Engineering topics

Hasegawa, Tomoko

Publications and source records attributed to Hasegawa, Tomoko.

8 records

DOE OSTI2026

Advancing representations of equity and justice in climate mitigation futures

THIS PAPER WAS PRIMARILY COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE AUTHOR JOINING PNNL AND NO DOE FUNDING WAS USED FOR THIS PAPER. In this work, we review how equity and justice issues in global climate mitigation scenarios are addressed within Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) and propose a new research agenda to strengthen their integration in model development and application. We begin by examining prominent concerns at the science-policy interface. We introduce a typology of equity and justice limitations in climate mitigation scenarios, distinguishing among structural, methodological, and epistemological biases that shape what integrated assessment models can reveal at policy-relevant scales. Reflecting on these concerns, we propose a research agenda that describes new avenues of work and draws together distinct emerging initiatives. This agenda is based on the feasibility and depth of required interventions, from incremental improvements to structural reforms and alternative participatory approaches. Drawing on reflexive insights from integrated assessment practitioners, it addresses the operational challenges of translating justice concepts into metrics, including risks of reductionism, tokenism, and narrow definitions. Underlying this research agenda is a recognition that modeling communities must engage more critically with implicit assumptions in model design and use that have equity and justice implications. Achieving equitable climate futures will require transformative actions that integrate diverse justice concerns, advance sustainable development goals, and confront systemic inequities across both human and ecological dimensions. Although models will never capture all these aspects, they can be significantly enhanced to support more informed discussion and practical application. Our contribution proposes a way forward to achieving this goal.

Pachauri, Shonali↗

DOE OSTI2025

Bundling measures for food systems transformation: a global, multimodel assessment

Background Current food systems leave one in ten individuals at risk of hunger while driving unsustainable environmental impacts. Inaction risks further exacerbating negative impacts on both human and planetary health. These challenges emerge from complex system interactions, requiring approaches that engage with this complexity and consider how transformation measures interact across food systems. We aimed to quantify the magnitude and uncertainty of the impacts of key food systems transformation measures both individually and in a bundle using an ensemble of global economic models. Methods In this global multimodel assessment, we applied an ensemble of ten state-of-the-art global economic models to evaluate the potential of four key measures in transforming food systems: increasing agricultural productivity, halving food loss and waste, shifting towards healthier diets, and economy-wide climate mitigation policies aligned with limiting warming to 1·5°C. The scenarios used a middle-of-the-road shared socioeconomic pathway for population and gross domestic product growth, climate impact data from Jägermeyr and colleagues, Thornton and colleagues, and Nelson and colleagues, and dietary targets based on the EAT–Lancet healthy reference diet, with model simulations conducted from 2020 to 2050. We then assessed the effect of these measures in isolation and in combination in a bundled scenario. To further understand the interactions between these measures, we conducted a decomposition analysis that distinguishes between the individual effects of a measure (effect when implemented alone), total effects (its contribution within the bundle), and interaction effects (the difference between total and individual effects). This approach aimed to show complementarities and trade-offs that emerge when multiple measures are implemented simultaneously. Findings Our analysis showed that individual measures in isolation are insufficient to achieve high-level environmental objectives and might generate unintended consequences. In contrast, bundling measures produces co-benefits: avoiding 50% of projected agricultural greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and almost 20% of anticipated land conversion, while moderating food price increases associated with ambitious climate change mitigation policies. Our decomposition analysis further shows that measures can have varying effects across different dimensions. Although dietary shifts and climate mitigation policies are the largest drivers of environmental benefits (each contributing to a median decline of >10 percentage points in non-CO 2 emissions and 5 percentage points in agricultural land use globally), productivity improvements and reducing food loss and waste play essential roles in moderating price increases (each contributing to a median decline of >5 percentage points in average prices). Interpretation This study highlights the importance of implementing coordinated approaches to food system transformation and climate change mitigation rather than relying on isolated interventions. Comprehensive transformation requires understanding how supply-side and demand-side changes can interact with climate mitigation policies, enabling policy makers to design intervention packages that maximise benefits while minimising trade-offs across environmental, economic, and social dimensions.

