Assessment of GHG Mitigation Opportunities in the U.S. Forest and Agricultural Sectors Bruce A. McCarl Texas A&M University Collaborators Heng-Chi Lee.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Economics of GHG Management in the LULUCF sector Michael Obersteiner JRC Improving the Quality of Community GHG Inventory… rd Sept
Advertisements

Climate Change and KS : Mitigation Charles W. Rice Soil Microbiologist Department of Agronomy Lead Author, IPCC AR4 WGIII K-State Research and Extension.
An Economic Exploration of Biofuel based Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation Bruce A. McCarl Regents Professor of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University.
DG CLIMA Resource Efficiency Policies for Land Use related Climate Mitigation Adrian R. Tan BIO Intelligence Service, France November 2013.
1 Economic and Environmental Co-benefits of Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Soils: Retiring Agricultural Land in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
Gregory Latta, Darius Adams and Sara Ohrel Oregon State University and US Environmental Protection Agency.
1 Permanence Discounting for Land-Based Carbon Sequestration Man-Keun Kim Joint Global Change Research Institute University of Maryland Bruce A. McCarl.
Agriculture and Greenhouse Gases Jill Heemstra, University of Nebraska - Lincoln Building Environmental Leaders in Animal Agriculture (BELAA)
Estimating Leakage from Forest and Agricultural Carbon Sequestration Projects Presented by Brian C. Murray RTI International Presented at 3rd USDA Symposium.
The LULUCF sector: land use, land-use change and forestry
IPCC Mitigation Potential and Costs Land-Use Options Daniel Martino (Carbosur, Uruguay) CLA, Chapter 8 (Agriculture), WGIII Bonn, 12 May 2007.
“And see this ring right here, Jimmy?... That’s another time the old fellow miraculously survived some big forest fire.” ENFA/INSEA FORESTRY…..
ENFA Model ENFA Kick-off Meeting Hamburg, 10 May 2005.
Research Triangle Institute P.O. Box · 3040 Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park, NC Evaluating Forest Carbon Sequestration Potential in.
Stakeholder consultation on discussion document on GHG mitigation potential within the agriculture and forest sector Portlaoise 15 May 2015 Eugene Hendrick.
Resource Use and Sustainability Dr. George Norton Agricultural and Applied Economics Virginia Tech Copyright 2008 AAEC 3204.
Will Bioenergy be Profitable: Markets, Lifecycle Carbon Footprint, Commodity Prices and Leakage Bruce A. McCarl Distinguished Professor and Regents Professor.
Biomass Carbon Neutrality in the Context of Forest-based Fuels and Products Al Lucier, NCASI Reid Miner, NCASI
Measuring Carbon Co-Benefits of Agricultural Conservation Policies: In-stream vs. Edge-of-Field Assessments of Water Quality. Measuring Carbon Co-Benefits.
Climate and Economic Drivers of Land Use Change John Reilly, Niven Winchester, Adam Schlosser, Qudsia Ejaz MIT Joint Program.
What are the environmental implications of increased biofuel use in the U.S., and how can we model them? Bruce A. McCarl Regents Professor of Agricultural.
Trading Water for Carbon? Groundwater Management in the Presence of GHG Mitigation Incentives for Agriculture Justin Baker Research Analyst Center on Global.
Michael Obersteiner IIASA Regional Carbon Budgets: From methodologies to quantification. Beijing, China, November 2004 Coupling Carbon Processes.
Inclusion of the agricultural sector in greenhouse gas mitigation policies Problems and potential instruments Uwe A. Schneider Research Unit Sustainability.
Global Emissions from the Agriculture and Forest Sectors: Status and Trends Indu K Murthy Indian Institute of Science.
Deforestation Research in the United States: Evidence To Inform the Avoided Deforestation Discussion Ralph J. Alig USDA Forest Service PNW Research Station.
Co-Benefits from Conservation Policies that Promote Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture: The Corn Belt CARD, Iowa State University Presented at the Forestry.
What are Models Saying about the Supply of Bioenergy: Regionally and Temporally: Discussion Bruce A. McCarl University Distinguished Professor Department.
Putting the Hopes and Fears of Climate Change Legislation in Perspective _________________________________________ Sustainable Agriculture: The Key to.
Soil carbon in dynamic land use optimization models Uwe A. Schneider Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change Hamburg University.
European Carbon Sinks Modeling Status, Data, Analytical Gaps, EUFASOM Uwe A. Schneider Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change Hamburg University.
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.
Regional Modeling and Linking Sector Models with CGE Models Presented by Martin T. Ross Environmental and Natural Resource Economics Program RTI International.
