Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T15:43:30.137Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - U.S. Policies and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2013

Daniel G. Brown
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Derek T. Robinson
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo, Ontario
Nancy H. F. French
Affiliation:
Michigan Technological University
Bradley C. Reed
Affiliation:
United States Geological Survey, California
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Fossil fuel combustion is the predominant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States and consequently has been the major focus of strategies for GHG mitigation. However, current efforts to transform the energy sector from high-carbon (C) energies (i.e., fossil fuel) to no- or low-C technologies are costly and will require a long time frame for the necessary technological innovation and adoption. Several authors have touted mitigation in agriculture, forestry, and other land-use (AFOLU) change as a bridge to a low-C energy future (Lecocq and Chomitz 2001; Lee, McCarl, and Gillig 2005).

In the United States, AFOLU activities provide a partial offset against emissions from other sectors. Agriculture generates about 8 percent of total GHG emissions, of which virtually all are attributable to nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) from crop and livestock (GHG emissions from forestry and land-use change are negligible in the United States). However, land-use change and management activities in the United States generate a sufficiently large net C sink to more than offset agricultural GHG emissions, resulting in negative net emissions for AFOLU activities. The C sink for U.S. land use and land-use change is representative of developed countries in temperate climates; however, it contrasts with the pattern in tropical developing countries where global land use and land-use change are net C sources, primarily as a result of net deforestation (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2007; see Chapter 3).

