IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v97y2016icp351-353.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Climate consequences of low-carbon fuels: The United States Renewable Fuel Standard

Author

Listed:
  • Hill, Jason
  • Tajibaeva, Liaila
  • Polasky, Stephen

Abstract

A common strategy for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from energy use is to increase the supply of low-carbon alternatives. However, increasing supply tends to lower energy prices, which encourages additional fuel consumption. This “fuel market rebound effect” can undermine climate change mitigation strategies, even to the point where efforts to reduce GHG emissions by increasing the supply of low-carbon fuels may actually result in increased GHG emissions. Here, we explore how policies that encourage the production of low-carbon fuels may result in increased GHG emissions because the resulting increase in energy use overwhelms the benefits of reduced carbon intensity. We describe how climate change mitigation strategies should follow a simple rule: a low-carbon fuel with a carbon intensity of X% that of a fossil fuel must displace at least X% of that fossil fuel to reduce overall GHG emissions. We apply this rule to the United States Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2). We show that absent consideration of the fuel market rebound effect, RFS2 appears to reduce GHG emissions, but once the fuel market rebound effect is factored in, RFS2 actually increases GHG emissions when all fuel GHG intensity targets are met.

Suggested Citation

  • Hill, Jason & Tajibaeva, Liaila & Polasky, Stephen, 2016. "Climate consequences of low-carbon fuels: The United States Renewable Fuel Standard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 351-353.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:97:y:2016:i:c:p:351-353
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516303962
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.035?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antonio M. Bento, Richard Klotz, and Joel R. Landry, 2015. "Are there Carbon Savings from US Biofuel Policies? The Critical Importance of Accounting for Leakage in Land and Fuel Markets," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3).
    2. Gal Hochman & Deepak Rajagopal & David Zilberman, 2011. "The Effect of Biofuels on the International Oil Market," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 402-427.
    3. Rajagopal, D. & Plevin, Richard J., 2013. "Implications of market-mediated emissions and uncertainty for biofuel policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 75-82.
    4. Peter Erickson & Michael Lazarus, 2014. "Impact of the Keystone XL pipeline on global oil markets and greenhouse gas emissions," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 4(9), pages 778-781, September.
    5. Quentin Grafton, R. & Kompas, Tom & Van Long, Ngo, 2012. "Substitution between biofuels and fossil fuels: Is there a green paradox?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 328-341.
    6. Gal Hochman & Deepak Rajagopal & David Zilberman, 2011. "The Effect of Biofuels on the International Oil Market-super- ," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 402-427.
    7. Rajagopal, D. & Hochman, G. & Zilberman, D., 2011. "Indirect fuel use change (IFUC) and the lifecycle environmental impact of biofuel policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 228-233, January.
    8. Smeets, Edward & Tabeau, Andrzej & van Berkum, Siemen & Moorad, Jamil & van Meijl, Hans & Woltjer, Geert, 2014. "The impact of the rebound effect of the use of first generation biofuels in the EU on greenhouse gas emissions: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 393-403.
    9. Thompson, Wyatt & Whistance, Jarrett & Meyer, Seth, 2011. "Effects of US biofuel policies on US and world petroleum product markets with consequences for greenhouse gas emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 5509-5518, September.
    10. Grafton, R. Quentin & Kompas, Tom & Long, Ngo Van & To, Hang, 2014. "US biofuels subsidies and CO2 emissions: An empirical test for a weak and a strong green paradox," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 550-555.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wood, Dallas & Larson, Justin & Jones, Jason & Galperin, Diana & Shelby, Michael & Gonzalez, Manuel, 2022. "World oil price impacts on country-specific fuel markets: Evidence of a muted global rebound effect," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    2. Yeh, Sonia & Burtraw, Dallas & Sterner, Thomas & Greene, David, 2021. "Tradable performance standards in the transportation sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    3. Philipp Günther & Felix Ekardt, 2022. "Human Rights and Large-Scale Carbon Dioxide Removal: Potential Limits to BECCS and DACCS Deployment," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-29, November.
    4. Spawn-Lee, Seth A. & Lark, Tyler J. & Gibbs, Holly & Houghton, Richard A. & Kucharik, Christopher J & Malins, Chris & Pelton, Rylie & Robertson, G. Philip, 2021. "Refuting recent claims of an improved carbon intensity of U.S. corn ethanol," EcoEvoRxiv cxhz5, Center for Open Science.
    5. Gallagher, Paul W. & Sleper, Daniel, 2016. "The market and consumer welfare effects of mid-level ethanol blends in the US fuel market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 149-159.