A Review of Forest Carbon Sequestration Cost Studies Q: What is Carbon Sequestration? A: Capture and Storage of Carbon in Sinks Terrestrial (forest, agriculture)
Overview of Economic Methods to Simulate Land Competition Forestry and Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Modeling Forum National Conservation Training Center.
Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: what does it mean for bioenergy and C sequestration? Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: what does it mean for.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development Round Table 3: Green Growth and Climate Change Hsin Huang Trade and Agriculture Directorate EastAgri.
Agriculture’s Role in Climate Change Mitigation July 18, 2007 (revised) Daniel A. Lashof, Ph.D. Science Director Climate Center Natural Resources Defense.
Biofuels raised in the Greenhouse An Economic Perspective Bruce A. McCarl Regents Professor of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University Presented at.
That’s the assumption we’ve made… Vera Eory, Kairsty Topp, Dominic Moran, Adam Butler 29/9/2015, Edinburgh Royal Statistical Society Seminar.
Climate Change and Energy Impacts on Water and Food Scarcity Mark W. Rosegrant Director Environment and Production Technology Division High-level Panel.
The Role of Biofuels in the Transformation of Agriculture Daniel G. De La Torre Ugarte and Chad M. Hellwinckel The Economics of Alternative Energy Sources.
1 Forestry and Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Modeling Forum, Workshop #4: Modeling Ag-Forest Offsets and Biofuels in U.S. and Canadian Regional and National.
Can Biofuels be Sustainable in an Unsustainable Agriculture? Daniel G. De La Torre Ugarte Chad M. Hellwinckel Chad M. Hellwinckel American Chemical Society.
Economic Impacts of GHG and Nutrient Reduction Policies in New Zealand Adam Daigneault Landcare Research Motu Climate Economics Research Workshop Wellington.
Biofuels: Impacts on Land, Food, and Prices Mark W. Rosegrant Director Environment and Production Technology Division AAAS Annual Meeting “Session on Biofuels,
Impacts of Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Policies Uwe A. Schneider Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University Contributors.
Oregon Ag Carbon Work Group. Introduction Agriculture represents a small percentage of greenhouse gas emissions Ag likely won’t be regulated under a greenhouse.
Common Reference Scenarios: A Synthesis of National-level Economic and Biophysical Model Results Presented at Forestry and Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
Discounts, Fungibility and Agricultural GHG Offset projects Bruce A. McCarl Regents Professor of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University Presented.
Policy Scenario Analyis Chrystalyn Ivie Ramos Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change Hamburg University 23 April 2008.
International Consultation on Pro-Poor Jatropha Development
Public Land, Timber Harvests and Climate Mitigation: Quantifying Carbon Sequestration Potential on U.S. Public Timberlands Brian C. Murray, Nicholas Institute,
Economic Assessment of GHG Mitigation Strategies for Canadian Agriculture: Role of market mechanisms for soil sinks Presentation to GHG Modeling Forum.
Bioenergy: Where We Are and Where We Should Be Daniel G. De La Torre Ugarte Chad M. Hellwinckel.
April 8, 2009Forestry and Agriculture GHG Modeling Forum Land Use Change in Agriculture: Yield Growth as a Potential Driver Scott Malcolm USDA/ERS.
Biofuel Policy: Livestock Emissions Emission reduction (mmtce) Biofuel carbon price (Euro/tce) Total Livestock.
© dreamstime CLIMATE CHANGE 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change Working Group III contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.
Climate Policy and Green Tax Reform in Denmark Some conclusions from the 2009 report to the Danish Council of Environmental Economics Presentation to the.
TRANSrisk Side Event ‘Assessing mitigation pathway risk and uncertainty: case studies in the Netherlands, Kenya and Chile’ Friday 18th November,
Low-Carbon Emission Agriculture Plan
Implications of Alternative Crop Yield Assumptions on Land Management, Commodity Markets, and GHG Emissions Projections Justin S. Baker, Ph.D.1 with B.A.
Policies to Accelerate the Bioeconomy: Unintended Effects and Effectiveness Madhu Khanna University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Bioenergy Supply, Land Use, and Environmental Implications
An Agricultural Sector Model to Analyze Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation from Forests and Agriculture Bruce A. McCarl Texas A&M University Uwe A. Schneider.
Agricultural/Forestry Greenhouse Gas Modeling Forum October 1-3, 2001
Agriculture’s contribution to a carbon neutral Europe
Regional Modeling and Linking Sector Models with CGE Models
Presentation transcript:

