Mitigation potential and costs for global agricultural greenhouse gas emissions

Beach, Robert; DeAngelo, Benjamin; Rose, Steven K.; Li, C; Salas, William; DelGrosso, S.

doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00286.x

Cited by 23 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We assume a linear interpolation from 2030. This assumption is in line with previous estimates of the mitigation potential for ruminants (DeAngelo et al 2006;Beach et al 2008).…”

Section: Technical Mitigation Scenariosupporting

confidence: 77%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For agriculture, there are three major options for mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions: 1) productivity improvements, particularly in the livestock sector; 2) dedicated technical mitigation measures; and 3) human dietary changes. The aim of the paper is to estimate long-term agricultural GHG emissions, under different mitigation scenarios, and to relate them to the emissions space compatible with the 2°C temperature target. Our estimates include emissions up to 2070 from agricultural soils, manure management, enteric fermentation and paddy rice fields, and are based on IPCC Tier 2 methodology. We find that baseline agricultural CO 2 -equivalent emissions (using Global Warming Potentials with a 100 year time horizon) will be approximately 13 Gton CO 2 eq/year in 2070, compared to 7.1 Gton CO 2 eq/year 2000. However, if faster growth in livestock productivity is combined with dedicated technical mitigation measures, emissions may be kept to 7.7 Gton CO 2 eq/year in 2070. If structural changes in human diets are included, emissions may be reduced further, to 3-5 Gton CO 2 eq/year in 2070. The total annual emissions for meeting the 2°C target with a chance above 50 % is in the order of 13 Gton CO 2 eq/year or less in 2070, for all sectors combined. We conclude that reduced ruminant meat and dairy consumption will be indispensable for reaching the 2°C target with a high probability, unless unprecedented advances in technology take place.

show abstract

“…We assume a linear interpolation from 2030. This assumption is in line with previous estimates of the mitigation potential for ruminants (DeAngelo et al 2006;Beach et al 2008).…”

Section: Technical Mitigation Scenariosupporting

confidence: 77%

“…However, it is highly uncertain whether technical measures alone can offer sufficiently deep emission reductions in the long term. In the midterm, the global mitigation potential for CH 4 and N 2 O in agriculture through such measures is estimated to be rather small (DeAngelo et al 2006;Beach et al 2008;Smith et al 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Teknologi mitigasi tersebut antara lain adalah penerapan system pengairan secara berselang-seling antara kondisi basah dan kering, penggunaan varietas padi dengan emisi yang rendah serta penggunaan bahan-bahan pembenah tanah. Selain itu, banyak estimasi yang mengindikasikan bahwa beberapa opsi mitigasi dari pertanian relatif lebih rendah biaya dan menghasilkan keuntungan yang signifikan dalam peningkatan produksi dibandingkan dengan sektor yang lain (Smith et al 2006(Smith et al , 2008Beach et al, 2008;MacLeod et al, 2010). Penggunaan pendekatan biaya pengurangan atau marginal abatement cost (MAC) ini diperlukan untuk membuat pilihan terhadap opsi mitigasi yang sesuai.…”

Section: Pendahuluanunclassified

“…Analisis MAC memungkinkan untuk melakukan evaluasi terhadap strategi untuk mengurangi GRK terhadap beberapa skenario referensi yang meliputi biaya maupun manfaat yang diterima. Konsep ini telah banyak dikembangkan selama 20 tahun terakhir (Beach et al, 2008). Beberapa penelitian telah dilakukan untuk mengembangkan konsep MAC dalam konteks perubahan iklim, McKinsey & Company (2008 …”

Section: Pendahuluanunclassified

“…Untuk sektor pertanian, pendekatan ini mulai digunakan sekitar tahun 2000 dengan menggunakan pendapat secara kualitatif (Weiske 2005(Weiske ,2006 dan beberapa penelitian empiris telah dilakukan di USA dan Uni Eropa (Beach et al, 2008;Macleod et al, 2010;Vermont dan DeCara, 2010;De Cara et al, 2011). Secara umum, analisis MAC digunakan untuk menilai potensi ekonomi sektor pertanian dalam pengurangan emisi GRK (MacLeod et al, 2010;Moran et al, 2011).…”

Section: Dan United States Environmentalunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biaya Pengurangan (Marginal Abatement Cost) Emisi Gas Rumah Kaca(GRK) Sektor PErtanian di Kabupaten Grobogan dan Tanjung Jabung Timur