    6. Lee, Taewoo & Jung, Sungyup & Kim, Ki-Hyun & Kwon, Eilhann E., 2021. "Catalytic pyrolysis of pine bark over Ni/SiO2 in a CO2 atmosphere," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    7. Abdul-Manan, Amir F.N., 2017. "Lifecycle GHG emissions of palm biodiesel: Unintended market effects negate direct benefits of the Malaysian Economic Transformation Plan (ETP)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 56-65.
    8. Wang, Hui & Zhang, Yunyun & Lin, Weifen & Wei, Wendong, 2023. "Transregional electricity transmission and carbon emissions: Evidence from ultra-high voltage transmission projects in China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    9. Günther, Philipp & Ekardt, Felix, 2022. "Human Rights and Large-Scale Carbon Dioxide Removal: Potential Limits to BECCS and DACCS Deployment," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 11(12), pages 1-29.
    10. Jerome Dumortier & Miguel Carriquiry & Amani Elobeid, 2023. "Interactions Between U.S. Vehicle Electrification, Climate Change, and Global Agricultural Markets," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 99-123, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Antonio M. Bento, Richard Klotz, and Joel R. Landry, 2015. "Are there Carbon Savings from US Biofuel Policies? The Critical Importance of Accounting for Leakage in Land and Fuel Markets," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3).
    2. Chen, Xiaoguang & Huang, Haixiao & Khanna, Madhu & Önal, Hayri, 2014. "Alternative transportation fuel standards: Welfare effects and climate benefits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 241-257.
    3. Maura Allaire and Stephen P. A. Brown, 2015. "The Green Paradox of U.S. Biofuel Subsidies: Impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2).
    4. Sexton, Steven & Eyer, Jonathan, 2016. "Leveling the playing field of transportation fuels: Accounting for indirect emissions of natural gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 21-31.
    5. Wang, Min & Zhao, Jinhua, 2018. "Are renewable energy policies climate friendly? The role of capacity constraints and market power," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 41-60.
    6. Abdul-Manan, Amir F.N., 2017. "Lifecycle GHG emissions of palm biodiesel: Unintended market effects negate direct benefits of the Malaysian Economic Transformation Plan (ETP)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 56-65.
    7. Karel Janda & Eva Michalikova & Luiz Célio Souza Rocha & Paulo Rotella Junior & Barbora Schererova & David Zilberman, 2022. "Review of the Impact of Biofuels on U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-21, December.
    8. Rajagopal, D. & Plevin, R. & Hochman, G. & Zilberman, D., 2015. "Multi-objective regulations on transportation fuels: Comparing renewable fuel mandates and emission standards," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 359-369.
    9. Ji, Xi & Long, Xianling, 2016. "A review of the ecological and socioeconomic effects of biofuel and energy policy recommendations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 41-52.
    10. Klotz, Richard & Bento, Antonio M. & Landry, Joel R., 2013. "Economic Insights Required for Using Lifecycle Analysis for Policy Decisions," 2014 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 3-5, 2014, Philadelphia, PA 161654, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Mads Greaker & Michael Hoel & Knut Einar Rosendahl, 2014. "Does a Renewable Fuel Standard for Biofuels Reduce Climate Costs?," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(3), pages 337-363.
    12. Drabik, Dušan & de Gorter, Harry, 2013. "Emissions from Indirect Land Use Change: Do they Matter with Fuel Market Leakages?," Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics (RAAE), Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, September.
    13. Rajagopal, Deepak & Zilberman, David, 2013. "On market-mediated emissions and regulations on life cycle emissions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 77-84.
    14. Gal Hochman & Chrysostomos Tabakis, 2020. "Biofuels and Their Potential in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-17, September.
    15. Bilgili, Faik & Koçak, Emrah & Bulut, Ümit & Kuşkaya, Sevda, 2017. "Can biomass energy be an efficient policy tool for sustainable development?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 830-845.
    16. Piroli, Giuseppe & Rajcaniova, Miroslava & Ciaian, Pavel & Kancs, d׳Artis, 2015. "From a rise in B to a fall in C? SVAR analysis of environmental impact of biofuels," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 921-930.
    17. Plevin, Richard J. & Delucchi, Mark A. & O’Hare, Michael, 2017. "Fuel carbon intensity standards may not mitigate climate change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 93-97.
    18. Caurla, Sylvain & Bertrand, Vincent & Delacote, Philippe & Le Cadre, Elodie, 2018. "Heat or power: How to increase the use of energy wood at the lowest cost?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 85-103.
    19. Porcelli, Roberto & Gibon, Thomas & Marazza, Diego & Righi, Serena & Rugani, Benedetto, 2023. "Prospective environmental impact assessment and simulation applied to an emerging biowaste-based energy technology in Europe," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    20. Wood, Dallas & Larson, Justin & Jones, Jason & Galperin, Diana & Shelby, Michael & Gonzalez, Manuel, 2022. "World oil price impacts on country-specific fuel markets: Evidence of a muted global rebound effect," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:97:y:2016:i:c:p:351-353. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.