Type
Chapter
Information
Land Use and the Carbon Cycle
Advances in Integrated Science, Management, and Policy
, pp. 403 - 430
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Badiou, P., McDougal, R., Pennock, D., and Clark, B. 2011. Greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration potential in restored wetlands of the Canadian prairie pothole region. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 19(3):237–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, J., Jones, C.A., and Sands, R. 2011. A global general equilibrium analyses of biofuel mandates and greenhouse gas emissions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(2):334–341.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, A., and Beghin, J.C. 2009. How coupled are decoupled farm payments? A review of the evidence. Journal for Agricultural and Resource Economics, 34(1):130–153.Google Scholar
Claassen, R., Carriazo, F., Cooper, J.C., Hellerstein, D., and Ueda, K. 2011. Grassland to cropland conversion in the Northern Plains: The role of crop insurance, commodity, and disaster programs. Economic research rep. ERR 120, U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.Google Scholar
Claassen, R., and Morehart, M. 2009. Agricultural Land Tenure and Carbon Offsets. Economic brief EB 14, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics Research Service.Google Scholar
Eagle, A.J., Henry, L.R., Olander, L.P., Haugen-Kozyra, K., Millar, N., and Robertson, G.P. 2011. Greenhouse gas mitigation potential of agricultural land management in the United States: A synthesis of the literature. Rep. NI R 10-04, 2d ed. Duke University, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
Eagle, A.J., and Sifleet, S.D. 2011. T-AGG survey of experts scientific certainty associated with GHG mitigation potential of agricultural land management practices. Rep. NI R 11-05. Duke University, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., and Hawthorne, P. 2008. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science, 319:1235–1238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, B., Hardie, I., and Parks, P.J. 2010. United States farm commodity programs and land use. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 92(3):803–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glauber, J.W., and Collins, K.J. 2002. Risk management and the role of the federal government. In A comprehensive assessment of the role of risk in agriculture, ed. Just, R.E. and Pope, R.E.. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Gleason, R.A., Tangen, B.A., and Laubhan, M.K. 2008. Carbon sequestration. In Ecosystem services derived from wetland conservation practices in the United States prairie pothole region with an emphasis on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve and Wetlands Reserve Programs, ed. Gleason, R.A., Laubhan, M.K., and Euliss, N.H. U.S. Geological Professional Paper 1745. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey, pp. 23–30. .Google Scholar
Goodwin, B.K., Vandeveer, M., and Deal, J. 2004. An empirical analysis of acreage distortions and participation in the Federal Crop Insurance Program. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(4):1058–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellerstein, D., and Malcolm, S. 2011. The influence of rising commodity prices on the Conservation Reserve Program. Economic research rep. ERR-110. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.Google Scholar
Horowitz, J., and Gottlieb, J. 2010. The role of agriculture in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Economic brief no. 15 (EB-15). U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.Google Scholar
IPCC. 2007. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, ed. Metz, B., Davidson, O.R., Bosch, P.R., Dave, R., and Meyer, L.A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, H., Kim, S., and Dale, B.E. 2009. Biofuels, land use change, and greenhouse gas emissions: Some unexplored variables. Environmental Science Technology, 43:961–967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kossoy, A., and Ambrois, P. 2011. State and trends of the carbon market 2011. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Latta, G.S., Adams, D.M., Alig, R.J., and White, E. 2011. Simulated effect of mandatory versus voluntary forest carbon offset markets in the United States. Journal of Forest Economics, 17:127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leathers, N., and Harrington, L.M.B. 2000. Effectiveness of conservation reserve programs and land “slippage” in southwestern Kansas. Professional Geographer, 52:83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecocq, F., and Chomitz, K. 2001. Optimal use of carbon sequestration in a global climate change strategy: Is there a wooden bridge to a clean energy future?World Bank Policy Research Working Paper series no. 2635, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, H., McCarl, B.A., and Gillig, D. 2005. The dynamic competitiveness of U.S. agricultural and forest carbon sequestration. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53(4):343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewandrowski, J., Peters, M., Jones, C., House, R., Sperow, M., Eve, M., and Paustian, . 2004. Economics of sequestering carbon in the U.S. agricultural sector. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service TB-1909.Google Scholar
Lubowski, R.N., Plantinga, A.J., and Stavins, R.N. 2006. Land-use change and carbon sinks: Econometric estimation of the carbon sequestration supply function. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 51:135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubowski, R.N., Plantinga, A.J., and Stavins, R.N. 2008. What drives land-use changes in the United States? A national analysis of landowner decisions. Land Economics, 84(4):529–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melillo, J.M., Reilly, J.M., Kicklighter, D.W., Gurgel, A.C., Cronin, T.W., Paltsev, S.,…Schlosser, A.C. 2009. Indirect emissions from biofuels: How important?Science, 326:1397–1399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monke, J., and Johnson, R. 2010. Actual Farm Bill spending and cost estimates. Congressional Research Service R41195, Washington, DC, April 20, 2010.Google Scholar
Murray, B.C., Sohngen, B., and Ross, M.T. 2007. Economic consequences of consideration of permanence, leakage and additionality for soil carbon sequestration projects. Climatic Change, 80:127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paustian, K., Antle, J.M., Sheehan, J., and Paul, E.A. 2006. Agriculture's role in greenhouse gas mitigation. Washington, DC: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.Google Scholar
Rajagopal, D., and Zilberman, D. 2008. Environmental lifecycle assessment for policy decision-making and analysis. In The lifecycle carbon footprint of biofuels, ed. Outlaw, J.L. and Ernstes, D.P.. Conference proceedings, Miami Beach, Florida, January 29, 2008.Google Scholar
Roberts, M.J., and Bucholtz, S. 2006. Slippage in the Conservation Reserve Program or spurious correlation? A rejoinder. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88:512–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, M.J., and Lubowski, R.N. 2007. Enduring impacts of land retirement policies: Evidence from the Conservation Reserve Program. Land Economics, 83(4):516–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R.A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J.,…Yu, T. 2008. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science, 319:1238–1240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soule, M., Tegene, A. and Wiebe, K. 2000. Land tenure and the adoption of conservation practices. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82(4):993--1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, P., Hellerstein, D., Hansen, L., Johansson, R., Koenig, S., Lubowski, R.,…Bucholtz, S. 2004. The Conservation Reserve Program: Economic implications for rural America. Agricultural economic rep. AER 834. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.Google Scholar
USDA-FSA. 2008. Conservation Reserve Program: Summary and enrollment statistics, 2008. .
USDA-NRCS. 2008. Farm Bill 2008 at a glance: Wetlands Reserve Program. .
USDA-NRCS. 2009. ProTracts database. .
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2007. Annual energy outlook 2007, with projections to 2030. DOE/EIA-0383(2007), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
U.S. EPA. 2009. EPA analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, H.R. 2454 in the 111th Congress, including appendix and data annex. .
U.S. EPA. 2010a. EPA analysis of the American Power Act in the 111th Congress, with appendix. .
U.S. EPA. 2010b. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2008. USEPA-430-R-10-005, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
U.S. EPA. 2010c. Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) regulatory impact analysis. USEPA-420-R-10-006, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Wu, J. 2000. Slippage effects of the Conservation Reserve Program. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82:979–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, J. 2005. Slippage effects of the Conservation Reserve Program: Reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87:251–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, L., Wylie, B.K., Ji, L., Gilmanov, T.G., and Tieszen, L.L. 2010. Climate-driven interannual variability in net ecosystem exchange in the Northern Great Plains grasslands. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 63(1):40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×