IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v53y2005i4p343-357.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Dynamic Competitiveness of U.S. Agricultural and Forest Carbon Sequestration

Author

Listed:
  • Heng‐Chi Lee
  • Bruce A. McCarl
  • Dhazn Gillig

Abstract

Society is increasingly turning attention toward greenhouse gas emission control with for example the Kyoto Protocol has entered into force. Since many of the emissions come from energy use, high cost strategies might be required until new technological developments reduce fossil fuel dependency or increase energy utilization efficiency. On the other hand biologically based strategies may be used to offset energy related emissions. Agricultural soil and forestry are among the largest carbon reservoirs on the planet; therefore, agricultural and forest activities may help to reduce the costs of greenhouse gas emission mitigation. However, sequestration exhibits permanence related characteristics that may influence this role. We examine the dynamic role of carbon sequestration in the agricultural and forest sectors can play in mitigation. A 100‐year mathematical programming model, depicting U.S. agricultural and forest sectoral activities including land transfers and greenhouse gas consequences is applied to simulate potential mitigation response. The results show that at low cost and in the near term agricultural soil and forest management are dominant sectoral responses. At higher prices and in the longer term biofuels and afforestation take over. Our results reveal that the agricultural and forest sector carbon sequestration may serve as an important bridge to the future helping to hold costs down until energy emissions related technology develops. La société s'intéresse de plus en plus à la lutte contre les émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES) depuis, par exemple, l'entrée en vigueur du Protocole de Kyoto. Comme la majorité des émissions sont attribuables à la production d'énergie, il faudra peut‐être recourir à des stratégies coûteuses jusqu'à ce que de nouvelles percées technologiques permettent de diminuer la dépendance aux combustibles fossiles ou d'augmenter l'efficacitéénergétique. Toutefois, des stratégies biologiques pourraient être employées pour contrebalancer les émissions attribuables à la production d'énergie. Les sols agricoles et les forêts figurent parmi les plus importants puits de carbone de la planète; par conséquent, les activités agricoles et forestières pourraient aider à diminuer les coûts liés à la réduction des émissions de GES. Toutefois, la séquestration présente des caractéristiques permanentes qui pourraient influencer ce rôle. Nous avons examiné le rôle dynamique de la séquestration du carbone dans les secteurs agricole et forestier en vue de diminuer les GES. Un modèle de programmation mathématique de 100 ans illustrant les activités agricoles et forestières aux États‐Unis, y compris les conséquences du transfert de terres et des émissions de GES, a été utilisé pour simuler l'atténuation éventuelle. Les résultats ont montré, qu'à faible coût et qu'à court terme, la gestion des forêts et des sols agricoles constituaient les principales réactions de ces secteurs. À coût élevé et à long terme, les biocarburants et le boisement prennent la relève. Nos résultats ont révélé que la séquestration du carbone par les secteurs agricole et forestier peut contribuer à maintenir les coûts à de faibles niveaux jusqu'à la mise au point de technologies qui permettront de diminuer les émissions attribuables à la production d'énergie.

Suggested Citation

  • Heng‐Chi Lee & Bruce A. McCarl & Dhazn Gillig, 2005. "The Dynamic Competitiveness of U.S. Agricultural and Forest Carbon Sequestration," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(4), pages 343-357, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:53:y:2005:i:4:p:343-357
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2005.00023.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2005.00023.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2005.00023.x?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alig, Ralph J. & Adams, Darius M. & McCarl, Bruce A., 1998. "Impacts Of Incorporating Land Exchanges Between Forestry And Agriculture In Sector Models," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 1-13, December.
    2. McCarl, Bruce A. & Schneider, Uwe A., 1999. "Curbing Greenhouse Gases: Agriculture's Role," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-4.
    3. Antle, John M. & Capalbo, Susan Marie & Mooney, Sian & Elliott, Edward T. & Paustian, Keith H., 2001. "Economic Analysis Of Agricultural Soil Carbon Sequestration: An Integrated Assessment Approach," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-24, December.
    4. Darius M. Adams & Ralph J. Alig & DBruce A. McCarl & John M. Callaway & Steven M. Winnett, 1999. "Minimum Cost Strategies for Sequestering Carbon in Forests," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(3), pages 360-374.
    5. Schneider, Uwe A. & Kumar, Pushpam, 2008. "Greenhouse Gas Mitigation through Agriculture," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-5.
    6. Ian Noble & R. J. Scholes, 2001. "Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 5-25, March.
    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. Uwe A. Schneider & Michael Obersteiner & Erwin Schmid & Bruce A. McCarl, 2007. "Agricultural adaptation to climate policies under technical change," Working Papers FNU-133, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Jan 2008.
    2. Vass, Miriam Münnich & Elofsson, Katarina, 2016. "Is forest carbon sequestration at the expense of bioenergy and forest products cost-efficient in EU climate policy to 2050?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 82-105.
    3. Edwin Van Der Werf & Sonja Peterson, 2009. "Modeling linkages between climate policy and land use: an overview," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(5), pages 507-517, September.
    4. Munnich Vass, Miriam & Elofsson, Katarina, 2013. "Is forest sequestration at the expense of bioenergy and forest products cost-effective in EU climate policy to 2050?," Working Paper Series 2013:9, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department Economics.
    5. Galinato, Gregmar I. & Olanie, Aaron & Uchida, Shinsuke & Yoder, Jonathan K., 2011. "Long-term versus temporary certified emission reductions in forest carbon sequestration programs," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(4), pages 1-23.
    6. Gulati, Sumeet & Vercammen, James, 2005. "The Optimal Length of an Agricultural Carbon Contract," Working Papers 37027, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    7. Timothy Capon & Michael Harris & Andrew Reeson, 2013. "The Design of Markets for Soil Carbon Sequestration," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 32(2), pages 161-173, June.
    8. Yi-Bin Chiu, 2012. "Deforestation and the Environmental Kuznets Curve in Developing Countries: A Panel Smooth Transition Regression Approach," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 60(2), pages 177-194, June.
    9. Sumeet Gulati & James Vercammen, 2005. "The Optimal Length of an Agricultural Carbon Contract," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(4), pages 359-373, December.
    10. Szulczyk, Kenneth R. & McCarl, Bruce A. & Cornforth, Gerald, 2010. "Market penetration of ethanol," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 394-403, January.
    11. Sung Ju Cho & Bruce McCarl, 2021. "Major United States Land Use as Influenced by an Altering Climate: A Spatial Econometric Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, May.
    12. Chin-Hsien Yu & Bruce A. McCarl, 2018. "The Water Implications of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Effects on Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-22, July.
    13. Szulczyk, Kenneth R. & McCarl, Bruce A., 2010. "Market penetration of biodiesel," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(8), pages 2426-2433, October.

