Avoided economic impacts of climate change on agriculture: integrating a land surface model (CLM) with a global economic model (iPETS)
- 801 Downloads
Crop yields are vulnerable to climate change. We assess the global impacts of climate change on agricultural systems under two climate projections (RCP8.5 and RCP4.5) to quantify the difference in impacts if climate change were reduced. We also employ two different socioeconomic pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) to assess the sensitivity of results to the underlying socioeconomic conditions. The integrated-Population-Economy-Technology-Science (iPETS) model, a global integrated assessment model for projecting future energy use, land use and emissions, is used in conjunction with the Community Earth System Model (CESM), and particularly its land surface component, the Community Land Model (CLM), to evaluate climate change impacts on agriculture. iPETS results are produced at the level of nine world regions for the period 2005–2100. We employ climate impacts on crop yield derived from CLM, driven by CESM simulations of the two RCPs. These yield effects are applied within iPETS, imposed on baseline and mitigation scenarios for SSP3 and SSP5 that are consistent with the RCPs. We find that the reduced level of warming in RCP4.5 (relative to RCP8.5) can have either positive or negative effects on the economy since crop yield either increases or decreases with climate change depending on assumptions about CO2 fertilization. Yields are up to 12 % lower, and crop prices are up to 15 % higher, in RCP4.5 relative to RCP8.5 if CO2 fertilization is included, whereas yields are up to 22 % higher, and crop prices up to 22 % lower, if it is not. We also find that in the mitigation scenarios (RCP4.5), crop prices are substantially affected by mitigation actions as well as by climate impacts. For the scenarios we evaluated, the development pathway (SSP3 vs SSP5) has a larger impact on outcomes than climate (RCP4.5 vs RCP8.5), by a factor of 3 for crop prices, 11 for total cropland use, and 35 for GDP on global average.
KeywordsAvoided impacts Climate change Crop yields CO2 fertilization Integrated assessment
This paper is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number AGS-1243095. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the funders.
- Brenkert AL, Smith SJ, Kim SH, Pitcher HM (2003) Model documentation for the MiniCAM. PNNL-14337, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland. Available at:http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/data/publications/MiniCAM.pdf
- Calvin K et al. (2016) The SSP4: A world of deepening inequality. Glob Environ Chang.. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.010
- EPA (2015) Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs, EPA 430-R-15-001Google Scholar
- Levis S et al. (2016) CLMcrop yields and water requirements: avoided impacts by choosing RCP 4.5 over 8.5. Clim Chang. doi: 10.1007/s10584-016-1654-9
- Monfreda C et al. (2008) Farming the planet 2 geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 22Google Scholar
- Oleson KW et al. (2013) Technical description of version 4.5 of the community land model (CLM). NCAR technical note NCAR/TN-503 + STR. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder. doi: 10.5065/D6RR1W7M
- Tebaldi C, Lobell DB (2015) Estimated impacts of emission reductions on wheat and maize crops. Clim Chang. doi: 10.1007/s10584-015-1537-5