New Uses of Old Tools? Greenhouse Gas Mitigation with Agriculture Sector Policies (original) (raw)

Abstract

Following the failure of legislative proposals for a multi-sector greenhouse gas (GHG) cap-and-trade policy, the shift in focus to energy sector policies ignores the perhaps substantial potential for GHG mitigation from agriculture/forestry. We review estimates of the current U.S. agriculture sector contribution to GHG mitigation from a portfolio of existing sector policies in bioenergy, conservation, and research and development to compare accomplishments across programs. We then consider what opportunities and challenges may exist for increasing sector GHG mitigation by retargeting and/or expanding current programs-or for bioenergy-related mitigation, implementing proposed new programs-to serve as an alternative to cap-and-trade.

Figures (9)

Figure 1 Agriculture and forestry greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration, 2011 Note: Negative values indicate carbon sequestration. Forestry sink includes afforestation and forest management. Source: U.S. EPA 2013, Tables 2-12, 2-14, and 7-1.

Figure 1 Agriculture and forestry greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration, 2011 Note: Negative values indicate carbon sequestration. Forestry sink includes afforestation and forest management. Source: U.S. EPA 2013, Tables 2-12, 2-14, and 7-1.

Note: In the proposed legislation’s offset program, unregulated sectors, including agriculture, could reduce emissions and offer the reductions for sale to regulated firms to “offset” their emission reduction requirements. In addition, the energy sector’s cap on allowable emissions would result in higher fossil fuel prices. In response to the higher fuel prices, agriculture could also reduce on-farm fuel use and increase the supply of agricultural feedstocks to produce bioelectricity. Offsets as a share of allowable emissions increased slowly until the final decade. In 2012, offsets were only 3.6% of allowable emissions. In 2020, they were 3.5%; in 2030, 8.1%; in 2040, 16.2%; and in 2050, 62.2%. Source: U.S. EPA 2009. Figure 2 Estimated U.S. agriculture and forestry sector GHG mitigation with American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454)

Note: In the proposed legislation’s offset program, unregulated sectors, including agriculture, could reduce emissions and offer the reductions for sale to regulated firms to “offset” their emission reduction requirements. In addition, the energy sector’s cap on allowable emissions would result in higher fossil fuel prices. In response to the higher fuel prices, agriculture could also reduce on-farm fuel use and increase the supply of agricultural feedstocks to produce bioelectricity. Offsets as a share of allowable emissions increased slowly until the final decade. In 2012, offsets were only 3.6% of allowable emissions. In 2020, they were 3.5%; in 2030, 8.1%; in 2040, 16.2%; and in 2050, 62.2%. Source: U.S. EPA 2009. Figure 2 Estimated U.S. agriculture and forestry sector GHG mitigation with American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454)

Source: Authors calculations using NRI data (USDA NRCS). 1. For cohort 1 (which the NRI reports was enrolled in CRP in 1992, and contract expired before 1997), the NRI provides 3 observations after expiration of1992 contract (1997, 2002, and 2007); for cohort 2, NRI provides 2 observations after 1997 contract (2002, 2007) and for cohort 3, NRI provides 1 post-contract observation (2007). Post-contract land use options are: new CRP contract, forest, hay, pasture, range, or crop. 2. Mixed land uses are only defined where at least 2 observations are available; therefore the rates for mixed land uses for “all cohorts” are calculated across hectares in cohorts 1 and 2 only, and all-cohort totals do not necessarily add up. 3. Abbreviation “nd” = not defined. 4. The shares with mixed crop and pasture/hay/range (no CRP) were 13% for cohort 1 and 3% for cohor 2, and 4% for the two cohorts combined. Table 1 For CRP Land in Grass or in Trees: Post Contract Land Uses by Period of Contract Expiration (1993-97; 1998-2002; 2003-07)

Source: Authors calculations using NRI data (USDA NRCS). 1. For cohort 1 (which the NRI reports was enrolled in CRP in 1992, and contract expired before 1997), the NRI provides 3 observations after expiration of1992 contract (1997, 2002, and 2007); for cohort 2, NRI provides 2 observations after 1997 contract (2002, 2007) and for cohort 3, NRI provides 1 post-contract observation (2007). Post-contract land use options are: new CRP contract, forest, hay, pasture, range, or crop. 2. Mixed land uses are only defined where at least 2 observations are available; therefore the rates for mixed land uses for “all cohorts” are calculated across hectares in cohorts 1 and 2 only, and all-cohort totals do not necessarily add up. 3. Abbreviation “nd” = not defined. 4. The shares with mixed crop and pasture/hay/range (no CRP) were 13% for cohort 1 and 3% for cohor 2, and 4% for the two cohorts combined. Table 1 For CRP Land in Grass or in Trees: Post Contract Land Uses by Period of Contract Expiration (1993-97; 1998-2002; 2003-07)

Figure 3. Sources of growth in agricultural output, 1961-2009 productivity captures the extent to which fewer resources are required tc produce a given level of output.