    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. Uwe Schneider & Bruce McCarl, 2003. "Economic Potential of Biomass Based Fuels for Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(4), pages 291-312, April.
    2. Odera, Michael M. & Kimani, Stephen K., 2004. "Payments for Environmental Services under Emerging International Agreements: A Basis for Inclusion of Agricultural Soil Carbon Sinks," 2004 Inaugural Symposium, December 6-8, 2004, Nairobi, Kenya 9539, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    3. Jianhong Mu & Anne Wein & Bruce McCarl, 2015. "Land use and management change under climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies: a U.S. case study," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 20(7), pages 1041-1054, October.
    4. Hediger, Werner, 2009. "The non-permanence of optimal soil carbon sequestration," 83rd Annual Conference, March 30 - April 1, 2009, Dublin, Ireland 51057, Agricultural Economics Society.
    5. David Walker, 2014. "The Economic Potential for Forest-Based Carbon Sequestration under Different Emissions Targets and Accounting Schemes," Working Papers 2014.02, School of Economics, La Trobe University.
    6. Elbakidze, Levan & McCarl, Bruce A., 2007. "Sequestration offsets versus direct emission reductions: Consideration of environmental co-effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 564-571, January.
    7. Schneider, Uwe A. & McCarl, Bruce A. & Schmid, Erwin, 2007. "Agricultural sector analysis on greenhouse gas mitigation in US agriculture and forestry," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 128-140, May.
    8. Hartmann, Michael, 2005. "Agriculture's Contribution to Swiss Climate Policy: Results of an Economic Analysis," Agrarwirtschaft und Agrarsoziologie\ Economie et Sociologie Rurales, Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 2005(1), pages 1-16.
    9. Latta, Gregory & Adams, Darius M. & Alig, Ralph J. & White, Eric, 2011. "Simulated effects of mandatory versus voluntary participation in private forest carbon offset markets in the United States," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 127-141, April.
    10. Uwe A. Schneider & Michael Obersteiner & Erwin Schmid & Bruce A. McCarl, 2007. "Agricultural adaptation to climate policies under technical change," Working Papers FNU-133, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Jan 2008.
    11. de Cara, Stephane & Rozakis, Stelios, 2004. "Carbon sequestration through the planting of multi-annual energy crops: A dynamic and spatial assessment," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 5(1), pages 1-17, January.
    12. Schneider, Uwe A. & McCarl, Bruce A., 2005. "Implications of a Carbon-Based Energy Tax for U.S. Agriculture," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 265-279, October.
    13. Ruben N. Lubowski & Andrew J. Plantinga & Robert N. Stavins, 2008. "What Drives Land-Use Change in the United States? A National Analysis of Landowner Decisions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(4), pages 529-550.
    14. HUBERT Marie-Hélène & MOREAUX Michel, 2007. "The challenge of meeting the future food needs," LERNA Working Papers 07.17.238, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
    15. Uwe A. Schneider & Bruce A. McCarl, 2003. "Measuring Abatement Potentials When Multiple Change Is Present: The Case Of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation In U.S. Agriculture And Forestry," Working Papers FNU-23, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Apr 2002.
    16. Stavins, Robert & Plantinga, Andrew & Lubowski, Ruben, 2005. "Land-Use Change and Carbon Sinks," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-04, Resources for the Future.
    17. Sihvonen, Matti & Pihlainen, Sampo & Lai, Tin-Yu & Salo, Tapio & Hyytiäinen, Kari, 2021. "Crop production, water pollution, or climate change mitigation—Which drives socially optimal fertilization management most?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    18. Dhazn Gillig & Bruce McCarl & Ronald Sands, 2004. "Integrating agricultural and forestry GHG mitigation response into general economy frameworks: Developing a family of response functions," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 241-259, July.
    19. Ervola, Asta & Lankoski, Jussi E. & Ollikainen, Markku, 2010. "Mitigation options and policies in agricultural sector: a theoretical model and application," 120th Seminar, September 2-4, 2010, Chania, Crete 109320, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Kragt, Marit E. & Pannell, David J. & Robertson, Michael J. & Thamo, Tas, 2012. "Assessing costs of soil carbon sequestration by crop-livestock farmers in Western Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 27-37.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:canjag:v:53:y:2005:i:4:p:343-357. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.html .

    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.