This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

The Economic Potential of Second-Generation Biofuels: Implications for Social Welfare, Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Illinois

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Chen, Xiaoguang
Khanna, Madhu
Onal, Hayri
Abstract

This paper develops a dynamic micro-economic land use model that maximizes social welfare and internalizes externality from greenhouse gas emissions to obtain the optimal land use allocation for traditional row crops and bioenergy crops (corn stover, miscanthus and switchgrass), the mix of cellulosic feedstocks and fuel and food prices. We use this carbon tax policy as a benchmark to compare the implications of existing biofuel policies on land use, social welfare and the environment for the 2007-2022 period. The model is operationalized using yields of perennial grasses obtained from a biophysical model, county level data on yields of traditional row crops and production costs for row crops and bioenergy crops in Illinois. We show that a carbon tax policy that is directly related to carbon intensity of fuels can generate the highest social welfare among alternative policy scenarios. The existing ethanol tax credits result in substantial deadweight losses and higher GHG emissions as compared to the baseline. Ethanol blending mandates with subsidies lead to further welfare losses and higher GHG emissions. To meet advanced biofuel blending mandates, corn stover and miscanthus are used but the mix of viable cellulosic feedstocks varies spatially and temporally. Corn stover is viable mainly in central and northern Illinois while miscanthus acres are primarily concentrated on southern Illinois. The blending mandates lead to a significant shift in acreage from soybeans and pasture to corn and a change in crop rotation and tillage practices.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/49484
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Agricultural and Applied Economics Association in its series 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin with number 49484.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea09:49484

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Phone: (414) 918-3190
Fax: (414) 276-3349
Email:
Web page: http://www.aaea.org
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (AgEcon Search).

Related research
Keywords: cellulosic ethanol; land use; social welfare; greenhouse gas emissions; Land Economics/Use; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy; Q42; Q24;

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Ralph Alig & Darius Adams & Bruce McCarl & J. Callaway & Steven Winnett, 1997. "Assessing effects of mitigation strategies for global climate change with an intertemporal model of the U.S. forest and agriculture sectors," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(3), pages 259-274, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Ian W. H. Parry & Kenneth A. Small, 2005. "Does Britain or the United States Have the Right Gasoline Tax?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1276-1289, September. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  3. Harry de Gorter & David R. Just, 2008. "The Economics of the U.S. Ethanol Import Tariff with a Blend Mandate and Tax Credit," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, Berkeley Electronic Press, vol. 6(2). [Downloadable!]
  4. Bruce Gardner, 2007. "Fuel Ethanol Subsidies and Farm Price Support," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, Berkeley Electronic Press, vol. 5(2). [Downloadable!]
  5. Vedenov, Dmitry & Wetzstein, Michael, 2008. "Toward an optimal U.S. ethanol fuel subsidy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 2073-2090, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Gallagher, Paul W. & Shapouri, Hosein & Price, Jeffrey & Schamel, Guenter & Brubaker, Heather, 2003. "Some Long-Run Effects of Growing Markets and Renewable Fuel Standards on Additives Markets and the U.S. Ethanol Industry," Staff General Research Papers 10648, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  7. Madhu Khanna & Amy W. Ando & Farzad Taheripour, 2008. "Welfare Effects and Unintended Consequences of Ethanol Subsidies," Review of Agricultural Economics, American Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(3), pages 411-421, 09. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? Data contributors to RePEc receive monthly emails with details about downloads and abstract views of their works.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-26.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.