Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy

Science

Volumn 324, Issue 5931, 2009, Pages 1183-1186

  Wise, Marshall ^a   Calvin, Katherine ^a   Thomson, Allison ^a   Clarke, Leon ^a   Bond Lamberty, Benjamin ^a   Sands, Ronald ^a,b   Smith, Steven J ^a   Janetos, Anthony ^a   Edmonds, James ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CARBON DIOXIDE; FOSSIL FUEL;

CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON EMISSION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CROP PRODUCTION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; FOOD PRODUCTION; FOSSIL FUEL; HUMAN ACTIVITY; LAND USE CHANGE; STRATEGIC APPROACH;

ARTICLE; ECOSYSTEM; ENERGY YIELD; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; FIELD EMISSION; LAND USE; LIVESTOCK; NUCLEAR ENERGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; AGRICULTURE; ATMOSPHERE; BIOMASS; CHEMISTRY; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; CROP; ECONOMICS; ENERGY RESOURCE; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; INDUSTRY; THEORETICAL MODEL;

AGRICULTURE; ATMOSPHERE; BIOMASS; CARBON DIOXIDE; COMMERCE; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; ECOSYSTEM; ENERGY-GENERATING RESOURCES; FOSSIL FUELS; INDUSTRY; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 66349101342     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1168475     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. J. A. Edmonds et al., in Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, J. Gale, Y. Kaya, Eds. (Pergamon, Amsterdam, 2003), pp. 1427-1432.
2. J. Fargione et al., Science 319, 1235 (2008).
3. T. Searchinger et al., Science 319, 1238 (2008).
4. M. R. Schmer et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 464 (2008).
5. K. T. Gillingham, S. J. Smith, R. D. Sands, Mitig. Adapt. Strategies Glob. Change 13, 675 (2008).
6. P. J. Crutzen, A. R. Mosier, K. A. Smith, W. Winiwarter, Atmos. Chem. Phys. 8, 389 (2008).
7. A. Gurgel, J. M. Reilly, S. Paltsev, J. Agric. Food Ind. Org. 5 (no. 2), article 9 (2007); www.bepress.com/jafio/vol5/iss2.
8. L. Clarke et al., CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1, Part A: Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2007).
9. IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon et al., Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2007), fig. 7.3, chap. 7, p. 515.
10. 2 concentrations are held below 550 ppm.
11. IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, L. A. Meyer, Eds. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007), chap. 3.
12. S. Rose et al., Land in Climate Stabilization Modeling: Initial Observations, Stanford Energy Modeling Forum, EMF21, Land Modeling Subgroup; www.stanford.edu/group/EMF/projects/EMF21/EMF21FinalReport.pdf (2008).
13. M. Tavoni, B. Sohngen, V. Bosetti, Energy Policy 35, 5346 (2007).
14. D. Rokityanskiy et al., Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 74, 1057 (2007).
15. 2-landuse.pdf) (2009).
16. Materials and methods are available as supporting material on Science Online.
17. S. H. Kim, J. A. Edmonds, J. Lurz, S. J. Smith, M. A. Wise, The Energy Journal, Special Issue: Hybrid Modeling of Energy-Environment Policies: Reconciling Bottom-up and Top-down, Special Issue No. 2, 63 (2006).
18. L. Clarke et al., Model Documentation for the MiniCAM Climate Change Science Program Stabilization Scenarios: CCSP Product 2.1a (PNNL Tech. Rep. PNNL-16735, 2007).
19. A. Brenkert, S. Smith, H. Kim, H. Pitcher, Model Documentation for the MiniCAM. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL Tech. Rep. PNNL-14337, 2003).
20. J. Edmonds, J. Reilly, Global Energy: Assessing the Future (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1985).
21. J. Bruinsma, World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030: An FAO Perspective (available at www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4252e/y4252e00.HTM) (2003).
22. R. D. Sands, M. Leimbach, Clim. Change 56, 185 (2003).
23. The carbon tax serves in the model as a means to place an economic value on carbon. The same mitigation actions could be achieved through a variety of policy mechanisms, including cap-and-trade approaches. The carbon tax approach is used here because of its simplicity and explanatory value, but the results would hold under different approaches that place a value, implicit or explicit, on carbon.
24. Our analysis finds that bioenergy derived from biological waste streams (e.g., agriculture and forestry residues) is potentially of comparable magnitude to purpose-grown bioenergy production in the UCT policy regimes.
25. 2 concentration limit are the result of employing bioenergy for power production in conjunction with CCS.
26. S. Pacala, R. Socolow, Science 305, 968 (2004).
27. M. I. Hoffert et al., Science 298, 981 (2002).
28. P. L. Lucas, D. P. van Vuuren, J. G. J. Olivier, M. G. J. den Elzen, Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 85 (2007).
29. The authors are grateful to the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science and to the Electric Power Research Institute for financial support for the research the results of which are reported here. The authors also thank E. Malone for helpful comments on an earlier draft. Of course, the opinions expressed here are the authors' alone.