Figure 3. Sources of growth in agricultural output, 1961-2009 productivity captures the extent to which fewer resources are required tc produce a given level of output.

Table A3 Contributions to U.S. Greenhouse Mitigation from Public and Private R&D Procrams

Table A3 Contributions to U.S. Greenhouse Mitigation from Public and Private R&D Procrams

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (86)

  1. They estimate that global investments in agriculture to adapt to climate change could avoid .25-.43Gt CO 2 per year on the global scale, where 1 Gigaton (Gt) ¼ 1000 Tg. 46 Personal communication, T.W. Hertel, April 2013.
  2. Compare R&D elasticity of TFP estimates in Wang, Schimmelpfennig, and Fuglie 2012 (.29) and Huffman and Evenson 2006 (.47) for the United States, with estimates for developing countries in Nin Pratt and Fan (2010), which for the most part are substantially lower. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy References
  3. Alston, J.M., M.A. Anderson, J.S. James, and P.G. Pardey. 2010. Persistence Pays: U.S. Agricultural Productivity Growth and the Benefits from Public R&D Spending. New York: Springer.
  4. Babcock, B. 2008. Distributional Implications of U.S. Ethanol Policy. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 30 (3): 533-542.
  5. Baker, J.S., B.C. Murray, B.A. McCarl, S. Feng, and R. Johansson. 2013. Implications of Alternative Agricultural Productivity Growth Assumptions on Land Management, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Mitigation Potential. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95 (2): 435-441.
  6. Beckman, J., A. Borchers, and C.A. Jones. 2013. Agriculture's Supply and Demand for Energy and Energy Products. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Information Bulletin No. 112.
  7. Bhaskar, A., and J.C. Beghin. 2009. How Coupled Are Decoupled Farm Payments? A Review of the Evidence. Journal for Agricultural and Resource Economics 34 (1): 130 -153.
  8. Borlaug, N. 2007. Feeding a hungry world. Science 318 (5849): 359.
  9. Branda ˜o, M., A. Levasseur, et al. 2013. Key Issues and Options in Accounting for Carbon Sequestration and Temporary Storage in Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprinting. The Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18 (1): 230-240.
  10. Burney, J.A., S.J. Davis, and D.B. Lobell. 2010. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation by Agricultural Intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (26): 12052-12057.
  11. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy Cattaneo, A., D. Hellerstein, C. Nickerson, and C. Myers. 2006. Balancing the Multiple Objectives in Conservation Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report No. 19.
  12. Chambers, A.S. 2011. Encouraging Carbon Sequestration on Private Agricultural Lands in the United States. Abstract #35. Presentation at the Air & Waste Management Association meeting, Greenhouse Gas Strategies in a Changing Climate, San Francisco, CA.
  13. Choi, S., B. Sohngen, S. Rose, T. Hertel, and A. Golub. 2011. Total Factor Productivity Change in Agriculture and Emissions from Deforestation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93 (2): 349-355.
  14. Claassen, R., F. Carriazo, J.C. Cooper, D. Hellerstein, and K. Ueda. 2011. Grassland to Cropland Conversion in the Northern Plains: The Role of Crop Insurance, Commodity, and Disaster Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report No. 120.
  15. Claassen, R., E. Duquette, and J. Horowitz. 2013. Additionality in Agricultural Conservation Payment Programs. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 68 (3): 74A-77A.
  16. Coyle, W.T. 2010. Next-Generation Biofuels: Near-Term Challenges and Implications for Agriculture. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Outlook Report No. (BIO-01-01).
  17. Day-Rubenstein, K., P. Heisey, R. Shoemaker, J. Sullivan, and G. Frisvold. 2005. Crop Genetic Resources: An Economic Appraisal. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Information Bulletin No. 2.
  18. Eagle, A.J., L.R. Henry, L.P. Olander, K. Haugen-Kozrya, N. Millar, and G.P. Robertson. 2012. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential of Agricultural Land manage- ment in the United States: A Synthesis of the Literature. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions Report NIR 10-04, Third Edition. Durham, NC: Duke University.
  19. Eagle, A.J., and S.D. Sifleet. 2011. T-AGG Survey of Experts Scientific Certainty Associated with GHG Mitigation Potential of Agricultural Land Management Practices. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions Report NIR 11-05. Durham, NC: Duke University.
