2111 2005 Dual discounting in forest sector climate change mitigation Hanne K. Sjølie Greg Latta Birger Solberg Forest sector modeling workshop Nancy,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
© dreamstime CLIMATE CHANGE 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change Working Group III contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.
Advertisements

Outlook for Australia’s forestry and forest products industry
The R&D Mission of the Proposed CICS Presentation at The CPUC Workshop on the Proposed California Institute for Climate Solutions December 12, 2007 John.
1 1 Is biomass from boreal forests better or worse than fossil fuels from a climate perspective? A work in progress By Bjart Holtsmark Statistics Norway.
Slides prepared by Thomas Bishop Copyright © 2009 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. Chapter 5 The Standard Trade Model.
THE CLIMATE POLICY DILEMMA Robert S. Pindyck M.I.T. December 2012.
Open Economy Macroeconomic Policy and Adjustment
The Environment. Content Market failure and the environment Markets and the environment Government policies and the environment: –Indirect taxes –Pollution.
Mads Greaker Michael Hoel Knut Einar Rosendahl Presented by: Loes Kengen.
Tools for optimal coordination of CCS, power industry capacity expansion and bio energy raw material production and harvesting Peter Lohmander Prof. Dr.
Environmental Sustainability in the Extractive Industry: The Case for Climate Change Mitigation Dr Uwem E. Ite.
Comments on the Stern Review David Maddison University of Birmingham.
EC 355 International Economics and Finance
Future role of renewable energy in Germany against the background of climate change mitigation and liberalisation Dipl.-Ing. Uwe Remme Institute of Energy.
Economic and Land Use Implications of Biofuels: Role of Policy Madhu Khanna With Xiaoguang Chen and Haixiao Huang Department of Agricultural and Consumer.
Consumers, Producers, and the Efficiency of Markets Outline:  Positive economics: Allocation of scarce resources using forces of demand and supply  Normative.
Economic Issues in Climate Change Kathleen Segerson Department of Economics University of Connecticut.
The Standard Trade Model
“Non-technical measures offer cost-effective potentials for further emission reductions” Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Evaluation of Economic, Land Use, and Land Use Emission Impacts of Substituting Non-GMO Crops for GMO in the US Farzad Taheripour Harry Mahaffey Wallace.
Macroeconomic Policy and Floating Exchange Rates
Economic and Environmental Impacts of Increased U.S. Natural Gas Exports Kemal Sarica Wallace E. Tyner Purdue University July 28-31, 2013 ANCHORAGE 32.
Elasticity of Demand and Supply
Chapter 5 Valuing Benefits and Costs in Secondary Markets
Biomass Carbon Neutrality in the Context of Forest-based Fuels and Products Al Lucier, NCASI Reid Miner, NCASI
Forest and Conservation Economics- FRST 318 Harry Nelson Dept of Forest Resources Mgt.
Consequences for the global forest sector of carbon offset payments Joseph Buongiorno, Shushuai Zhu.
An assessment of the global land use change and food security effects of the use of agricultural residues for bioenergy production Edward Smeets, Andrzej.
1 On the Effect of Greenhouse Gas Abatement in Japanese Economy: an Overlapping Generations Approach Shimasawa Manabu Akita University March 2006.
ESTIMATION OF THE SOCIAL DISCOUNT RATE FOR NON-MARGINAL ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGES Conor Parrish and David Courard-Hauri Drake University Environmental Science.
Chapter 10 - Biofuels. Introduction Existing standards for carbon accounting Forestry schemes as carbon offsets Biomass energy in place of fossil fuels.
Policy ramp versus big bang: optimal global mitigation policy.
Liberalization of Trade in Biofuels: Implications for GHG Emissions and Social Welfare Xiaoguang Chen Madhu Khanna Hayri Önal University of Illinois at.
Fire Prevention as a GHG Mitigation Strategy Presented by Robert Beach, RTI International Brent Sohngen, The Ohio State University Presented at Forestry.
Wisconsin’s Link to REDD GCF Aceh May Wisconsin Why does Wisconsin support Cap & Trade?
1 Macroeconomic Impacts of EU Climate Policy in AIECE November 5, 2008 Olavi Rantala - Paavo Suni The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
Challenges and Opportunities in Developing Forest Carbon Accounting Approaches for Use in Regulatory and Financial Trading Schemes Biometrics Working Group.
US Forest Service GHG and Energy Modeling Climate and Energy Policy: The Role of Forests Rob Doudrick US Forest Service Research and Development.
Brussels, Dec 1, Making an inefficient energy system in Europe more efficient Sven Werner, professor Halmstad University, Sweden Partly based on.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ENERGY PRODUCTION: EVALUATION OF BIOCHAR APPLICATION ON TAIWANESE SET-ASIDE LAND Chih-Chun Kung November 2012 Austin, Texas.
Discounting. Discounting handout Discounting is a method for placing weights on future values to convert them into present values so that they can be.
Environmental unsustainability: how much should we discount the future? Donald Hay Jesus College and Department of Economics, Oxford 25 June 2008.
1 Optimal dynamic control of the forest resource with changing energy demand functions and valuation of CO2 storage Presentation at the Conference: The.
Chapter 8 Principles of Taxation 1: Efficiency and Equity Issues Chapter outline 1.Efficiency Issues in Tax Design 2.Equity Issues in Tax Design.
“The Economics of Alternative Energy Sources and Globalization: The Road Ahead”, November15 – 17, 2009, Orlando, Florida Impacts of future energy price.
© 2007 Thomson South-Western. The Influence of Monetary and Fiscal Policy on Aggregate Demand Many factors influence aggregate demand besides monetary.
Overview of a model to estimate the GHG balance of the New Zealand forest industry 22 March 2004 Isabel Loza-Balbuena PhD candidate School of Forestry.
 Cap and Trade Application: Global Warming 6. 2.
Natuurwetenschap & SamenlevingScience, Technology & Society Large Scale International Bio-energy Trade - Perspectives, Possibilities and Criteria; introduction.
SAF 3/3/09 1 Potential Biomass Demand Impact on Forest Markets and Resources Bob Abt NC State University
© dreamstime CLIMATE CHANGE 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change Working Group III contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.
Policy ramp versus big bang: optimal global mitigation policy ESP 165: Climate Policy Michael Springborn Department of Environmental Science & Policy UC.
Climate Policy and Green Tax Reform in Denmark Some conclusions from the 2009 report to the Danish Council of Environmental Economics Presentation to the.
Climate Policy within an International Emission Trading System Lars Bohlin Department of Economics, Örebro University
The Forest Sector Model EFI GTM – a global model for analyzing impacts related to forestry and forest industries Presentation at NORAD/DECEE seminar on.
World Energy and Environmental Outlook to 2030
Tomas Lundmark SLU Sweden
Dr. Gabrial Anandarajah, Dr. Neil Strachan King’s College London
Implications of Alternative Crop Yield Assumptions on Land Management, Commodity Markets, and GHG Emissions Projections Justin S. Baker, Ph.D.1 with B.A.
Optimal climate policy
Department of Economics
The Opportunity Cost of Climate Mitigation Policy
Monetary Policy and Fiscal Policy
1 Summary for Policymakers
1 Summary for Policymakers
1 Summary for Policymakers
Welcome! Challenges and Opportunities in Developing Forest Carbon Accounting Approaches for Use in Regulatory and Financial Trading Schemes Webinar: Presentation.
Mårten Larsson Deputy Director General
1 Summary for Policymakers
Can managed forest land provide effective strategies for climate change mitigation ? - examples from Sweden IEA Bioenergy Canberra, March 26-30, 2001.
Presentation transcript:

