Suchergebnisse

Agraïments: We acknowledge support from EU Seventh Framework Programme, theme ICT-2013.5.4: ICT for Governance and Policy Modelling under contract no. 611688; the United Nations Environment Programme, IRP, sub-programme Resource Efficiency (61P1) under contract no. 2105-CPL-5068-3639-1161-1161; the Beijing Natural Science Foundation (grant 8151002); and the National Science and Technology Major Project (2015ZX07203-005). ; The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) call for a comprehensive new approach to development rooted in planetary boundaries, equity, and inclusivity. The wide scope of the SDGs will necessitate unprecedented integration of siloed policy portfolios to work at international, regional, and national levels toward multiple goals and mitigate the conflicts that arise from competing resource demands. In this analysis, we adopt a comprehensive modeling approach to understand how coherent policy combinations can manage trade-offs among environmental conservation initiatives and food prices. Our scenario results indicate that SDG strategies constructed around Sustainable Consumption and Production policies can minimize problem-shifting, which has long placed global development and conservation agendas at odds. We conclude that Sustainable Consumption and Production policies (goal 12) are most effective at minimizing trade-offs and argue for their centrality to the formulation of coherent SDG strategies. We also find that alternative socioeconomic futures - mainly, population and economic growth pathways - generate smaller impacts on the eventual achievement of land resource -related SDGs than do resource-use and management policies. We expect that this and future systems analyses will allow policymakers to negotiate trade-offs and exploit synergies as they assemble sustainable development strategies equal in scope to the ambition of the SDGs.

Climate mitigation will have significant impacts on government spending necessary to finance large-scale deployment of Negative Emission Technologies (NETs). The required expenditure might consume up to a third of general government expenditure in advanced economies.

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the role of strongly interconnected markets in causing systemic instability has been increasingly acknowledged. Trade networks of commodities are susceptible to cascades of supply shocks that increase systemic trade risks and pose a threat to geopolitical stability. We show that supply risk, scarcity, and price volatility of nonfuel mineral resources are intricately connected with the structure of the worldwide trade networks spanned by these resources. At the global level, we demonstrate that the scarcity of a resource is closely related to the susceptibility of the trade network with respect to cascading shocks. At the regional level, we find that, to some extent,region-specific price volatility and supply risk can be understood by centrality measures that capture systemic trade risk. The resources associated with the highest systemic trade risk indicators are often those that are produced as by products of major metals. We identify significant strategic shortcomings in the management of systemic trade risk, in particular in the European Union.

ABSTRACTDeforestation is one of the major sources of carbon emissions, but the Kyoto Protocol presently excludes avoiding these emissions to fulfill stabilization targets. Since the need for policy incentives for the reduction of emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) was officially recognized in 2007, the focus of this debate has shifted to issues of implementation. Concerns about the effects that the availability of low-cost REDD credits might have on energy investments, and the development of clean technology constitute the main motivation of this paper. We analyze the production side of the problem with the help of a real options model with an option to invest in less carbon-intensive energy technology and an option to purchase credits on REDD, which will (or will not) be exercised in the future. Unresolved questions can thus still be addressed later, while producers and investors hold REDD options to maintain flexibility for later decisions.

AbstractIn this paper we implement a real options model for the unit commitment problem of an electricity producing turbine in a liberalized market. The model accounts for various operating constraints of the turbine. Price uncertainty is captured by a mean reverting process with jumps and time‐varying means to account for seasonality. We demonstrate how the model can be used to value an electricity producing turbine, make profit‐maximizing commitment decisions and compute risk profiles of generating assets for risk management purposes.

