IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fem/femwpa/2007.15.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Forestry and the Carbon Market Response to Stabilize Climate

Author

Listed:
  • Massimo Tavoni

    (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei)

  • Valentina Bosetti

    (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei)

  • Brent Sohngen

    (AED Economics, Ohio State University)

Abstract

This paper investigates the potential contribution of forestry management in meeting a CO2 stabilization policy of 550 ppmv by 2100. In order to assess the optimal response of the carbon market to forest sequestration we couple two global models. An energy-economy-climate model for the study of climate policies is linked with a detailed forestry model through an iterative procedure to provide the optimal abatement strategy. Results show that forestry is a determinant abatement option and could lead to significantly lower policy costs if included. Linking forestry management to the carbon market has the potential to delay the policy burden, and is expected to reduce the price of carbon of 40% by 2050. Biological sequestration will mostly come from avoided deforestation in tropical forests rich countries. The inclusion of this mitigation option is demonstrated to crowd out some of the traditional abatement in the energy sector and to lessen induced technological change in clean technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Massimo Tavoni & Valentina Bosetti & Brent Sohngen, 2007. "Forestry and the Carbon Market Response to Stabilize Climate," Working Papers 2007.15, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    • Handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2007.15
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://feem-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/NDL2007-015.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincent Gitz & Jean Charles Hourcade & Philippe Ciais, 2005. "The timing of biological carbon sequestration and carbon abatement in the energy sector under optimal strategies against climate risks," Working Papers hal-00866426, HAL.
    2. Valentina Bosetti & Carlo Carraro & Marzio Galeotti & Emanuele Massetti & Massimo Tavoni, 2006. "WITCH. A World Induced Technical Change Hybrid Model," Working Papers 2006_46, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    3. Brent Sohngen & Robert Mendelsohn & Roger Sedjo, 1999. "Forest Management, Conservation, and Global Timber Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(1), pages 1-13.
    4. Vincent Gitz & Jean-Charles Hourcade & Philippe Ciais, 2006. "The Timing of Biological Carbon Sequestration and Carbon Abatement in the Energy Sector Under Optimal Strategies Against Climate Risks," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 113-134.
    5. Valentina Bosetti, Carlo Carraro, Marzio Galeotti, Emanuele Massetti, Massimo Tavoni, 2006. "A World induced Technical Change Hybrid Model," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 13-38.
    6. Vincent Gitz & Jean Charles Hourcade & Philippe Ciais, 2006. "The timing of biological carbon sequestration and carbon abatement in the energy sector under optimal strategies against climate risks," Working Papers halshs-00009338, HAL.
    7. Roger Sedjo & Joe Wisniewski & Alaric Sample & John Kinsman, 1995. "The economics of managing carbon via forestry: Assessment of existing studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 6(2), pages 139-165, September.
    8. Brent Sohngen & Robert Mendelsohn, 2003. "An Optimal Control Model of Forest Carbon Sequestration," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 448-457.
    9. Robert N. Stavins, 1999. "The Costs of Carbon Sequestration: A Revealed-Preference Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 994-1009, September.
    10. van 't Veld, Klaas & Plantinga, Andrew, 2005. "Carbon sequestration or abatement? The effect of rising carbon prices on the optimal portfolio of greenhouse-gas mitigation strategies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 59-81, July.
    11. Goulder, Lawrence H. & Mathai, Koshy, 2000. "Optimal CO2 Abatement in the Presence of Induced Technological Change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-38, January.
    12. V. Gitz & Jean Charles Hourcade & Philippe Ciais, 2006. "The timing of biological carbon sequestration and carbon abatement in the energy sector under optimal strategies against climate risks," Post-Print hal-00719282, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Haim, David & Plantinga, Andrew J. & Thomann, Enrique, 2014. "The optimal time path for carbon abatement and carbon sequestration under uncertainty: The case of stochastic targeted stock," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 151-165.
    2. Michetti, Melania & Parrado, Ramiro, 2012. "Improving Land-use modelling within CGE to assess Forest-based Mitigation Potential and Costs," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 122862, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    3. Favero, Alice & Mendelsohn, Robert & Sohngen, Brent, 2016. "Carbon Storage and Bioenergy: Using Forests for Climate Mitigation," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 232215, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    4. Ovando, Paola & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2009. "Land use and carbon mitigation in Europe: A survey of the potentials of different alternatives," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 992-1003, March.
    5. Alice Favero & Robert Mendelsohn & Brent Sohngen, 2017. "Using forests for climate mitigation: sequester carbon or produce woody biomass?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 195-206, September.
    6. Alice Favero & Robert Mendelsohn, 2013. "Evaluating the Global Role of Woody Biomass as a Mitigation Strategy," Working Papers 2013.37, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    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. Melania Michetti & Matteo Zampieri, 2014. "Climate–Human–Land Interactions: A Review of Major Modelling Approaches," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-41, July.
    9. Michetti, Melania & Rosa, Renato, 2012. "Afforestation and timber management compliance strategies in climate policy. A computable general equilibrium analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 139-148.
    10. Lubowski, Ruben N. & Plantinga, Andrew J. & Stavins, Robert N., 2006. "Land-use change and carbon sinks: Econometric estimation of the carbon sequestration supply function," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 135-152, March.
    11. Monge, Juan J. & Bryant, Henry L. & Gan, Jianbang & Richardson, James W., 2016. "Land use and general equilibrium implications of a forest-based carbon sequestration policy in the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 102-120.
    12. Mort Webster & Karen Fisher-Vanden & David Popp & Nidhi Santen, 2017. "Should We Give Up after Solyndra? Optimal Technology R&D Portfolios under Uncertainty," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(S1), pages 123-151.
    13. H. Böttcher & A. Freibauer & Y. Scholz & V. Gitz & Philippe Ciais & M. Mund & T. Wutzler & E.-D. Schulze, 2012. "Setting priorities for land management to mitigate climate change," Post-Print hal-00716172, HAL.
    14. Lintunen, Jussi & Uusivuori, Jussi, 2014. "On The Economics of Forest Carbon: Renewable and Carbon Neutral But Not Emission Free," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 165755, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    15. Favero, Alice & Massetti, Emanuele, 2014. "Trade of woody biomass for electricity generation under climate mitigation policy," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 166-190.
    16. van 't Veld, Klaas & Plantinga, Andrew, 2005. "Carbon sequestration or abatement? The effect of rising carbon prices on the optimal portfolio of greenhouse-gas mitigation strategies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 59-81, July.
    17. Enrica Cian & Samuel Carrara & Massimo Tavoni, 2014. "Innovation benefits from nuclear phase-out: can they compensate the costs?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 637-650, April.
    18. Stavins, Robert & Plantinga, Andrew & Lubowski, Ruben, 2005. "Land-Use Change and Carbon Sinks," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-04, Resources for the Future.
    19. Huifang Tian & John Whalley, 2015. "Developing Countries And The Unfccc Process: Some Simulations From An Armington Extended Climate Model," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(04), pages 1-22, November.
    20. van Kooten, G. Cornelis & Sohngen, Brent, 2007. "Economics of Forest Ecosystem Carbon Sinks: A Review," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 1(3), pages 237-269, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Forestry; Climate Policy; Technological Innovation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:fem:femwpa:2007.15. 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: Alberto Prina Cerai (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.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.