Assessment of GHG Mitigation Opportunities in the U.S. Forest and Agricultural Sectors Bruce A. McCarl Texas A&M University Collaborators Heng-Chi Lee Uwe Schneider Dhazn Gillig Brian Murray Darius Adams Ralph Alig Ken Andrasko Ben Deangelo Ron Sands Francisco Delachesnaye

Basic Components of Talk Project Goals Last Years Efforts Key Findings Directions being Pursued

Project Goals Examine the portfolio of land based GHG mitigation strategies and identify ones for further scrutiny considering Afforestation, Forest management, Biofuel, Ag soil, Animals, Fertilization, Rice, Grassland expansion Manure, Crop mix Look at market and time conditions under which strategies dominate Educate on needed scope of economic analysis Bring in a full cost and GHG accounting Look at market effects and co benefits/ costs

Activities in last year FASOM-GHG - examines Land based GHG strategies StrategyBasic NatureCO2CH4N2O Afforestation SequestrationX Existing timberland SequestrationX DeforestationEmissionX Biofuel ProductionOffsetXXX Crop Mix Alteration Emiss, SeqXX Crop Fertilization AlterationEmiss, SeqXX Crop Input AlterationEmissionXX Crop Tillage AlterationEmissionXX Grassland Conversion SequestrationX Irrigated /Dry land MixEmissionXX Enteric fermentation EmissionX Livestock Herd Size EmissionXX Livestock System ChangeEmissionXX Manure ManagementEmissionXX Rice Acreage EmissionXXX

Activities in last year FASOM-GHG - examines Land based GHG strategies Dissertation by Heng-Chi Lee Considers saturation characteristics of both soils and forests (uses 30 years for ag soils, Birdsey for forest soils and growth/yield characteristics of forests from forest service) 100 year model Land exchanges in response to GHG prices, plus all the agricultural activities by decade

 ASMGHG: GHG Features  ASMGHG: GHG Features  Empirical examinations done in last year Leakage International Leakage in ag Regional project appraisal Favored regional activity identification Co-benefits study Simultaneities with climate change Improved Non CO2 inventory Ties to CGE

 ASMGHG: GHG Features  ASMGHG: GHG Features  Major Results Portfolio Dynamic role of strategies Potential measures Mitigation and Markets Dynamics and co benefits Favored regional activity identification Simultaneities with climate change Ties to CGE

 ASMGHG: GHG Features  Portfolio Results Sectors can make a difference Millions of metric tons sequestered by source at alternative prices GHG Price ($/ton C) Activity$5$10$25$50$100$200 Soil Management Afforestation Forest Management Biofuel Offsets CH4+N2O Reduction Other Activities Total

 ASMGHG: GHG Features  ASMGHG: GHG Features  Portfolio Results MMt arising at an offset price giving $/tonne carbon equiv Small importance of CH4 and N2O Different strategies dominate at different price levels

 ASMGHG: GHG Features  ASMGHG: GHG Features  Dynamic role of strategies Results Source: Lee, Heng-Chi, An Economic Investigation of the Dynamic Role for Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation by the U.S. Agricultural and Forest Sectors, PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M University,December 2002 Cumulative Contribution at a $10 Price Cumulative Contribution at a $25 Price Cumulative Contribution at a $50 Price Cumulative Contribution at a $100 Price

