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1315–1324 (2016).
  Article Google Scholar
• Gernaat, D. E. H. J. et al. Understanding the contribution of non-carbon dioxide gases in deep mitigation scenarios. Glob. Environ. Change 33, 142–153 (2015).
  Article Google Scholar
• van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Alternative pathways to the 1.5 °C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 391–397 (2018).
  Article Google Scholar
• Beach, R. H. et al. Global mitigation potential and costs of reducing agricultural non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions through 2030. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 12, 87–105 (2015).
  Article Google Scholar
• Smith, P. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 363, 789–813 (2008).
  Article CAS Google Scholar
• Henderson, B. et al. Marginal costs of abating greenhouse gases in the global ruminant livestock sector. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 22, 1–26 (2015).
  Google Scholar
• Wollenberg, E. et al. Reducing emissions from agriculture to meet the 2 °C target. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 3859–3864 (2016).
  Article Google Scholar
• Herrero, M. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 452–461 (2016).
  Article Google Scholar
• Frank, S. et al. Structural change as a key component for agricultural non-CO2 mitigation efforts. Nat. Commun. 9, 1060 (2018).
  Article Google Scholar
• Lucas, P. L., van Vuuren, D. P., Olivier, J. G. J. & den Elzen, M. G. J. Long-term reduction potential of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 85–103 (2007).
  Article Google Scholar
• Havlík, P. et al. Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3709–3714 (2014).
  Article Google Scholar
• Vermont, B. & De Cara, S. How costly is mitigation of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture? Ecol. Econ. 69, 1373–1386 (2010).
  Article Google Scholar
• Stehfest, E. et al. Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic Change 95, 83–102 (2009).
  Article CAS Google Scholar
• Bajzelj, B. et al. Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 924–929 (2014).
  Article Google Scholar
• Springmann, M. et al. Mitigation potential and global health impacts from emissions pricing of food commodities. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 69–74 (2016).
  Article Google Scholar
• Popp, A., Lotze-Campen, H. & Bodirsky, B. Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 451–462 (2010).
  Article Google Scholar
• Bennetzen, E. H., Smith, P. & Porter, J. R. Decoupling of greenhouse gas emissions from global agricultural production: 1970–2050. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 763–781 (2016).
  Article Google Scholar
• Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).
  Article Google Scholar
• Cohn, A. S. et al. Cattle ranching intensification in Brazil can reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by sparing land from deforestation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 7236–7241 (2014).
  Article CAS Google Scholar
• Herrero, M. et al. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 20888–20893 (2013).
  Article CAS Google Scholar
• Avetisyan, M., Golub, A., Hertel, T., Rose, S. & Henderson, B. Why a global carbon policy could have a dramatic impact on the pattern of the worldwide livestock production. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 33, 584–605 (2011).
  Article Google Scholar
• Golub, A., Hertel, T., Lee, H. L., Rose, S. & Sohngen, B. The opportunity cost of land use and the global potential for greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture and forestry. Resour. Energy Econ. 31, 299–319 (2009).
  Article Google Scholar
• Erb, K.-H. et al. Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass. Nature 553, 73 (2017).
  Article Google Scholar
• Lamb, A. et al. The potential for land sparing to offset greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 488–492 (2016).
  Article Google Scholar
• Rogelj, J. et al. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature 534, 631–639 (2016).
  Article CAS Google Scholar
• Van Vuuren, D. et al. Carbon budgets and energy transition pathways. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 075002 (2016).
  Article Google Scholar
• Henderson, B. et al. The power and pain of market-based carbon policies: a global application to greenhouse gases from ruminant livestock production. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 23, 349–369 (2018).
  Article Google Scholar
• Muhammad, A., Seale, J., Meade, B. & Regmi, A. International Evidence on Food Consumption Patterns: An Update Using 2005 International Comparison Program Data Technical Bulletin (1929) 53 (USDA-ERS, 2011).
• Fricko, O. et al. The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: A middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 251–267 (2016).
  Article Google Scholar
• O’Neill, B. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Clim. Change 122, 387–400 (2014).
  Article Google Scholar
• Britz, W. & Witzke, H. P. CAPRI Model Documentation 2012 (Univ. of Bonn, 2012).
• M’barek, R. et al. Scenar 2030 - Pathways for the European Agriculture and Food Sector Beyond 2020 (Publications Office of the European Union, 2017).
• Pérez Domínguez, I. et al. An Economic Assessment of GHG Mitigation Policy Options for EU Agriculture (EcAMPA 2) (JRC, 2016).
• Fellmann, T. et al. Major challenges of integrating agriculture into climate change mitigation policy frameworks. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 23, 451–468 (2018).
  Article Google Scholar
• Himics, M. et al. Does the current trade liberalization agenda contribute to greenhouse gas emission mitigation in agriculture? Food Policy 76, 120–129 (2018).
  Article Google Scholar
• Leip, A. et al. Evaluation of the Livestock Sector’s Contribution to the EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GGELS) (European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 2010).
• Skalský, R. et al. GEO-BENE Global Database for Bio-Physical Modeling v. 1.0 - Concepts, Methodologies and Data Report No. 58 (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 2008).
• Williams, J. R. in Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology (ed. Singh, V. P.) 909–1000 (Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, 1995).
• Kindermann, G. E., McCallum, I., Fritz, S. & Obersteiner, M. A global forest growing stock, biomass and carbon map based on FAO statistics. Silva Fenn. 42, 387–396 (2008).
  Article Google Scholar
• Gusti, M. An algorithm for simulation of forest management decisions in the global forest model. Artifi. Intell. N4, 45–49 (2010).
  Google Scholar
• Valin, H. et al. The future of food demand: understanding differences in global economic models. Agric. Econ. 45, 51–67 (2014).
  Article Google Scholar
• Havlík, P. et al. Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets. Energy Policy 39, 5690–5702 (2011).
  Article Google Scholar
• Stehfest, E. et al. Integrated Assessment of Global Environmental Change with IMAGE 3.0. Model Description and Policy Applications (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2014).
• Woltjer, G. B. & Kuiper, M. H. (LEI Wageningen, 2014).
• Van Vuuren, D., Van Vliet, J. & Stehfest, E. Future Bio-Energy Potential Under Different Assumptions (2009).
• Van Meijl, H., van Rheenen, T., Tabeau, A. & Eickhout, B. The impact of different policy environments on agricultural land use in Europe. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 114, 21–38 (2006).
  Article Google Scholar
• Hertel, T. Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge 1997).
• Eickhout, B. et al. Local and Global Consequences of the EU Renewable Directive for Biofuels MNP Report No. 500143001/2008 (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2008).
• Banse, M. et al. Impact of EU biofuel policies on world agricultural production and land use. Biomass Bioenergy 35, 2385–2390 (2011).
  Article Google Scholar
• Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse as emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2016).
  Article Google Scholar
• Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes, and Prevention 38 (FAO, 2011).