IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v6y2007i1p32-37.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture: EU and US Perspectives La séquestration du carbone en agriculture: perspectives pour l'Europe et les Etats Unis CO2‐Sequestrierung in der Landwirtschaft: Perspektiven für die EU und die USA

Author

Listed:
  • Linda M. Young
  • Alfons Weersink
  • Murray Fulton
  • B. James Deaton

Abstract

Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture: EU and US Perspectives Both the European Union and the United States are defining the role that agricultural soil sequestration of carbon will play in their overall strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These decisions have important ramifications, as recent research indicates that soil sequestration of carbon may have the potential to reduce the need for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The EU ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, but chose not to use soil sequestration of carbon in its strategy to address climate change, and has excluded it from the EU's new carbon market. The EU's strategy can be explained by uncertainties surrounding soil sequestration and by the importance of its international leadership on climate change. In contrast, the United States has not ratified the KP, but is encouraging the use of soil carbon sequestration on a modest level, through its agricultural policy and research. There is some trading taking place using soil sequestration in the weak US market for carbon, partially due to US freedom from international protocols on this method of greenhouse gas reduction. As both the science and international protocols for carbon sequestration advance, the EU may reconsider the use of agricultural sequestration of carbon as a means for achieving its Kyoto Protocol commitments. Au sein des stratégies d'ensemble de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre, la définition du rôle que peut jouer, la séquestration du carbone dans les sols agricoles est à l'ordre du jour, tant en en Europe qu'aux Etats‐Unis. Les décisions à cet égard sont lourdes de conséquences, dès lors que des recherches récentes montrent que la séquestration du carbone dans le sol est de nature à diminuer la nécessité de réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre. L'UE a ratifié le protocole de Kyoto en 2002, mais en choisissant une stratégie de gestion du changement climatique qui n'utilise pas la séquestration du carbone, et l'exclue par conséquent du nouveau marché des droits d'émission. L'attitude de l'UE peut s'expliquer à la fois par les incertitudes qui entourent les mécanismes de la séquestration, et par l'importance qu'elle attache à son rôle dirigeant dans les questions de changement climatique. Inversement, les Etats‐Unis n'ont pas ratifié le protocole de Kyoto, mais ils encouragent le stockage du carbone dans le sol au moins à un niveau modeste, par l'intermédiaire de la recherche et de la politique agricole. Du fait de la liberté dont disposent les Etats‐Unis vis‐à‐vis des protocoles internationaux, des échanges portant sur la séquestration du carbone dans le sol commencent à se développer sur le fragile marché des droits d'émission aux Etats‐Unis. Les avancées de la Science et l'évolution des protocoles internationaux pourraient conduire l'Europe à rouvrir le dossier de l'utilisation de la séquestration agricole du carbone pour satisfaire les engagements pris dans le cadre du protocole de Kyoto. Sowohl die Europäische Union als auch die Vereinigten Staaten legen derzeit die Rolle fest, welche die CO2‐Sequestrierung in landwirtschaftlichen Böden in ihren allgemeinen Strategien zur Verminderung der Treibhausgasemissionen spielen wird. Diese Entscheidungen ziehen beachtliche Konsequenzen nach sich, da die jüngsten Forschungsergebnisse darauf hindeuten, dass die CO2‐Sequestrierung in landwirtschaftlichen Böden möglicherweise die Notwendigkeit zur Verminderung der Treibhausgasemissionen verringern könnte. Die EU hat zwar das Kyoto‐Protokoll im Jahr 2002 ratifiziert, sich jedoch gegen die Aufnahme der CO2‐Sequestrierung in landwirtschaftlichen Böden in ihre Strategie zum Umgang mit dem Klimawandel entschieden und sie aus dem neuen CO2‐Markt der EU ausgeschlossen. Die Strategie der EU erklärt sich durch Unwägbarkeiten im Zusammenhang mit der Bodensequestrierung und durch die Bedeutsamkeit ihrer internationalen Führungsrolle hinsichtlich des Klimawandels. Im Gegensatz dazu hat die USA das Kyoto‐Protokoll nicht ratifi ziert, fördert jedoch die mäßige Anwendung der CO2‐Sequestrierung in landwirtschaftlichen Böden durch ihre Agrarpolitik und‐forschung. Bodensequestrierung wird auf dem schwachen CO2‐Markt der USA in geringem Maße gehandelt, was teilweise daran liegt, dass die USA nicht an internationale Protokolle gebunden ist, welche diese Methode zur Verminderung der Treibhausgasemissionen betreffen. Da sowohl die wissenschaftlichen als auch die internationalen Protokolle für die CO2‐Sequestrierung weiter entwickelt werden, könnte die EU die Anwendung der CO2‐Sequestrierung in der Landwirtschaft als ein Mittel zur Erfüllung ihrer im Kyoto‐Protokoll festgelegten Verpfl ichtungen noch einmal überdenken.

Suggested Citation

  • Linda M. Young & Alfons Weersink & Murray Fulton & B. James Deaton, 2007. "Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture: EU and US Perspectives La séquestration du carbone en agriculture: perspectives pour l'Europe et les Etats Unis CO2‐Sequestrierung in der Landwirtschaft: Perspekti," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 6(1), pages 32-37, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:6:y:2007:i:1:p:32-37
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-692X.2007.00050.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2007.00050.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2007.00050.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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jon Hovi & Tora Skodvin & Steinar Andresen, 2003. "The Persistence of the Kyoto Protocol: Why Other Annex I Countries Move on Without the United States," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 3(4), pages 1-23, November.
    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. Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline & Sebastien Roussel, 2014. "Payments for Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Soils: Incentives for the Future and Rewards for the Past," CEEES Paper Series CE3S-01/14, European University at St. Petersburg, Department of Economics.

    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. Patrick Criqui & Denise Cavard, 2004. "Economic approach to climate policies and stakes of international negotiations," Post-Print halshs-00003793, HAL.
    2. Christopher Pallas & Johannes Urpelainen, 2012. "NGO monitoring and the legitimacy of international cooperation: A strategic analysis," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-32, March.
    3. Jon Hovi & Bjart Holtsmark, 2006. "Cap-and-trade or carbon taxes? The feasibility of enforcement and the effects of non-compliance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 137-155, June.
    4. Johannes Urpelainen, 2013. "A model of dynamic climate governance: dream big, win small," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 107-125, May.
    5. Hiroki Iwata & Keisuke Okada, 2014. "Greenhouse gas emissions and the role of the Kyoto Protocol," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 16(4), pages 325-342, October.
    6. Wolfgang Buchholz & Wolfgang Peters, 2005. "A Rawlsian Approach to International Cooperation," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(1), pages 25-44, February.
    7. Steinar Andresen, 2007. "Key actors in UN environmental governance: influence, reform and leadership," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 457-468, December.
    8. Thomas Hale & Johannes Urpelainen, 2015. "When and how can unilateral policies promote the international diffusion of environmental policies and clean technology?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(2), pages 177-205, April.

    More about this item

    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:eurcho:v:6:y:2007:i:1:p:32-37. 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/eaaeeea.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.