Leakage and Comparative Advantage Implications of Agricultural Participation in Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation

The world is moving toward efforts to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions. Reduction efforts may involve the agricultural sector through options such as planting of trees, altering crop and livestock management, and increasing production of biofuels. However, such options can be competitive with domestic food production. In a free trade arena, reduced domestic food production could stimulate increased production and exports in other countries, which are not pursuing net emission reductions. As a consequence, emission reduction efforts in implementing countries may be offset by production increases stimulated in other countries.We examine the competitive effects of agriculturally related emission reduction actions on agricultural production and international trade. In doing this, we employ the assumption that U.S. emission reduction caused cost increases will also occur in other reducing countries. We consider emission reduction: 1) unilaterally by the U.S., 2) by all Kyoto Protocol Annex B countries, and 3) globally. The results, which are only suggestive of the types of effects that would be observed due to the simplifying cost assumptions, indicate compliance causes supply cutbacks in regulated countries and increases in non-regulated countries. The study results show that producers in regulating countries are likely to benefit and consumers lose due to commodity price increases.

[1]  John Sullivan,et al.  Documentation of the Static World Policy Simulation (SWOPSIM) Modeling Framework , 1991 .

[2]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  Liability And Compensation For Climate Change Damages – A Legal And Economic Assessment , 2001 .

[3]  Bruce A. McCarl,et al.  U.S. agriculture's role in a greenhouse gas emission mitigation world: An economic perspective , 2000 .

[4]  Stanley R. Johnson,et al.  Land Quality and Producer Participation in U.S. Commodity Programs , 1992 .

[5]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  Climate, development and malaria: an application of FUND , 2008 .

[6]  G. Watts,et al.  Climate Change 1995 , 1998 .

[7]  L. Greene EHPnet: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 2000, Environmental Health Perspectives.

[8]  K. Paustian,et al.  A comparative examination of the efficiency of sequestering carbon in US agricultural soils , 2002 .

[9]  Adam B. Jaffe,et al.  Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us? , 1995 .

[10]  Bruce A. McCarl,et al.  Implications of a Carbon-Based Energy Tax for U.S. Agriculture , 2005, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[11]  Martijn Gough Climate change , 2009, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[12]  R. Posner Economic analysis of law , 1975 .

[13]  R. House,et al.  Economic Impacts of Carbon Charges on U.S. Agriculture , 2001 .

[14]  Bruce A. McCarl,et al.  Sectoral Implications of Farm Program Modifications , 1992 .

[15]  M. van Noordwijk,et al.  Agricultural options for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions , 1996 .

[16]  J. Houghton,et al.  Climate change 1995: the science of climate change. , 1996 .

[17]  U. Schneider Agricultural Sector Analysis on Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation in the United States , 2000 .

[18]  Adam B. Jaffe,et al.  Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U , 1995 .

[19]  B. McCarl,et al.  THE VALUE OF ENSO INFORMATION TO AGRICULTURE: CONSIDERATION OF EVENT STRENGTH AND TRADE , 2000 .

[20]  Claudia Kemfert,et al.  Games of Climate Change with International Trade , 2004 .

[21]  Wietze Lise,et al.  Impact of climate on tourism demand , 2000 .

[22]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  Technology protocols for climate change: an application of fund , 2002 .

[23]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  PROGRESS IN ESTIMATING THE MARGINAL COSTS OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS , 2001 .

[24]  J. Hamilton,et al.  Climate and the Destination Choice of German Tourists , 2004 .

[25]  M. Babiker Subglobal climate-change actions and carbon leakage: the implication of international capital flows , 2001 .

[26]  Junjie Wu,et al.  Slippage Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program , 2000 .

[27]  J. Burniaux,et al.  TRADE AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF UNILATERAL CO2-ABATEMENT POLICIES: EVIDENCE FROM GREEN , 1992 .

[28]  Thomas F. Rutherford,et al.  Global impacts of the Kyoto agreement: results from the MS-MRT model , 1999 .

[29]  Pushpam Kumar,et al.  Greenhouse Gas Mitigation through Agriculture , 2008 .

[30]  D. Miljković,et al.  The Kyoto Protocol: Economic Effects of Energy Prices on Northern Plains Dryland Grain Production , 1999, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[31]  Bruce A. McCarl,et al.  Assessing effects of mitigation strategies for global climate change with an intertemporal model of the U.S. forest and agriculture sectors , 1997, Economics of Carbon Sequestration in Forestry.

[32]  P. Derfler,et al.  The United States Department of Agriculture , 1872, Nature.

[33]  Terry Barker,et al.  Achieving a 10% Cut in Europe's Carbon Dioxide Emissions using Additional Excise Duties: Coordinated, Uncoordinated and Unilateral Action using the Econometric Model E3ME , 1999 .

[34]  R. Tol Emission abatement versus development as strategies to reduce vulnerability to climate change: an application of FUND , 2005, Environment and Development Economics.

[35]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  On National and International Trade in Greenhouse Gas Emission Permits , 2002 .

[36]  Benoit Morel,et al.  Technology Development And Diffusion And Incentives To Abate Greenhouse Gas Emissions , 2001 .

[37]  R. Pethig Pollution, welfare, and environmental policy in the theory of Comparative Advantage , 1976 .

[38]  B. Babcock,et al.  Field-Level Measurement of Land Productivity and Program Slippage , 1993 .

[39]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  How much damage will climate change do? Recent estimates , 2000 .

[40]  J. Houghton,et al.  Climate change 2001 : the scientific basis , 2001 .

[41]  Katrin Rehdanz,et al.  Hedonic Pricing of Climate Change Impacts to Households in Great Britain , 2006 .

[42]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  How large Is the uncertainty about climate change , 2000 .

[43]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  Equity, international trade and climate policy , 2002 .

[44]  S. Alam,et al.  Framework Convention on Climate Change , 1993 .

[45]  THE COST OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL TO U.S. CROP PRODUCTION: MEASURING CROP PRICE, REGIONAL ACREAGE, WELFARE, AND INPUT SUBSTITUTION EFFECTS , 2000 .

[46]  Bruce A. McCarl,et al.  Documentation of ASM: The U.S. Agricultural Sector Model , 1993 .

[47]  D. Reiner,et al.  The evolution of a climate regime: Kyoto to Marrakech , 2002 .

[48]  B. McCarl,et al.  Economic Potential of Biomass Based Fuels for Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation , 2003 .

[49]  Gary Yohe,et al.  moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity , 2002 .

[50]  T. Rutherford,et al.  Unilateral CO2 Reductions and Carbon Leakage: The Consequences of International Trade in Oil and Basic Materials , 1993 .

[51]  B. McCarl,et al.  Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in U.S. Agriculture and Forestry , 2001, Science.

[52]  B. McCarl,et al.  Estimating Leakage from Forest Carbon Sequestration Programs , 2004, Land Economics.

[53]  Caroline King,et al.  Agriculture and Forestry , 1992 .

[54]  P. Zusman Spatial and temporal price and allocation models , 1971 .

[55]  Kenneth M. Chomitz Baseline, leakage and measurement issues: how do forestry and energy projects compare? , 2002 .

[56]  D. Zilberman,et al.  Environmental and Distributional Impacts of Conservation Targeting Strategies , 2001 .

[57]  J. Palutikof,et al.  Climate change 2007 : impacts, adaptation and vulnerability , 2001 .