  20. Earles, J.M., S. Yeh, and K.E. Skog. 2012. Timing of Carbon Emissions from Global Forest Clearance. Nature Climate Change 2: 682-685 (September).
  21. Follett, R.F., G.E. Varvel, J.M. Kimble, and K.P. Vogel 2009. No-Till Corn after Bromegrass: Effect on Soil Carbon and Soil Aggregates. Agronomy Journal 101 (2): 261 -268.
  22. Fuglie, K.O. 2012. Productivity Growth and Technology Capital in the Global Agricultural Economy. In Productivity Growth in Agriculture: An International Perspective, ed. K.O. Fuglie, S.L. Wang, and V. Eldon Ball. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: CAB International, pp. 335-368.
  23. Fuglie, K.O., P.W. Heisey, J.L. King, C.E. Pray, K. Day-Rubenstein, D. Schimmelpfennig, and S.L. Wang, and R. Karmarkar-Deshmukh. 2011. Research Investments and Market Structure in the Food Processing, Agricultural Input, and Biofuel Industries Worldwide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report No. 130.
  24. Fuglie, K.O., J.M. MacDonald, and E. Ball. 2007. Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Brief No. 9.
  25. Fuglie, K.O., S.L. Wang, and V.E. Ball. 2012. Introduction to Productivity Growth in Agriculture. In Productivity Growth in Agriculture: An International Perspective, ed. K.O. Fuglie, S.L. Wang, and V.E. Ball. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: CAB International, pp. 1 -11.
  26. Gardner, B., I. Hardie, and P.J. Parks. 2010. United States Farm Commodity Programs and Land Use. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 92 (3): 803 -820.
  27. New Uses of Old Tools? Greenhouse Gas Mitigation with Agriculture Sector Policies
  28. Gilley, J.E., and J.W. Doran. 1997. Tillage Effects on Soil Erosion Potential and Soil Quality of a Former Conservation Reserve Program Site. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 52 (3): 184 -188.
  29. Gleason, R.A., B.A. Tangen, and M.K. Laubhan. 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. R.A. Gleason, and M.K. Laubhan, and N.H. Euliss, Jr., Chapter C. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1745. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA\_File/pp1745.pdf
  30. Goodwin, B.K., M. Vandeveer, and J. Deal. 2004. An Empirical Analysis of Acreage Distortions and Participation in the Federal Crop Insurance Program. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86 (4): 1058-1077.
  31. Haufler, J.B., (ed.) 2005. Fish and Wildlife Benefits of Farm Bill Conservation Programs: 2000-2005 Update. The Wildlife Society Technical Review 05-2.
  32. Havlik, P., H. Valin, A. Mosnier, M. Obersteiner, J.S. Baker, M. Herrero, M.C. Rufino, and E. Schmid. 2013. Crop Productivity and the Global Livestock Sector: Implications for Land Use Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95 (2): 442-448.
  33. Heisey, P., S.L. Wang, and K. Fuglie. 2011. Public Agricultural Research Spending and Future Agricultural Productivity Growth: Scenarios for 2010-2050. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Bulletin No. 7.
  34. Hellerstein, D., and S. Malcolm. 2011. The Influence of Rising Commodity Prices on the Conservation Research Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report No. 110.
  35. Hertel, T.W. 2012. Implications of Agricultural Productivity for Global Cropland Use and GHG Emissions: Borlaug vs. Jevons, Working Paper 69, Global Trade Analysis Program, Purdue University.
  36. Horowitz, J., and J. Gottlieb. 2010. The Role of Agriculture in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Bulletin No. 15.
  37. Huffman, W.E., and R.E. Evenson. 2006. Science for Agriculture: A Long Term Perspective. Second edition. Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. Ed. H.S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, and K. Tanabe. Hayama, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies.
  38. IPCC. 2007. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Ed. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Meyer. Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
  39. Jones, C.A., C. Nickerson, and N. Cavallaro. 2013. U.S. Policies and GHG Mitigation in the Agriculture Sector. In Land Use and the Carbon Cycle, ed. D.G. Brown, and D.T. Robinson, and B.C. Reed. Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 403 -430.
  40. Jones, C.A., C. Nickerson, and M. Sperow. 2013. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation from the Conservation Reserve Program: The Contribution of Post-Contract Land Use Change. Selected Paper prepared for presentation at 2013 AAEA & CAES Joint Annual Meeting, Washington, DC. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/ 150501/2/Jones%20Nickerson%20Sperow%20CRP%20060313.pdf