In this study, the potential global loss of species directly associated with land use in the EU and due to trade with other regions is computed over time, in order to reveal differences in impacts between the considered alternatives of plausible bioenergy policies development in the EU. The spatially explicit study combines a life cycle analysis (LCA) for biodiversity impact assessment with a global high resolution economic land use model. Both impacts of domestic land use and impacts through imports were included for estimating the biodiversity footprint of the member states of the (EU28). The analyzed scenarios assumed similar biomass demand until 2020 but differed thereafter, from keeping the growth of demand for bioenergy constant (CONST), to a strong increase of bioenergy in line with the EU target of decreasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80% by 2050 (EMIRED) and with the baseline (BASE) scenario falling between the other two. As a general trend, the increasing demand for biomass was found to have substantial impact on biodiversity in all scenarios, while the differences between the scenarios were found to be modest. The share caused by imports was 15% of the overall biodiversity impacts detected in this study in the year 2000, and progressively increased to 24% to 26% in 2050, depending on the scenario. The most prominent future change in domestic land use in all scenarios was the expansion of perennial cultivations for energy. In the EMIRED scenario, there is a larger expansion of perennial cultivations and a smaller expansion of cropland in the EU than in the other two scenarios. As the biodiversity damage is smaller for land used for perennial cultivations than for cropland, this development decreases the internal biodiversity damage per unit of land. At the same time, however, the EMIRED scenario also features the largest outsourcing of damage, due to increased import of cropland products from outside the EU for satisfying the EU food demand. These two opposite effects even out each other, resulting in the total biodiversity damage for the EMIRED scenario being only slightly higher than the other two scenarios. The results of this study indicate that increasing cultivation of perennials for bioenergy and the consequent decrease in the availability of cropland for food production in the EU may lead to outsourcing of agricultural products supply to other regions. This development is associated with a leakage of biodiversity damages to species-rich and vulnerable regions outside the EU. In the case of a future increase in bioenergy demand, the combination of biomass supply from sustainable forest management in the EU, combined with imported wood pellets and cultivation of perennial energy crops, appears to be less detrimental to biodiversity than expansion of energy crops in the EU.

Background: In 2018, the European Union (EU) adopted Regulation 2018/841, which sets the accounting rules for the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector for the period 2021–2030. This regulation is part of the EU's commitments to comply with the Paris Agreement. According to the new regulation, emissions and removals for managed forest land are to be accounted against a projected forest reference level (FRL) that is estimated by each EU Member State based on the continuation of forest management practices of the reference period 2000–2009. The aim of this study is to assess how different modelling assumptions possible under the regulation may influence the FRL estimates. Applying the interlinked G4M and WoodCarbonMonitor modelling frameworks, we estimate potential FRLs for each individual EU Member State following a set of conceptual scenarios, each reflecting different modelling assumptions that are consistent with the regulation and the technical guidance document published by the European Commission. Results: The simulations of the conceptual scenarios show that differences in the underlying modelling assumptions may have a large impact on the projected FRL. Depending on the assumptions taken, the projected annual carbon sink on managed forest land in the EU varies from −319 MtCO2 to −397 MtCO 2 during the first compliance period (2021–2025) and from −296 MtCO2 to −376 MtCO2 during the second compliance period (i.e. 2026–2030). These estimates can be compared with the 2017 national GHG inventories which estimated that the forest carbon sink for managed forest land was −373 MtCO2 in 2015. On an aggregated EU level, the assumptions related to climate change and the allocation of forest management practices have the largest impacts on the FRL estimates. On the other hand, assumptions concerning the starting year of the projection, stratification of managed forest land, and timing of individual management activities are found to have relatively small impacts on the FRL estimates. Conclusions: We provide a first assessment of the level of uncertainty associated with the different assumptions discussed in the technical guidance document and the LULUCF regulation, and the impact of these assumptions on the country-specific FRL. The results highlight the importance of transparent documentation by the EU Member States on how their FRL has been calculated, and on the underlying assumptions.

The objective of this paper is to combine a real options framework with portfolio optimization techniques and to apply this new framework to investments in the electricity sector. In particular, a real options model is used to assess the adoption decision of particular technologies under uncertainty. These technologies are coal-fired power plants, biomassfired power plants and onshore wind mills, and they are representative of technologies based on fossil fuels, biomass and renewables, respectively. The return distributions resulting from this analysis are then used as an input to a portfolio optimization, where the measure of risk is the Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR).

100-year Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) are used almost universally to compare emissions of greenhouse gases in national inventories and reduction targets. GWPs have been criticised on several grounds, but little work has been done to determine global mitigation costs under alternative physics-based metrics. We used the integrated assessment model MESSAGE to compare emission pathways and abatement costs for fixed and time-dependent variants of the Global Temperature Change Potential (GTP) with those based on GWPs, for a policy goal of limiting the radiative forcing to a specified level in the year 2100. We find that fixed 100-year GTPs would increase global abatement costs (discounted and aggregated over the 21st century) under this policy goal by 5–20 % relative to 100-year GWPs, whereas time-varying GTPs would reduce costs by about 5 %. These cost differences are smaller than differences arising from alternative assumptions regarding agricultural mitigation potential and much smaller than those arising from alternative radiative forcing targets. Using the land-use model GLOBIOM, we show that alternative metrics affect food production differently in different world regions depending on regional characteristics of future land-use change to meet growing food demand. We conclude that under scenarios of complete participation, the choice of metric has a limited impact on global abatement costs but could be important for the political economy of regional and sectoral participation in collective mitigation efforts, in particular changing costs and gains over time for agriculture and energy-intensive sectors.