IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rae/wpaper/201404.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Biodiesel vs. ethanol, UE vs. US biofuels: So different in terms of LUC impact?

Author

Listed:
  • Agneta Forslund
  • Alexandre Gohin
  • Chantal Le Mouël
  • Fabrice Levert

Abstract

Available estimates of biofuel-induced land use change (LUC) and corresponding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions vary on a wide range while estimations obtained from each model are highly sensitive to certain assumptions and key parameter values. Available studies often suggest that biodiesel and ethanol and/or EU and US biofuels would lead to different LUC and GHG emissions but they don’t agree on the type and/or the origin of the biofuel which would induce the least LUC and GHG emissions. In this paper we investigate the reasons behind this feature. We show that the Armington modeling of trade flows, which is currently used in models, contributes to this pattern. Using both observed data and the partial equilibrium model MATSIM-LUCA, we show that LUC stemming from the development of biofuels is highly dependent on assumptions made on trade: the Integrated World Market (IWM) approach, which relies on the homogenous product assumption, tends to erase differences in estimates of induced LUC from biodiesel and ethanol and from EU and US biofuels as compared to the Armington approach, that postulates that product are differentiated according to their origin and thus less substitutable.

Suggested Citation

  • Agneta Forslund & Alexandre Gohin & Chantal Le Mouël & Fabrice Levert, 2014. "Biodiesel vs. ethanol, UE vs. US biofuels: So different in terms of LUC impact?," Working Papers SMART - LERECO 14-04, INRA UMR SMART-LERECO.
  • Handle: RePEc:rae:wpaper:201404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/207810/2/WP%20SMART-LERECO%2014-04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alexandre Gohin & Herve Guyomard & Chantal Le Mouël, 2006. "Tariff protection elimination and Common Agricultural Policy reform: implications of changes in methods of import demand modelling," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(13), pages 1527-1539.
    2. Reimer, Jeffrey J. & Zheng, Xiaojuan & Gehlhar, Mark J., 2012. "Export Demand Elasticity Estimation for Major U.S. Crops," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(04), November.
    3. Jerome Dumortier & Dermot J. Hayes & Miguel Carriquiry & Fengxia Dong & Xiaodong Du & Amani Elobeid & Jacinto F. Fabiosa & Simla Tokgoz, 2011. "Sensitivity of Carbon Emission Estimates from Indirect Land-Use Change," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 428-448.
    4. Searchinger, Timothy & Heimlich, Ralph & Houghton, R. A. & Dong, Fengxia & Elobeid, Amani & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Tokgoz, Simla & Hayes, Dermot J. & Yu, Hun-Hsiang, 2008. "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12881, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. repec:wsi:ccexxx:v:03:y:2012:i:03:n:s2010007812500157 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Nelson B. Villoria & Thomas W. Hertel, 2011. "Geography Matters: International Trade Patterns and the Indirect Land Use Effects of Biofuels," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(4), pages 919-935.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    biofuel; LUC; model; Armington;

    JEL classification:

    • Q11 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Aggregate Supply and Demand Analysis; Prices
    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q17 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agriculture in International Trade
    • 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:rae:wpaper:201404. 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: (Christine Mesquida). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inrarfr.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.