[1] We use 23 atmospheric chemistry transport models to calculate current and future (2030) deposition of reactive nitrogen (NO y , NH x ) and sulfate (SO x ) to land and ocean surfaces. The models are driven by three emission scenarios: (1) current air quality legislation (CLE); (2) an optimistic case of the maximum emissions reductions currently technologically feasible (MFR); and (3) the contrasting pessimistic IPCC SRES A2 scenario. An extensive evaluation of the present-day deposition using nearly all information on wet deposition available worldwide shows a good agreement with observations in Europe and North America, where 60-70% of the model-calculated wet deposition rates agree to within ±50% with quality-controlled measurements. Models systematically overestimate NH x deposition in South Asia, and underestimate NO y deposition in East Asia. We show that there are substantial differences among models for the removal mechanisms of NO y , NH x , and SO x , leading to ±1 s variance in total deposition fluxes of about 30% in the anthropogenic emissions regions, and up to a factor of 2 outside. In all cases the mean model constructed from the ensemble calculations is among the best when comparing to measurements. Currently, 36-51% of all NO y , NH x , and SO x is deposited over the ocean, and 50-80% of the fraction of deposition on land falls on natural (nonagricultural) vegetation. Currently, 11% of the world's natural vegetation receives nitrogen deposition in excess of the ''critical load'' threshold of 1000 mg(N) m À2 yr À1 . The regions most affected are the United States (20% of vegetation), western Europe (30%), eastern Europe (80%), South Asia (60%), East Asia
On the basis of the IPCC B2, A1b and B1 baseline scenarios, mitigation scenarios were developed that stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at 650, 550 and 450 andsubject to specific assumptions -400 ppm CO 2 -eq. The analysis takes into account a large number of reduction options, such as reductions of non-CO 2 gases, carbon plantations and measures in the energy system. The study shows stabilization as low as 450 ppm CO 2 -eq. to be technically feasible, even given relatively high baseline scenarios. To achieve these lower concentration levels, global emissions need to peak within the first two decades. The net present value of abatement costs for the B2 baseline scenario (a medium scenario) increases from 0.2% of cumulative GDP to 1.1% as the shift is made from 650 to 450 ppm. On the other hand, the probability of meeting a two-degree target increases from 0% -10% to 20% -70%. The mitigation scenarios lead to lower emissions of regional air pollutants but also to increased land use. The uncertainty in the cost estimates is at least in the order of 50%, with the most important uncertainties including land-use emissions, the potential for bio-energy and the contribution of energy efficiency. Furthermore, creating the right socio-economic and political conditions for mitigation is more important than any of the technical constraints.
Climate change mitigation policies tend to focus on the energy sector, while the livestock sector receives surprisingly little attention, despite the fact that it accounts for 18% of the greenhouse gas emissions and for 80% of total anthropogenic land use. From a dietary perspective, new insights in the adverse health effects of beef and pork have lead to a revision of meat consumption recommendations. Here, we explored the potential impact of dietary changes on achieving ambitious climate stabilization levels. By using an integrated assessment model, we found a global food transition to less meat, or even a complete switch to plant-based protein food to have a dramatic effect on land use. Up to 2,700 Mha of pasture and 100 Mha of cropland could be abandoned, resulting in a large carbon uptake from regrowing vegetation. Additionally, methane and nitrous oxide emission would be reduced substantially. A global transition to a low meat-diet as recommended for health reasons would reduce the mitigation costs to achieve a 450 ppm CO 2 -eq. stabilisation target by about 50% in 2050 compared to the reference case. Dietary changes could therefore not only create substantial benefits for human health and global land use, but can also play an important role in future climate change mitigation policies.
The availability of the resources is an important factor for high shares of biomass to penetrate the electricity, heat or liquid fuel markets. We have analysed the geographical and technical potential of energy crops for the years 2050-2100 for three land-use categories: abandoned agricultural land, low-productivity land and 'rest land', i.e. remaining noproductive land. We envisaged development paths using four scenarios resulting from different future land-use patterns that were developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its Special Report on Emission Scenarios: A1, A2, B1 and B2. The geographical potential is defined as the product of the available area for energy crops and the corresponding productivity level for energy crops. The geographical potential of abandoned agricultural land is the largest contributor. For the year 2050 the geographical potential of abandoned land ranges from about 130 to 410 EJ yr À1. For the year 2100 it ranges from 240 to 850 EJ yr À1. The potential of low-productive land is negligible compared to the other categories. The rest land area is assumed to be partly available, resulting in ranges of the geographical potential from about 35 to 245 EJ yr À1 for the year 2050 and from about 35 to 265 EJ yr À1 in 2100. At a regional level, significant potentials are found in the Former USSR, East Asia and South America. The geographical potential can be converted to transportation fuels or electricity resulting in ranges of the technical potential for fuels in the year 2050 and 2100 equal to several times the present oil consumption.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.