 ASMGHG: GHG Features  ASMGHG: GHG Features  Dynamic role of strategies Results $50/metric ton Level of Price Time from now O to30 years >30 years Ag soils Limited forest and afforest Non co2 Limited forest and afforest Non co2 Bio fuels Non co2 Limited Ag soils Forest and afforest Biofuels Non co2

 ASMGHG: GHG Features  ASMGHG: GHG Features  Potential measures Results Economic vs competitive potential Economic potential is how much one would get if this was the only strategy employed Competiive potential is how much one gets when other strategies are possible Technical potential of ag soils is at 140 MMT

 ASMGHG: GHG Features  ASMGHG: GHG Features  Potential measures Results Implementation policy and response (from ASM summary) Affdef-- afforestation and deforestation only Allcarb -- all forestry and ag Nobiof -- no biofuels OnlyC02 -- no non co2 gasses Sequest -- ag soils only

 ASMGHG: GHG Features  ASMGHG: GHG Features  Mitigation and markets results From ASMGHG

 ASMGHG: GHG Features  ASMGHG: GHG Features  Dynamics and co benefits results High prices erode co benefits due to intensification Producers gain Consumers lose Exports reduced Some co benefits do not saturate over time but continue to be accrued (erosion, runoff, farm income). Ecosystem gains in habitat may saturate From ASMGHG

 ASMGHG: GHG Features  ASMGHG: GHG Features  Regional Strategy Results Regionally dominating strategies

 ASMGHG: GHG Features  ASMGHG: GHG Features  Simultaneities with climate change Results n Projected climate change could substantially enhance C sequestration rates n Strong synergies between climate change and C prices n Need to consider feedback effects between sequestration, GHG concentrations, and climate change

 ASMGHG: GHG Features  ASMGHG: GHG Features  Ties to CGE Results Developed response functions from ASMGHG sector model To do this ran ASMGHG sectoral model multiple times under alternative levels for carbon equivalent price, agricultural commod. demand - domestic & export fuel price Yielding data on simultaneous production of GHG offsets AF commodity price and quantity AF sectoral performance Then we fit functions to those data to encapsulate the results

 ASMGHG: GHG Features  ASMGHG: GHG Features  Ties to CGE Results Estimation data 405 systematic scenarios of independent variables 15 alternative carbon eq. prices $1, $5, $10, $20, $30, $40, $50, $60, $70, $80, $90, $100, $200, $300, and $400 per ton 3 levels of fuel prices 80%, 100%, 120% of base 3 levels of domestic demand 80%, 100%, 120% of base 3 levels of export demand 80%, 100%, 120% of base another 100 random scenarios from the ranges above for each of the 4 items to build degrees of freedom

 ASMGHG: GHG Features  ASMGHG: GHG Features  Ties to CGE Results Estimated functions Quantity of GHG emissions and sinks. Emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O (broken out to avoid double counting) Sinks for CO2 (did CH4 but should not use?) Ag Production, exports, imports and price Fisher index tot ag production, exports, imports and price changes Biofuel production Land Use, allocation and valuation. Acres crops, biofuels, pasture and forest, and choice of tillage practices. Welfare distribution. consumers' producers' and foreign interests. Levels of environmentally related items - use of crop land, irrig. water; nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, pesticides, fossil fuels, water and wind erosion.

 ASMGHG: GHG Features  ASMGHG: GHG Features  Ties to CGE Results Functional form where A k is the intercept term associated with the kth response function  ik is a vector of parameters associated the vector x of signals. The base functions with all of the independent variables held at the base level 1 for carbon price, 100 for the others That depicts the ASMGHG output under a zero carbon price 1997 energy price, 1997 domestic demand, 1997 export demand levels.

 ASMGHG: GHG Features  ASMGHG: GHG Features  Ties to CGE Results * Marks insignificant coefficients

Directions being Pursued Other Costs of Strategies Discounts for leakage, saturation, uncertainty additionality Dynamic response functions from FASOM Better ag carbon – Century, EPIC Better forest carbon – Century, EPIC Better non CO2 Improved animal emission accounting and management Updated forest inventory and growth CGE