Sundiang, Marina [Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY (Unite↗

DOE OSTI2024

Attributing human mortality from fire PM 2.5 to climate change

Climate change intensifies fire smoke, emitting hazardous air pollutants that impact human health. However, the global influence of climate change on fire-induced health impacts remains unquantified. Here, in this study, we used three well-tested fire-vegetation models in combination with a chemical transport model and health risk assessment framework to attribute global human mortality from fire fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) emissions to climate change. Of the 46401 (1960s) –to 98748 (2010s) annual fire PM 2.5 mortalities, 669 (1.2%, 1960s) –to 12566 (12.8%, 2010s) were attributed to climate change. The most substantial influence of climate change on fire mortality occurred in South America, Australia, and Europe, coinciding with decreased relative humidity, and in boreal forests with increased air temperature. Increasing relative humidity lowered fire mortality in other regions, like South Asia. Our study highlights the role of climate change in fire mortality, aiding public health authorities in spatial targeting adaptation measures for sensitive fire-prone areas.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Global biomass supply modeling for long-run management of the climate system

Bioenergy is projected to have a prominent, valuable, and maybe essential, role in climate management. However, there is significant variation in projected bioenergy deployment results, as well as concerns about the potential environmental and social implications of supplying biomass. Bioenergy deployment projections are market equilibrium solutions from integrated modeling, yet little is known about the underlying modeling of the supply of biomass as a feedstock for energy use in these modeling frameworks. We undertake a novel diagnostic analysis with ten global models to elucidate, compare, and assess how biomass is supplied within the models used to inform long-run climate management. With experiments that isolate and reveal biomass supply modeling behavior and characteristics (costs, emissions, land use, market effects), we learn about biomass supply tendencies and differences. The insights provide a new level of modeling transparency and understanding of estimated global biomass supplies that informs evaluation of the potential for bioenergy in managing the climate and interpretation of integrated modeling. For each model, we characterize the potential distributions of global biomass supply across regions and feedstock types for increasing levels of quantity supplied, as well as some of the potential societal externalities of supplying biomass. We also evaluate the biomass supply implications of managing these externalities. Finally, we interpret biomass market results from integrated modeling in terms of our new understanding of biomass supply. Overall, we find little consensus between models on where biomass could be cost-effectively produced and the implications. We also reveal model specific biomass supply narratives, with results providing new insights into integrated modeling bioenergy outcomes and differences. The analysis finds that many integrated models are considering and managing emissions and land use externalities of supplying biomass and estimating that environmental and societal trade-offs in the form of land emissions, land conversion, and higher agricultural prices are cost-effective, and to some degree a reality of using biomass, to address climate change.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Critical adjustment of land mitigation pathways for assessing countries' climate progress

Collective progress towards the Paris Agreement’s temperature targets will be assessed by the Agreement’s Global Stocktake process. Global emission pathways by Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) are a likely benchmark against which aggregated countries’ greenhouse gas mitigation pledges will be assessed. However, this approach requires comparability, which is currently hampered by a 5 GtCO2yr-1 mismatch between the estimated global land anthropogenic flux of IAMs and countries’ GHG inventories (GHGIs) for 2005-2015. We show that this gap is mostly the result of differences in how the anthropogenic forest sink is defined. Countries define managed forest more broadly than IAMs, and on this larger area typically consider anthropogenic also fluxes due to human-induced environmental change, which IAMs do not include their pathways. Using five IAMs and a dynamic global vegetation model (DGVM), we present and apply a novel method that adjusts IAM results to the countries’ definition, closing the gap with GHGIs at global and regional scale. When expressed in a way compatible with GHGIs, adjusted 1.5°C and well-below 2°C pathways have a cumulative CO2 balance until carbon neutrality that is 110–176 GtCO2 lower than the original IAMs pathways. The use of these country-compatible emission pathways under the Global Stocktake would therefore be essential for an accurate assessment of the collective progress towards the Paris Agreement’s climate goals.

