Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5C climate goal

Shinichiro Fujimori, Tomoko Hasegawa, Joeri Rogelj, Xuanming Su, Petr Havlik, Volker Krey, Kiyoshi Takahashi, Keywan Riahi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Climate change mitigation to limit warming to 1.5C or well below 2C, as suggested by the Paris Agreement, can rely on large-scale deployment of land-related measures (e.g. afforestation, or bioenergy production). This can increase food prices, and hence raises food security concerns. Here we show how an inclusive policy design can avoid these adverse side-effects. Food-security support through international aid, bioenergy tax, or domestic reallocation of income can shield impoverished and vulnerable people from the additional risk of hunger that would be caused by the economic effects of policies narrowly focussing on climate objectives only. In the absence of such support, 35% more people might be at risk of hunger by 2050 (i.e. 84 million additional people) in a 2C-consistent scenario. The additional global welfare changes due to inclusive climate policies are small (0.1%) compared to the total climate mitigation cost (3.7% welfare loss), and the financial costs of international aid amount to about half a percent of high-income countries' GDP. This implies that climate policy should treat this issue carefully. Although there are challenges to implement food policies, options exist to avoid the food security concerns often linked to climate mitigation.

LanguageEnglish
Article number074033
JournalEnvironmental Research Letters
Volume13
Issue number7
DOIs
StatusPublished - 6 Jul 2018

Fingerprint

Nutrition Policy
Food Supply
Climate Change
food security
Climate
Climate change
international aid
hunger
bioenergy
environmental policy
climate
mitigation
income
Hunger
food policy
afforestation
Gross Domestic Product
cost
shield
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • 1.5 and 2 degree goal
  • Climate change mitigation
  • Food security
  • Inclusive policy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
  • Environmental Science(all)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Fujimori, S., Hasegawa, T., Rogelj, J., Su, X., Havlik, P., Krey, V., ... Riahi, K. (2018). Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5C climate goal. Environmental Research Letters, 13(7), [074033]. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad0f7

Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5C climate goal. / Fujimori, Shinichiro; Hasegawa, Tomoko; Rogelj, Joeri; Su, Xuanming; Havlik, Petr; Krey, Volker; Takahashi, Kiyoshi; Riahi, Keywan.

In: Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 13, No. 7, 074033, 06.07.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Fujimori, S, Hasegawa, T, Rogelj, J, Su, X, Havlik, P, Krey, V, Takahashi, K & Riahi, K 2018, 'Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5C climate goal', Environmental Research Letters, vol. 13, no. 7, 074033. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad0f7
Fujimori, Shinichiro ; Hasegawa, Tomoko ; Rogelj, Joeri ; Su, Xuanming ; Havlik, Petr ; Krey, Volker ; Takahashi, Kiyoshi ; Riahi, Keywan. / Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5C climate goal. In: Environmental Research Letters. 2018 ; Vol. 13, No. 7.
@article{b1b0d27d170b4025b8a053af78575397,
title = "Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5◦C climate goal",
abstract = "Climate change mitigation to limit warming to 1.5◦C or well below 2◦C, as suggested by the Paris Agreement, can rely on large-scale deployment of land-related measures (e.g. afforestation, or bioenergy production). This can increase food prices, and hence raises food security concerns. Here we show how an inclusive policy design can avoid these adverse side-effects. Food-security support through international aid, bioenergy tax, or domestic reallocation of income can shield impoverished and vulnerable people from the additional risk of hunger that would be caused by the economic effects of policies narrowly focussing on climate objectives only. In the absence of such support, 35{\%} more people might be at risk of hunger by 2050 (i.e. 84 million additional people) in a 2◦C-consistent scenario. The additional global welfare changes due to inclusive climate policies are small (0.1{\%}) compared to the total climate mitigation cost (3.7{\%} welfare loss), and the financial costs of international aid amount to about half a percent of high-income countries' GDP. This implies that climate policy should treat this issue carefully. Although there are challenges to implement food policies, options exist to avoid the food security concerns often linked to climate mitigation.",
keywords = "1.5 and 2 degree goal, Climate change mitigation, Food security, Inclusive policy",
author = "Shinichiro Fujimori and Tomoko Hasegawa and Joeri Rogelj and Xuanming Su and Petr Havlik and Volker Krey and Kiyoshi Takahashi and Keywan Riahi",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "6",
doi = "10.1088/1748-9326/aad0f7",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
journal = "Environmental Research Letters",
issn = "1748-9318",
publisher = "IOP Publishing",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5◦C climate goal

AU - Fujimori, Shinichiro

AU - Hasegawa, Tomoko

AU - Rogelj, Joeri

AU - Su, Xuanming

AU - Havlik, Petr

AU - Krey, Volker

AU - Takahashi, Kiyoshi

AU - Riahi, Keywan

PY - 2018/7/6

Y1 - 2018/7/6

N2 - Climate change mitigation to limit warming to 1.5◦C or well below 2◦C, as suggested by the Paris Agreement, can rely on large-scale deployment of land-related measures (e.g. afforestation, or bioenergy production). This can increase food prices, and hence raises food security concerns. Here we show how an inclusive policy design can avoid these adverse side-effects. Food-security support through international aid, bioenergy tax, or domestic reallocation of income can shield impoverished and vulnerable people from the additional risk of hunger that would be caused by the economic effects of policies narrowly focussing on climate objectives only. In the absence of such support, 35% more people might be at risk of hunger by 2050 (i.e. 84 million additional people) in a 2◦C-consistent scenario. The additional global welfare changes due to inclusive climate policies are small (0.1%) compared to the total climate mitigation cost (3.7% welfare loss), and the financial costs of international aid amount to about half a percent of high-income countries' GDP. This implies that climate policy should treat this issue carefully. Although there are challenges to implement food policies, options exist to avoid the food security concerns often linked to climate mitigation.

AB - Climate change mitigation to limit warming to 1.5◦C or well below 2◦C, as suggested by the Paris Agreement, can rely on large-scale deployment of land-related measures (e.g. afforestation, or bioenergy production). This can increase food prices, and hence raises food security concerns. Here we show how an inclusive policy design can avoid these adverse side-effects. Food-security support through international aid, bioenergy tax, or domestic reallocation of income can shield impoverished and vulnerable people from the additional risk of hunger that would be caused by the economic effects of policies narrowly focussing on climate objectives only. In the absence of such support, 35% more people might be at risk of hunger by 2050 (i.e. 84 million additional people) in a 2◦C-consistent scenario. The additional global welfare changes due to inclusive climate policies are small (0.1%) compared to the total climate mitigation cost (3.7% welfare loss), and the financial costs of international aid amount to about half a percent of high-income countries' GDP. This implies that climate policy should treat this issue carefully. Although there are challenges to implement food policies, options exist to avoid the food security concerns often linked to climate mitigation.

KW - 1.5 and 2 degree goal

KW - Climate change mitigation

KW - Food security

KW - Inclusive policy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056562745&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1088/1748-9326/aad0f7

DO - 10.1088/1748-9326/aad0f7

M3 - Article

VL - 13

JO - Environmental Research Letters

T2 - Environmental Research Letters

JF - Environmental Research Letters

SN - 1748-9318

IS - 7

M1 - 074033

ER -