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRAKKomitmen Pemerintah Indonesia untuk penurunan emisi GRK sebesar 26% sampai 2020, melibatkan keikutsertaan daerah secara aktif. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis opsi-opsi mitigasi pada pengelolaan lahan sawah yang mungkin dilakukan dengan menggunakan pendekatan Marginal Abatement Cost atau biaya pengurangan emisi yang berprinsip pada pemilihan aksi mitigasi dengan biaya rendah dan potensi penurunan yang besar. Lokasi penelitian dipilih secara purposive yaitu di Kabupaten Grobogan Propinsi Jawa Tengah dan Kabupaten Tanjung Jabung Timur Propinsi Jambi pada tahun 2013 untuk analisis tahun 2011. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan teknologi mitigasi yang berpotensi besar menurunkan emisi GRK dengan biaya rendah di Kabupaten Grobogan adalah penerapan teknik budidaya padi dengan penerapan Pengelolaan Tanaman Terpadu (PTT) dan penggantian varietas padi dengan varietas padi yang rendah emisi GRK. Sementara di Kabupaten Tanjung Jabung Timur, teknologi ameliorasi dengan kompos, pupuk kandang dan penerapan teknologi tanpa olah tanah+tanam benih langsung merupakan teknologi mitigasi yang memiliki potensi besar menurunkan emisi dengan biaya yang rendah.Kata kunci: pertanian, gas rumah kaca, biaya pengurangan emisi, mitigasi ABSTRACTThe Indonesian government's commitment to decrease GHG emissions by 26 % until 2020, actively involve local government's participation. This study aims to analyze mitigation options inpaddy fields management that may be performed by using the approach of Marginal Abatement Cost with the principle of selecting mitigation actions with low cost and high potential emission decrease. Locations were selected purposively in Grobogan Central Java Province and East Tanjung Jabung Jambi in 2013 for 2011 data analysis. The results show mitigation activity such as low methane rice varieties and Integrated Crop Management could be applied at Grobogan with low cost, while using amelioration such as compost or manure and non tillage+direct seeded could be applied at East Tanjung Jabung with low cost as well.

show abstract

Integrating Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Through Agroforestry and Ecosystem Conservation

Matocha¹,

Schroth

Hills³

et al. 2012

Advances in Agroforestry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change adaptation and mitigation are usually the objects of separate projects, but in this review we argue that in agricultural contexts, there are often technical and fi nancial advantages in pursuing them simultaneously. This is because (1) adaptation planning is often necessary for mitigation (i.e., carbon sequestration) planning, especially for assessing future climate risks to mitigation investments, (2) certain land-use interventions can have both adaptation and mitigation bene fi ts, and (3) carbon fi nance can help in supporting adaptation which still tends to be underfunded. Agroforestry and ecosystem conservation are key approaches in the integration of climate change adaptation and mitigation objectives, often generating signi fi cant co-bene fi ts for local ecosystems and biodiversity. Synergies between climate change adaptation and mitigation actions are particularly likely in projects involving income diversi fi cation with tree and forest products, reduction of the susceptibility of land-use systems to extreme weather events, improvement of soil fertility, fi re management, wind breaks, and the conservation and restoration of forest and riparian corridors, wetlands, and mangroves. On the other hand, trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation are possible when fast-growing tree monocultures for mitigation con fl ict with local tree and forest uses, making livelihoods more vulnerable, when trees are planted in water-scarce areas con fl icting with local water uses, and in some cases when "climate-smart" agroforestry practices con fl ict with the need for agricultural intensi fi cation to produce increasing amounts of food for a growing population. Such con fl icts need to be avoided through careful, site-speci fi c, and participatory project development. We conclude that adaptation considerations should be included in mitigation project planning and integrated adaptation and mitigation activities should be prioritized in carbon markets and policy formation.

show abstract

Mitigation potential and costs for global agricultural greenhouse gas emissions

Cited by 23 publications

References 10 publications

The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets

The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets

Biaya Pengurangan (Marginal Abatement Cost) Emisi Gas Rumah Kaca(GRK) Sektor PErtanian di Kabupaten Grobogan dan Tanjung Jabung Timur

Integrating Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Through Agroforestry and Ecosystem Conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About