Grassi, Giacomo↗

DOE OSTI2020

Food security under high bioenergy demand toward long-term climate goals

Bioenergy is expected to play an important role in the achievement of stringent climate-change mitigation targets requiring the application of negative emissions technology. Using a multi-model framework, we assess the effects of high bioenergy demand on global food production, food security, and competition for agricultural land. Various scenarios simulate global bioenergy demands of 100, 200, 300, and 400 exajoules (EJ) by 2100, with and without a carbon price. Six global energy-economy-agriculture models contribute to this study, with different methodologies and technologies used for bioenergy supply and greenhouse-gas mitigation options for agriculture. We find that the large-scale use of bioenergy, if not implemented properly, would raise food prices and increase the number of people at risk of hunger in many areas of the world. For example, an increase in global bioenergy demand from 200 to 300 EJ causes a -11% to +40% change in food crop prices and decreases food consumption from -45 to -2 kcal person -1 day -1 , leading to an additional 0 to 25 million people at risk of hunger compared with the case of no bioenergy demand (90th percentile range across models). This risk does not rule out the intensive use of bioenergy but shows the importance of its careful implementation, potentially including regulations that protect cropland for food production or for the use of bioenergy feedstock on land that is not competitive with food production.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Are scenario projections overly optimistic about future yield progress?

Historical increases in agricultural production were achieved predominantly by large increases in agricultural productivity. Intensification of crop and livestock production also plays a key role in future projections of agricultural land use. Here, we assess and discuss projections of crop yields by global agricultural land-use and integrated assessment models. To evaluate these crop yield projections, we compare them to empirical data on attainable yields by employing a linear and plateauing continuation of observed attainable yield trends. While keeping in mind the uncertainties of attainable yields projections and future climate change impacts, we find that, on average for all cereals on the global level, global projected yields by 2050 remain below the attainable yields. Additionally, this is also true for future pathways with high technological progress and mitigation efforts, indicating that projected yield increases are not overly optimistic, even under systemic transformations. Furthermore, on a regional scale, we find that for developing regions, specifically for sub-Saharan Africa, projected yields stay well below attainable yields, indicating that the large yield gaps which could be closed through improved crop management, may also persist in the future. In OECD countries, in contrast, current yields are already close to attainable yields, and the projections approach or, for some models, even exceed attainable yields by 2050. This observation parallels research suggesting that future progress in attainable yields in developed regions will mainly have to be achieved through new crop varieties or genetic improvements. The models included in this study vary widely in their implementation of yield progress, which are often split into endogenous (crop management) improvements and exogenous (technological) trends. More detail and transparency are needed in these important elements of global yields and land use projections, and this paper discusses possibilities of better aligning agronomic understanding of yield gaps and yield potentials with modelling approaches.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS2014

Climate Change Effects on Agriculture: Economic Responses to Biophysical Shocks

Agricultural production is sensitive to weather and thus directly affected by climate change. Plausible estimates of these climate change impacts require combined use of climate, crop, and economic models. Results from previous studies vary substantially due to differences in models, scenarios, and data. This paper is part of a collective effort to systematically integrate these three types of models. We focus on the economic component of the assessment, investigating how nine global economic models of agriculture represent endogenous responses to seven standardized climate change scenarios produced by two climate and five crop models. These responses include adjustments in yields, area, consumption, and international trade. We apply biophysical shocks derived from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's representative concentration pathway with end-of-century radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m(sup 2). The mean biophysical yield effect with no incremental CO2 fertilization is a 17% reduction globally by 2050 relative to a scenario with unchanging climate. Endogenous economic responses reduce yield loss to 11%, increase area of major crops by 11%, and reduce consumption by 3%. Agricultural production, cropland area, trade, and prices show the greatest degree of variability in response to climate change, and consumption the lowest. The sources of these differences include model structure and specification; in particular, model assumptions about ease of land use conversion, intensification, and trade. This study identifies where models disagree on the relative responses to climate shocks and highlights research activities needed to improve the representation of agricultural adaptation responses to climate change.

farm crops↗