IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-11-00644.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benefits of pollution monitoring technology for greenhouse gas offset markets

Author

Listed:
  • Amy W. Ando

    () (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)

  • Shibashis Mukherjee

    () (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)

Abstract

Environmental economists have shown that tradable emission permit markets can reduce the costs to society of pollution reduction. However, when emissions are difficult to monitor and verify, offset credits from pollution reductions may be subject to price discounts that reduce social welfare. In this paper, we estimate the extent to which social welfare could be improved by using new technology to increase the accuracy with which pollution flows from agricultural fields can be monitored. We use a hypothetical case study of a situation in which farmers can reduce nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from Midwest agricultural land parcels and sell the resulting offset permits in a greenhouse gas tradable permit market. We simulate market outcomes with and without an inexpensive technology that increases the accuracy of emission estimates, reduces the discount to which agricultural offset permits are subject, and improves the performance of tradable permit system. We find that the benefits from such technology range as high as $138 for a 100 acre field if N2O emissions are an exponential function of nitrogen application rates. However, variation in the benefits to farmers of eliminating price discounts may mean efficient technology adoption is not uniform across space.

Suggested Citation

  • Amy W. Ando & Shibashis Mukherjee, 2012. "Benefits of pollution monitoring technology for greenhouse gas offset markets," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(1), pages 122-136.
  • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-11-00644
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2012/Volume32/EB-12-V32-I1-P13.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stéphane Cara & Martin Houzé & Pierre-Alain Jayet, 2005. "Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Agriculture in the EU: A Spatial Assessment of Sources and Abatement Costs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(4), pages 551-583, December.
    2. Lyubov A. Kurkalova, 2005. "Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Soils: Discounting for Uncertainty," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(4), pages 375-384, December.
    3. Glenn Sheriff, 2005. "Efficient Waste? Why Farmers Over-Apply Nutrients and the Implications for Policy Design," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 27(4), pages 542-557.
    4. Richard D. Horan, 2001. "Differences in Social and Public Risk Perceptions and Conflicting Impacts on Point/Nonpoint Trading Ratios," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(4), pages 934-941.
    5. Golub, Alla & Hertel, Thomas & Lee, Huey-Lin & Rose, Steven & Sohngen, Brent, 2009. "The opportunity cost of land use and the global potential for greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture and forestry," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 299-319, November.
    6. Lyubov Kurkalova & Catherine Kling & Jinhua Zhao, 2004. "Value of agricultural non-point source pollution measurement technology: assessment from a policy perspective," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(20), pages 2287-2298.
    7. Kim, Man-Keun & McCarl, Bruce A., 2009. "Uncertainty Discounting for Land-Based Carbon Sequestration," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(01), pages 1-11, April.
    8. Stavins Robert N., 1995. "Transaction Costs and Tradeable Permits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 133-148, September.
    9. 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(02), December.
    10. Brink, Corjan & van Ierland, Ekko & Hordijk, Leen & Kroeze, Carolien, 2005. "Cost_effective emission abatement in agriculture in the presence of interrelations: cases for the Netherlands and Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 59-74, April.
    11. Vermont, Bruno & De Cara, Stéphane, 2010. "How costly is mitigation of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture?: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1373-1386, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    tradable permit; greenhouse gases; uncertainty; technology;

    JEL classification:

    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • Q1 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-11-00644. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (John P. Conley). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.