Short- and long-term warming effects of methane may affect the cost-effectiveness of mitigation policies and benefits of low-meat diets.

Methane's short atmospheric life has important implications for the design of global climate change mitigation policies in agriculture. Three different agricultural economic models are used to explore how short- and long-term warming effects of methane can affect the cost-effectiveness of mitigation policies and dietary transitions. Results show that the choice of a particular metric for methane's warming potential is key to determine optimal mitigation options, with metrics based on shorter-term impacts leading to greater overall emission reduction. Also, the promotion of low-meat diets is more effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to carbon pricing when mitigation policies are based on metrics that reflect methane's long-term behaviour. A combination of stringent mitigation measures and dietary changes could achieve substantial emission reduction levels, helping reverse the contribution of agriculture to global warming.

Snakes and ladders: World development pathways' synergies and trade-offs through the lens of the Sustainable Development Goals.

This paper takes three global visions of world development to 2050 and quantifies their implications for sustainable progress employing the metrics of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDG outcomes are structured through the interconnectivities of the three 'wedding cake' layers of 'economy', 'society' and 'biosphere', as posited by the Stockholm Resilience Centre. The key policy contribution is to quantify the resulting SDG synergies and trade-offs, whilst also decomposing and calculating the part-worth of the market drivers which contribute to these outcomes. The paper employs a global economic simulation model that combines rational market behaviour with environmental constraints (MAGNET) and is further extended with an SDG metrics module. A 'non-sustainable' world reveals trade-offs between economy and biosphere SDGs, with population growth of particular concern to a safe planetary operating space in the world's poorest regions. Sustainable visions could reduce natural resource pressures and emissions and meet energy requirements at potentially limited economic cost. Notwithstanding, these futures do not address income inequalities and potentially increase food security concerns for the most vulnerable members of society. Consequently, developed region led international cooperation and in-kind income transfers to developing countries, constitutes a necessary prerequisite to help remedy the SDG trade-offs exhibited within the more sustainable global pathways.

Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy.

Increased efforts are required to prevent further losses to terrestrial biodiversity and the ecosystem services that it  provides1,2. Ambitious targets have been proposed, such as reversing the declining trends in biodiversity3; however, just feeding the growing human population will make this a challenge4. Here we use an ensemble of land-use and biodiversity models to assess whether-and how-humanity can reverse the declines in terrestrial biodiversity caused by habitat conversion, which is a major threat to biodiversity5. We show that immediate efforts, consistent with the broader sustainability agenda but of unprecedented ambition and coordination, could enable the provision of food for the growing human population while reversing the global terrestrial biodiversity trends caused by habitat conversion. If we decide to increase the extent of land under conservation management, restore degraded land and generalize landscape-level conservation planning, biodiversity trends from habitat conversion could become positive by the mid-twenty-first century on average across models (confidence interval, 2042-2061), but this was not the case for all models. Food prices could increase and, on average across models, almost half (confidence interval, 34-50%) of the future biodiversity losses could not be avoided. However, additionally tackling the drivers of land-use change could avoid conflict with affordable food provision and reduces the environmental effects of the food-provision system. Through further sustainable intensification and trade, reduced food waste and more plant-based human diets, more than two thirds of future biodiversity losses are avoided and the biodiversity trends from habitat conversion are reversed by 2050 for almost all of the models. Although limiting further loss will remain challenging in several biodiversity-rich regions, and other threats-such as climate change-must be addressed to truly reverse the declines in biodiversity, our results show that ambitious conservation efforts and food system transformation are central to an effective post-2020 biodiversity strategy.

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(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.