  41. Jones, C.A., and R.D. Sands. 2013. Impact of Future Agricultural Productivity Gains on Greenhouse Gas Emissions: a Global Analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics; doi: 10.1093/ajae/aat035.
  42. Khanna, M., and D. Zilberman. 2012. Modeling the Land-Use and Greenhouse-Gas Implications of Biofuels. Climate Change Economics 3 (3): 1250016-1-1250016-15.
  43. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy Kossoy, A., and P. Ambrois. 2012. State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2012. Washington, DC: World Bank.
  44. Latta, G.S., D.M. Adams, R.J. Alig, E. White, and E. 2011. Simulated Effect of Mandatory versus Voluntary Forest Carbon Offset Markets in the United States. Journal of Forest Economics 17 (2): 127-141.
  45. Leathers, N., and L.M.B. Harrington 2000. Effectiveness of Conservation Reserve Programs and Land "Slippage" in Southwestern Kansas. Professional Geographer 52 (1): 83 -93.
  46. Lewandrowski, J., M. Peters, C. Jones, R. House, M. Sperow, M. Eve, K. Paustian, and K. 2004. Economics of Sequestering Carbon in the U.S. Agricultural Sector. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Technical Bulletin No. 1909.
  47. Linn, J., and N. Richardson. 2013. Cutting Carbon, Take Two: A Brief Guide to Federal Electricity-Sector Climate Policy without Cap-and-Trade. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 35 (3): 377 -397.
  48. Lobell, D.B., U.R.C. Baldos, and T.W. Hertel. 2013. Climate Adaptation as Mitigation: The Case of Agricultural Investments. Environmental Research Letters 8 (1): 015012.
  49. Lubowski, R.N., A.J. Plantinga, and R.N. Stavins. 2006. Land-Use Change and Carbon Sinks: Econometric Estimation of the Carbon Sequestration Supply Function. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 51 (2): 135-152.
  50. ---. 2008. What Drives Land-Use Changes in the United States? A National Analysis of Landowner Decisions. Land Economics 84 (4): 529-550.
  51. Mezzatesta, M., D.A. Newburn, and R.T. Woodward. 2013. Additionality and the Adoption of Farm Conservation Practices. Land Economics.
  52. Monke, J., and R. Johnson. 2010. Actual Farm Bill Spending and Cost Estimates. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, R41195. Available at: http:// cnie.org/NLE/CRS/abstract.cfm?NLEid=2272
  53. Murray, B.C., B. Sohngen, and M.T. Ross. 2007. Economic Consequences of Consideration of Permanence, Leakage and Additionality for Soil Carbon Sequestration Projects. Climatic Change 80 (1-2): 127-143.
  54. Nelson, E., S. Polasky, D.J. Lewis, A.J. Plantinga, E. Lonsdorf, D. White, D. Bael, and J.L. Lawler. 2008. Efficiency of Incentives to Jointly Increase Carbon Sequestration and Species Conservation on a Landscape. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (28): 9471-9476.
  55. Nickerson, C., R. Ebel, A. Borchers, and F. Carriazo. 2011. Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Information Bulletin No. 89.
  56. Nin Pratt, A., and S. Fan. 2010. R&D Investment in National and International Agricultural Research: An Ex-ante Analysis of Productivity and Poverty. Discussion Paper 00986, International Food Policy Research Institute.
  57. Paustian, K., J.M. Antle, J. Sheehan, and E.A. Paul. 2006. Agriculture's Role in Greenhouse Gas Mitigation. Washington, DC: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
  58. Plantinga, A.J., and J-J Wu. 2003. Co-Benefits from Carbon Sequestration in Forests: Evaluating Reductions in Agricultural Externalities from an Afforestation Policy in Wisconsin. Land Economics 79 (1): 74 -85.
  59. Roberts, M.J., and S. Bucholtz. 2006. Slippage in the Conservation Reserve Program or Spurious Correlation? A Rejoinder. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88 (2): 512 -514.
  60. Roberts, M.J., and R.N. Lubowski. 2007. Enduring Impacts of Land Retirement Policies: Evidence from the Conservation Reserve Program. Land Economics 83 (4): 516 -538.
  61. Schmit, T.M., J. Luo, and J.M. Conrad. 2011. Estimating the Influence of Ethanol Policy on Plant Investment Decisions: A Real Options Analysis with Two Stochastic Variables. Energy Economics 33 (6): 1194-1205.
  62. New Uses of Old Tools? Greenhouse Gas Mitigation with Agriculture Sector Policies Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, and D. Hayes, and T. Yu. 2008. Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change. Science 319: 1238-1240.
