1 / 43

Common Reference Scenarios: A Synthesis of National-level Economic and Biophysical Model Results

Common Reference Scenarios: A Synthesis of National-level Economic and Biophysical Model Results. Presented at Forestry and Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Modeling Forum Workshop Shepherdstown, WV October 1, 2001 Presented by Brian C. Murray.

coryharris
Download Presentation

Common Reference Scenarios: A Synthesis of National-level Economic and Biophysical Model Results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Common Reference Scenarios:A Synthesis of National-level Economic and Biophysical Model Results Presented at Forestry and Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Modeling Forum Workshop Shepherdstown, WVOctober 1, 2001 Presented by Brian C. Murray P.O. Box 12194 · 3040 Cornwallis Road · Research Triangle Park, NC 27709Phone: 919-541-6468 · Fax: 919-541-6683 · bcm@rti.org · www.rti.org

  2. Objectives • Obtain national-level estimates of GHG mitigation in Forest and Agriculture sectors • Baseline/Business-as-Usual (BAU) • With Incentives • Demonstrate commonalities and differences across model types • Biophysical v Economic • Economic • Sectoral vs Multi-sector • Static v Dynamic • National vs Global

  3. Models

  4. Scenario Features • Prices: $ 0, $3-27 per ton, CO2 • Activities: Forestry, Agriculture, Land Use Change (level of detail at discretion of modelers) • Time Horizon: 2000-2100 • Output • GHGs: CO2, N2O, CH4 (all in CO2 equiv) • Land Use Change • Commodity Market Effects • Welfare Costs

  5. Biophysical Models: Business-As-Usual Sequestration

  6. FORCARB MM tons/year CO2

  7. FORCARB (2)

  8. IPCC and Century: BAU Sequestration Rates for Agriculture

  9. Economic Models

  10. BAU Comparison for Cropland Carbon: Biophysical v Economic Models

  11. BAU Comparison for Forestland:Biophysical v Economic

  12. GHG Mitigation Supply Functions

  13. USMP/WRI

  14. USMP WRI (2)

  15. USMP/ERS

  16. ASMGHG

  17. ASMGHG (2)

  18. ASMGHG (3)

  19. FASOM-GHG

  20. FASOM-GHG (2)

  21. FASOM-GHG (3)

  22. Aggregate Supply Function Comparison

  23. CGE/Forest Sector: Alavalapati and Wong

  24. Land Use Change Estimates

  25. Land Use : USMP/WRI

  26. Land Use: USMP/ERS

  27. Land Use: ASM-GHG

  28. Land Use: FASOM-GHG

  29. Land Use: FASOM-GHG (2)

  30. Land Use: Model Comparison

  31. Commodity Prices

  32. Commodity Prices: USMP/WRI

  33. Commodity Prices: ASMGHG

  34. Commodity Prices: FASOM-GHG

  35. Timber Prices over Time: FASOM-GHG

  36. Observation Expanding the Scope of CO2 related activities covered has a greater impact on Ag sector mitigation than expanding non-C02 GHGs covered

  37. Observation (2) Modeling Forestry-Ag feedback is critical, especially in estimates of Land Use Change • Overestimate afforestation if we ignore rent-enhancing Ag management responses to CO2 prices • Underestimate afforestation if we ignore rent-enhancing forest management responses to CO2 prices (especially at low prices)

  38. Observation (3) More temporal dynamics are needed • Forestry - absolutely essential • Saturation and Permanence issues in both sectors • Ability to assess policies aimed at specific future time periods (re: 2008-2012)

  39. Where are the Opportunities ?

  40. Breakout Groups

  41. Breakout Group Activities • Meet when opportunities arise • Use Questions/Issues raised in handout as a guide to discussions • Right theme ? • Assess current models/results • Future modeling directions • Study group topics • Report back to the Plenary on Day 3

  42. Breakout Groups

  43. Breakout Groups

More Related