IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/slueko/2013_009.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is forest sequestration at the expense of bioenergy and forest products cost-effective in EU climate policy to 2050?

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Forest management affects the quantity of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere by carbon sequestration in standing biomass, carbon storage in forest products and production of bioenergy that replace fossil fuels. The main question in this paper is whether forest sequestration is worth increasing at the expense of bioenergy and forest products to achieve EU’s emission reduction target to 2050 cost-effectively. The assessment is based on numerical calculations using a dynamic, partial equilibrium model of cost-effective solutions, where three abatement methods in the forest sector are included together with abatement in the fossil fuel sector. The results show that forest sequestration in standing biomass is cost-effective compared to bioenergy. When sequestration is taken into account, net present costs for meeting EU carbon targets can be reduced by 18%. This is achieved through an increase in annual carbon sequestration by 30-158 million ton CO2. The overall cost of reaching the 80 per cent carbon reduction target amounts to 2,002 billion Euros when sequestration is included in the policy, but increases to 2,371 billion Euros without sequestration. Results suggest that forests can serve as a cost-efficient carbon sink over the considered time period.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:slueko:2013_009
    Note: The paper can be downloaded from the following website: http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/10903/
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.slu.se/Documents/externwebben/nl-fak/ekonomi/Working_papers/Is_forest_sequestrian_at_the_expense_Munnich.M.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Tavoni, Massimo & Sohngen, Brent & Bosetti, Valentina, 2007. "Forestry and the carbon market response to stabilize climate," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5346-5353, November.
    3. Holtsmark, Bjart & Maestad, Ottar, 2002. "Emission trading under the Kyoto Protocol--effects on fossil fuel markets under alternative regimes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 207-218, February.
    4. Gren, Ing-Marie & Carlsson, Mattias & Elofsson, Katarina & Munnich, Miriam, 2012. "Stochastic carbon sinks for combating carbon dioxide emissions in the EU," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1523-1531.
    5. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801, October.
    6. van Kooten, G. Cornelis & Eagle, Alison J. & Manley, James G. & Smolak, Tara M., 2004. "How Costly Are Carbon Offsets? A Meta-Analysis Of Carbon Forest Sinks," Working Papers 18166, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    7. Weitzman, Martin L., 2010. "Risk-adjusted gamma discounting," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 1-13, July.
    8. Solberg, Birger & Moiseyev, Alexander & Kallio, A. Maarit I., 2003. "Economic impacts of accelerating forest growth in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 157-171, July.
    9. 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.
    10. Darius M. Adams & Ralph J. Alig & DBruce A. McCarl & John M. Callaway & Steven M. Winnett, 1999. "Minimum Cost Strategies for Sequestering Carbon in Forests," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(3), pages 360-374.
    11. Uwe Schneider & Bruce McCarl, 2003. "Economic Potential of Biomass Based Fuels for Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(4), pages 291-312, April.
    12. RICHARD M. Adams & DARIUS M. Adams & JOHN M. Callaway & CHING‐CHENG Chang & BRUCE A. Mccarl, 1993. "Sequestering Carbon On Agricultural Land: Social Cost And Impacts On Timber Markets," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 11(1), pages 76-87, January.
    13. 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.
    14. D. J. Gielen & J. Fujino & S. Hashimoto & Y. Moriguchi, 2002. "Biomass strategies for climate policies?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(4), pages 319-333, December.
    15. G. C. van Kooten, 2004. "Climate Change Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3424.
    16. Geijer, Erik & Bostedt, Göran & Brännlund, Runar, 2009. "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't – Reduced Climate Impact vs. Sustainable Forests in Sweden," Umeå Economic Studies 794, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    17. Geijer, Erik & Bostedt, Göran & Brännlund, Runar, 2011. "Damned if you do, damned if you do not--Reduced Climate Impact vs. Sustainable Forests in Sweden," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 94-106, January.
    18. G. Cornelis van Kooten & Alison Eagle & James Manley & Tara Smolak, 2004. "How Costly are Carbon Offsets? A Meta-Analysis of Forest Carbon Sinks," Working Papers 2004-01, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
    19. -, 2009. "The economics of climate change," Sede Subregional de la CEPAL para el Caribe (Estudios e Investigaciones) 38679, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    20. Lauri, Pekka & Kallio, A. Maarit I. & Schneider, Uwe A., 2012. "Price of CO2 emissions and use of wood in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 123-131.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. van Kooten, G. Cornelis & Laaksonen-Craig, Susanna & Wang, Yichuan, 2007. "Costs of Creating Carbon Offset Credits via Forestry Activities: A Meta-Regression Analysis," Working Papers 37039, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    4. Latta, Gregory S. & Adams, Darius M. & Bell, Kathleen P. & Kline, Jeffrey D., 2016. "Evaluating land-use and private forest management responses to a potential forest carbon offset sales program in western Oregon (USA)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 1-8.
    5. 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.
    6. van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2004. "Economics of Forest and Agricultural Carbon Sinks," Working Papers 18160, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    7. Nijnik, Maria & Pajot, Guillaume & Moffat, Andy J. & Slee, Bill, 2013. "An economic analysis of the establishment of forest plantations in the United Kingdom to mitigate climatic change," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 34-42.
    8. Marshall, Liz & Kelly, Alexia, 2010. "The Time Value of Carbon and Carbon Storage: Clarifying the terms and the policy implications of the debate," MPRA Paper 27326, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Eriksson, Mathilda, 2020. "Afforestation and avoided deforestation in a multi-regional integrated assessment model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    10. Münnich Vass, Miriam, 2017. "Renewable energies cannot compete with forest carbon sequestration to cost-efficiently meet the EU carbon target for 2050," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 164-180.
    11. Carlo Giupponi & Francesco Bosello & Andrea Povellato, 2007. "A Review of Recent Studies on Cost Effectiveness of GHG Mitigation Measures in the European Agro-Forestry Sector," Working Papers 2007.14, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    12. David Walker, 2014. "The Economic Potential for Forest-Based Carbon Sequestration under Different Emissions Targets and Accounting Schemes," Working Papers 2014.02, School of Economics, La Trobe University.
    13. Yang, Hongqiang & Li, Xi, 2018. "Potential variation in opportunity cost estimates for REDD+ and its causes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 138-146.
    14. Im, Eun Ho & Adams, Darius M. & Latta, Gregory S., 2007. "Potential impacts of carbon taxes on carbon flux in western Oregon private forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 1006-1017, May.
    15. 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.
    16. Alice Favero & Robert Mendelsohn, 2013. "Evaluating the Global Role of Woody Biomass as a Mitigation Strategy," Working Papers 2013.37, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    17. Asbjørn Aaheim & Rajiv Chaturvedi & Anitha Sagadevan, 2011. "Integrated modelling approaches to analysis of climate change impacts on forests and forest management," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 247-266, February.
    18. 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).
    19. 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.
    20. Nijnik, Maria & Bizikova, Livia, 2008. "Responding to the Kyoto Protocol through forestry: A comparison of opportunities for several countries in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 257-269, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Forest carbon sequestration; bioenergy; cost-effectiveness; dynamic partial equilibrium; EU climate policy;
    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
    • 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

    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:slueko:2013_009. 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: Elizabeth Hillerius (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iesluse.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.