Dual discounting in forest sector climate change mitigation Hanne K. Sjølie Greg Latta Birger Solberg Forest sector modeling workshop Nancy, France May 31, 2012

NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES Outline  Discounting in climate policy analyses / forest sector  Hypothesis  Model  Results  Discussion 2 Dual discounting in forest sector climate change mitigation

NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES Basis for discounting  Social opportunity costs (SOC): Costs of capital  Social time preference (STP): –per capita economic growth (g), –the elasticity of marginal utility of consumption (η) and –pure time preference (“impatience” of individuals) (p) –STP = g×η + p  ”Should be” the same, but differ due to i.a. taxes, externalities, information 3 Dual discounting in forest sector climate change mitigation

NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES Discounting in climate policy analyses  The discount rate is very important in climate policy analyses  However, among scientists there are large disagreements regarding the magnitude of the discount rate as well as the rationale of the appropiate rate  Ex. Stern Review and the following debate:  The Review advocates for strong, rapid mitigation action as the benefits of action greatly exceed the costs  The conclusions diverge from many other economic assessment of climate policies  Moreover, “the difference stems almost entirely from its technique for calculating discount rates and only marginally on new science or economics” (Nordhaus, 2007, p. 201).  The Review used a discount rate of 1.4% 4 Dual discounting in forest sector climate change mitigation

NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES Low and dual discount rate  Stern (and many others) use arguments as ethics / intergenerational equity as arguments for using a low discount rate  Discounting environmental and non-environmental goods likewise is based on the assumption of perfect substitutability  Kula and Evans (Kula, E., Evans, D., Dual discounting in cost- benefit analysis for environmental impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31, 180–186) argues for the use of dual discount rate: One for monetary values and a lower for carbon  Their argument being as the scarcity of environmental values increases with economic growth, such values should not be included in the economic growth part of the STP 5 Dual discounting in forest sector climate change mitigation

NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES Dual discounting in forestry  Kula and Evans compare the NPV of a forestation project in Nothern Ireland using hyperbolic discount rate starting at 3.5% for all values with a dual discounting scheme where monetary values discount rate starts at 3.5% and carbon at 1.5%  The NPV of the project is negative with the single discount scheme and positive with the dual 6 Dual discounting in forest sector climate change mitigation

NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES Hypothesis Do the results of Kula and Evans hold in all kinds of carbon mitigation projects in forestry? More specifically, do the results hold in projects with an initial carbon stock? Or could a low discount rate lead to initial harvests being offset by later carbon sequestration to a higher degree, thereby leading to less short-term carbon sequestration? Hypothesis: When having initial carbon stocks, a lower discount rate on carbon yields less CO 2 emission reductions in the short run 7 Dual discounting in forest sector climate change mitigation

NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES Analysis 8 Dual discounting in forest sector climate change mitigation Using a partial equilibrium model of the Norwegian forest sector Carbon discount rates: 0%, 2%, 4%, 6% and 8% Monetary discount rate: 4% Carbon price: 12.5 €/ton CO 2 eq Discount rate and carbon price are constant over the horizon

NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES 9 The forest sector model for Norway NorFor Demand for final products (county) Forest growth, management: Biomass supply (9000 NFI plots) Forest industry Sawnwood (county) Pulp, paper and boards (mill) Bioenergy (county) Trade (counties + 2 foreign regions) Decay, machines Growth Transport Substitution, storage Combustion Processing Demand GHG Forest growth, management: Biomass supply Forest growth, management: Biomass supply Demand Forest industry Trade Dual discounting in forest sector climate change mitigation

NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES NorFor  Perfect foresight  Rational agents: consumers, industry, forest owners  Elasticity of foreign supply: 0.8 (logs), 5 (products)  Elasticity of foreign demand: -0.8 (logs), -5 (products)  20 5-year periods run, 19 analyzed 10 Dual discounting in forest sector climate change mitigation

NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES Impacts on harvest 11 Dual discounting in forest sector climate change mitigation

NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES Investment in forestry 12 Dual discounting in forest sector climate change mitigation

NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES Industrial production 13 Dual discounting in forest sector climate change mitigation Decline in the long run Increase in the long run Only marginal impacts with discount rate >= 4%

NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES GHG fluxes 14 Dual discounting in forest sector climate change mitigation

NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES GHG fluxes 15 Dual discounting in forest sector climate change mitigation

NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES Discussion  Not discounting carbon yields lower GHG emission reductions in the short term but considerably higher in the long term  Carbon price harvest is below Base levels for all periods with a single discount scheme  Short-term harvests are higher with zero carbon discount rate than in both Base and 4% carbon disccount rate but considerably lower in the long run  Future carbon sequestration offsets early harvest to a higher extent with low carbon discount rate  Much more investments in forestry with low discount rate  Large shifts in industry with low carbon discount rate as NPV of substitution effects becomes relatively larger than producer surplus  Leakage is substantial particularly under low carbon discount rate but direction of results still hold with fixes trade levels 16 Dual discounting in forest sector climate change mitigation

NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES Discussion  Discounting carbon less with the aim to allocate more resources to climate change mitigation does not necessiraly yield the desired results  Main difference from the Kula and Evans study is the initial carbon stock  Important to test a new scheme on a varity of assumptions  Basic assumption of dual discounting: non-substitutable goods  Instead of dual discounting, future scarcity of environmental goods can be reflected in increasing prices – but prices can be difficult to assess due to lack of markets  Discounting in models: Market observations or policies or ethical judgements? Versus other parameters in the models 17 Dual discounting in forest sector climate change mitigation

NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES 18 Thank you!