  63. Smith, J.E., L.S. Heath, K.E. Skog, and R.A. Birdsey. 2006. Methods for Calculating Forest Ecosystem and Harvested Carbon, with Standard Estimates for Forest Types of the United States. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, General Technical Report NE-343.
  64. Stevenson, J.R., N. Villoria, D. Byerlee, T. Kelley, and M. Maredia. 2013. Green Revolution Research Saved an Estimated 18 to 27 Million Hectares from Being Brought into Agricultural Production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (21): 8363-8368.
  65. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2012a. Agricultural Productivity in the United States: Overview. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/ AgProductivity/
  66. ---. 2012b. Agricultural Research Funding in the Public and Private Sectors. http:// www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-research-funding-in-the-public- and-private-sectors.aspx
  67. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. 2008. Conservation Reserve Program: Summary and Enrollment Statistics, 2008. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/ Internet/FSA_File/annualsummary2008.pdf
  68. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2013. Forest Legacy Program Funded and Completed Projects. http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/flp\_ projects.shtml U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. Farm Bill 2008 At a Glance: Wetlands Reserve Program. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_008151.pdf.
  69. ---. 2009. Protracts Database. Washington, DC.
  70. ---. 2013. Environmental Quality Incentives Program website. http://www.nrcs. usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip/
  71. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Budget and Program Analysis. 2010. 2012 USDA Budget Explanatory Notes for Committee on Appropriations. Washington, DC. http://www.obpa.usda.gov/25nrcs2012notes.pdf
  72. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist. 2011. USDA Agricultural and Forestry Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 1990-2008. Washington, DC: Technical Bulletin No. 1930.
  73. ---. 2013. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal Production with the United States. Prepared by ICF International. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Climate Change Program Office under USDA Contract No. AG-3142-P-10-0214.
  74. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009. Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. Washington, DC: Report # SR-OIAF/2009-05.
  75. ---. 2007. Annual Energy Outlook 2007, with Projections to 2030. Washington, DC: DOE/EIA-0383(2007).
  76. ---. 2012. Analysis of the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012. Washington, DC.
  77. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. EPA Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 H.R. 2454 in the 111 th Congress, including Appendix and Data Annex. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/ economicanalyses.html ---. 2010a. Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. Washington, DC: USEPA-420-R-10-006.
  78. ---. 2010b. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modifications to Renewable Fuel Standard Program; Final Rule. Federal Register Volume 75, Number 89, pp. 26025-26048.
  79. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy ---. 2011. Biofuels and the Environment: First Triennial Report to Congress. Washington, DC: EPA/600/R-10/183F.
  80. ---. 2013. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011. Washington DC: USEPA-430-R-13-001.
  81. Wang, S.L., D. Schimmelpfennig, and K. Fuglie. 2012. Is Agricultural Productivity Growth Slowing in Western Europe? In Productivity Growth in Agriculture: An International Perspective, ed. O. Keith Fuglie, Sun Ling Wang, and V. Eldon Ball, 109 -125. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: CAB International.
  82. Wise, M., K. Calvin, A. Thomson, L. Clarke, E. Bond-Lamberty, R. Sands, S.J. Smith, A. Janetos, and J.A. Edmonds. 2009. Implications of Limiting CO 2 Concentration for Land Use and Energy. Science 324: 1183-1186.
  83. Wu, J. 2000. Slippage Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program. American Journal ofAgricultural Economics 82 (4): 979 -992.
  84. ---. 2005. Slippage Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program: Reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87 (1): 251-254.
  85. Zhang, L., B.K. Wylie, L. Ji, T.G. Gilmanov, and L.L. Tieszen. 2010. Climate-Driven Interannual Variability in Net Ecosystem Exchange in the Northern Great Plains Grasslands. Rangeland Ecology and Management 63 (1): 40-50.
  86. New Uses of Old Tools? Greenhouse Gas Mitigation with Agriculture Sector Policies