IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v53y2005i4p343-357.html

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:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Szulczyk, Kenneth R. & McCarl, Bruce A., 2010. "Market penetration of biodiesel," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(8), pages 2426-2433, October.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    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. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    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. Gregmar I. Galinato & Aaron Olanie & Shinsuke Uchida & Jonathan K. Yoder, 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 537-559, October.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.