IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ias/cpaper/10-sr105.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Exploration of Certain Aspects of CARB's Approach to Modeling Indirect Land Use from Expanded Biodiesel Production, An

Author

Listed:
  • Bruce A. Babcock
  • Miguel Carriquiry

Abstract

This report provides insight into four aspects of modeling indirect land use caused by expanded biofuels production. The report was motivated by the National Biodiesel Board's interest in better understanding how the California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimated an indirect land-use factor for soybean-based biodiesel of 66 gCO2e/MJ, which is more than three times greater than the direct emissions from the fuel. Four aspects of CARB's modeling approach were examined: (1) why CARB estimates that more U.S. forest than pasture will be converted to cropland; (2) whether CARB's predicted land-use changes are consistent with observed U.S. land-use changes in the past decade; (3) how CARB could account for double cropping; and (4) whether CARB's assumption that land brought into production has lower yields than land that was already in production. Results indicate that (1) much of the predicted U.S. forestland conversion is likely due to restrictions on cross-price elasticities imposed by use of the Constant Elasticity of Transformation supply function; (2) a stock of idled cropland could have accommodated the increase in U.S. cropland in 2007 and 2008; (3) the soybean yield elasticity with respect to price can be adjusted to account for double-cropped acres; and (4) there is no empirical support for the assumption that yields in Brazil on new land are lower than yields on old land. The analysis shows how much work needs to be done in this area if the models used to estimate indirect land use are to become widely accepted.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruce A. Babcock & Miguel Carriquiry, 2010. "Exploration of Certain Aspects of CARB's Approach to Modeling Indirect Land Use from Expanded Biodiesel Production, An," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 10-sr105, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
  • Handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:10-sr105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/pdf/10sr105.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/synopsis/?p=1122
    File Function: Online Synopsis
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. Laborde, David & Valin, Hugo, 2010. "Modelling Indirect Land Use Effects Of Biofuels:," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188100, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    2. Gohin, Alexandre, 2013. "The land use changes of European biodiesel: sensitivity to crop yield evolutions," Working Papers 207857, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    3. Alexandre Gohin, 2013. "The land use changes of European biodiesel: sensitivity to crop yield evolutions," Working Papers SMART 13-13, INRAE UMR SMART.
    4. David Laborde & Hugo Valin, 2012. "MODELING LAND-USE CHANGES IN A GLOBAL CGE: ASSESSING THE EU BIOFUEL MANDATES WITH THE MIRAGE-BioF MODEL," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(03), pages 1-39.
    5. Miguel Carriquiry & Amani Elobeid & Ryan Goodrich, 2016. "Comparing the trends and strength of determinants to deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon in consideration of biofuel policies in Brazil and the United States," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 16-12, Instituto de Economía - IECON.
    6. Gohin, Alexandre, 2016. "Understanding the revised CARB estimates of the land use changes and greenhouse gas emissions induced by biofuels," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 402-412.

    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. Baker, J.S. & Wade, C.M. & Sohngen, B.L. & Ohrel, S. & Fawcett, A.A., 2019. "Potential complementarity between forest carbon sequestration incentives and biomass energy expansion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 391-401.
    2. Bielsa, Jorge & Cazcarro, Ignacio & Sancho, Yolanda, 2011. "Integration of hydrological and economic approaches to water and land management in Mediterranean climates: an initial case study in agriculture," MPRA Paper 36445, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Sims, Katharine R.E. & Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M., 2017. "Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 8-28.
    4. Caparros, Alejandro & Cerda, Emilio & Ovando, P. & Campos, Pablo, 2007. "Carbon Sequestration with Reforestations and Biodiversity-Scenic Values," Climate Change Modelling and Policy Working Papers 9323, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    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. Soh, Moonwon & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yu, Edward & Boyer, Christopher & English, Burton, 2018. "Targeting Payments for Ecosystem Services Given Ecological and Economic Objectives," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266502, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    7. Erik Nelson & Virginia Matzek, 2016. "Carbon Credits Compete Poorly With Agricultural Commodities In An Optimized Model Of Land Use In Northern California," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(04), pages 1-24, November.
    8. KURKALOVA, Lyubov A. & WADE, Tara R., 2013. "Aggregated Choice Data And Logit Models: Application To Environmental Benign Practices Of Conservation Tillage By Farmers In The State Of Iowa," Applied Econometrics and International Development, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 13(2), pages 119-128.
    9. Ajanaku, B.A. & Collins, A.R., 2021. "Economic growth and deforestation in African countries: Is the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis applicable?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    10. CARPENTIER, Alain & GOHIN, Alexandre & SCKOKAI, Paolo & THOMAS, Alban, 2015. "Economic modelling of agricultural production: past advances and new challenges," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 96(1), March.
    11. Mason, Charles F. & Plantinga, Andrew J., 2011. "Contracting for Impure Public Goods: Carbon Offsets and Additionality," Sustainable Development Papers 101290, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    12. Carpentier, Alain & Letort, Elodie, 2009. "Modeling acreage decisions within the multinomial Logit framework," Working Papers 211011, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    13. John M. Antle & Roberto O. Valdivia, 2006. "Modelling the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture: a minimum‐data approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(1), pages 1-15, March.
    14. Hertel, Thomas W. & Tyner, Wallace E. & Birur, Dileep K., 2008. "Biofuels for all? Understanding the Global Impacts of Multinational Mandates," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6526, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Soh, Moonwon & English, Burton C. & Yu, T. Edward & Boyer, Christopher N., 2019. "Targeting payments for forest carbon sequestration given ecological and economic objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 214-226.
    16. Wu, Yinyin & Wang, Ping & Liu, Xin & Chen, Jiandong & Song, Malin, 2020. "Analysis of regional carbon allocation and carbon trading based on net primary productivity in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    17. Ryan, Mary & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen, 2018. "Heterogeneous economic and behavioural drivers of the Farm afforestation decision," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 63-74.
    18. Antle, John M. & Diagana, Bocar & Stoorvogel, Jetse J. & Valdivia, Roberto O., 2010. "Minimum-data analysis of ecosystem service supply in semi-subsistence agricultural systems," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(4), pages 1-17.
    19. Graeme Guthrie & Dinesh Kumareswaran, 2009. "Carbon Subsidies, Taxes and Optimal Forest Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(2), pages 275-293, June.
    20. Ji, Yongjie & Rabotyagov, Sergey & Kling, Catherine L., 2014. "Crop Choice and Rotational Effects: A Dynamic Model of Land Use in Iowa in Recent Years," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170366, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    CET supply function; double cropping; idle cropland; indirect land use.;
    All these keywords.

    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:ias:cpaper:10-sr105. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caiasus.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.