IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/nhhfms/2017_003.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How to measure greenhouse gas emissions by fuel type for binary sustainability standards: Average or Marginal emissions? An example of fertilizer use and corn ethanol

Author

Listed:
  • Zhu, Xueqin

    () (Environmental Economics and Natural Resources Group, Wageningen University)

  • Yan, Shiyu

    () (Dept. of Business and Management Science, Norwegian School of Economics)

  • Smeets, Edward

    () (Wageningen Economic Research Group, Wageningen University)

  • van Berkum, Siemen

    () (Wageningen Economic Research Group, Wageningen University)

Abstract

This study proposed a modelling framework which addresses various issues such as decreasing marginal yield of corn with respect to fertilizer use in biofuel production and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Particularly, the framework considered exogenous changes including oil price development and biofuel policy through market interactions of different inputs and outputs in biofuel production. We applied the modelling framework numerically in an example of corn ethanol production in the United States to illustrate how the economics of fertilizer use could impact the GHG emissions based on both average and marginal emissions. The results show that higher oil prices increase the prices of gasoline, natural gas, ethanol, and corn, which stimulates corn-based ethanol production and increases corn yields by encouraging profit-maximizing farmers to increase their application rate of nitrogen fertilizers slightly. The effect is that, on average, GHG emissions per unit of produced corn ethanol remain almost constant if oil price increases from 60 to 120 $/barrel. However, the marginal emissions per additional unit of ethanol production increase by 2.2% or10%, depending on whether the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit is implemented or not. More important is that the marginal emissions of corn ethanol are much higher than those of conventional gasoline. Although on average there are GHG emission savings of corn ethanol compared to conventional gasoline, the savings are negative when based on the marginal emissions of corn ethanol. An interesting implication is that the effectiveness of biofuel policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions might be questionable.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhu, Xueqin & Yan, Shiyu & Smeets, Edward & van Berkum, Siemen, 2017. "How to measure greenhouse gas emissions by fuel type for binary sustainability standards: Average or Marginal emissions? An example of fertilizer use and corn ethanol," Discussion Papers 2017/3, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:nhhfms:2017_003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2434252
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mallory, Mindy L. & Irwin, Scott H. & Hayes, Dermot J., 2012. "How market efficiency and the theory of storage link corn and ethanol markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 2157-2166.
    2. Irwin , Scott & Good, Darrel, 2011. "Alternative 2011 Corn Production, Consumption, and Price Scenarios," farmdoc daily, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, vol. 1, March.
    3. McPhail, Lihong Lu & Babcock, Bruce A., 2012. "Impact of US biofuel policy on US corn and gasoline price variability," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 505-513.
    4. Serra, Teresa & Zilberman, David, 2013. "Biofuel-related price transmission literature: A review," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 141-151.
    5. Bruce A. Babcock, 2013. "Ethanol without Subsidies: An Oxymoron or the New Reality?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1317-1324.
    6. Teresa Serra & David Zilberman & José M. Gil & Barry K. Goodwin, 2011. "Nonlinearities in the U.S. corn‐ethanol‐oil‐gasoline price system," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(1), pages 35-45, January.
    7. Sorda, Giovanni & Banse, Martin & Kemfert, Claudia, 2010. "An overview of biofuel policies across the world," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 6977-6988, November.
    8. Anderson, David P. & Anderson, John D. & Sawyer, Jason, 2008. "Impact of the Ethanol Boom on Livestock and Dairy Industries: What Are They Going to Eat?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 1-7, August.
    9. Good, Darrel L. & Irwin, Scott H., 2011. "Alternative 2011 Corn Production, Consumption, and Price Scenarios," Marketing and Outlook Briefs 183526, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics.
    10. Harry de Gorter & David R. Just, 2010. "The Social Costs and Benefits of Biofuels: The Intersection of Environmental, Energy and Agricultural Policy," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(1), pages 4-32.
    11. Richard Plevin & Mark Delucchi & Felix Creutzig, 2014. "Response to Comments on “Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate-Change Mitigation …”," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(3), pages 468-470, May.
    12. Rajagopal, D. & Hochman, G. & Zilberman, D., 2011. "Indirect fuel use change (IFUC) and the lifecycle environmental impact of biofuel policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 228-233, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Oil price; ethanol; corn; nitrogen fertilizer; greenhouse gas emissions; ethanol tax credit;

    JEL classification:

    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources
    • Q43 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Energy and the Macroeconomy
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy

    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:hhs:nhhfms:2017_003. 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: (Stein Fossen). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/dfnhhno.html .

    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.