Indirect Land Use Change due to Biofuels : Is it Worth it ? (original) (raw)
Related papers
The social inefficiency of regulating indirect land use change due to biofuels
Nature communications, 2017
Efforts to reduce the indirect land use change (ILUC) -related carbon emissions caused by biofuels has led to inclusion of an ILUC factor as a part of the carbon intensity of biofuels in a Low Carbon Fuel Standard. While previous research has provided varying estimates of this ILUC factor, there has been no research examining the economic effects and additional carbon savings from including this factor in implementing a Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Here we show that inclusion of an ILUC factor in a national Low Carbon Fuel Standard led to additional abatement of cumulative emissions over 2007-2027 by 1.3 to 2.6% (0.6-1.1 billion mega-grams carbon-dioxide-equivalent (Mg CO2e(-1)) compared to those without an ILUC factor, depending on the ILUC factors utilized. The welfare cost to the US of this additional abatement ranged from 61to61 to 61to187 Mg CO2e(-1) and was substantially greater than the social cost of carbon of $50 Mg CO2e(-1).
On the Inclusion of Indirect Land Use in Biofuel
2011
Although one of the major objectives of biofuel policy is to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the allocation of feed stocks, like corn, from food to biofuels production contributes to the increase in the price of food and may result in deforestation and the extra release of GHG emissions, often referred to as indirect land use change (ILUC)
Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Implications of Biofuels: Role of Technology and Policy
2011
This paper examines the extensive and intensive margin changes in land use in the U.S. likely to be induced by biofuel policies and the implications of these policies for GHG emissions over the 2007-2022 period. The policies considered here include the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) by itself as well as combined with current biofuel tax credits or a carbon price policy. We use a dynamic, spatial, multi-market equilibrium model, Biofuel and Environmental Policy Analysis Model (BEPAM), to endogenously determine the effects of these policies on cropland allocation, food and fuel prices, and the mix of first and second-generation biofuels. We find that the increase in crop prices under the RFS is likely to be less than 20% in most cases and this increase is much smaller when the RFS is accompanied by volumetric subsidies or a carbon price policy since these policies induce a switch away from corn ethanol to cellulosic biofuels. The impact of the RFS on GHG emissions reduction in the U.S. is fairly modest in size but increases when the RFS is accompanied by volumetric subsidies or a carbon price policy. However, domestic savings in GHG emissions achieved by the RFS can be severely eroded by the indirect land use changes and the rebound effect on global gasoline consumption. The net reductions in global GHG emissions are largest when the RFS is accompanied by a carbon price policy. 1 Estimates of the CO 2 intensity of corn ethanol not including ILUC are 60-65 g CO 2 per Mega-joule (MJ) CARB. 2009. Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Volume I. California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resouces Board : http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/030409lcfs\_isor\_vol1.pdf.. Liska et al. (2009) estimate this intensity to lie between 31-76 g CO 2 per MJ.
Land use and greenhouse gas mitigation effects of biofuel policies
2011
Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Effects of Biofuel Policies Concerns about energy security, reduced dependence on exhaustible fossil fuels and climate change have led to significant policy support for biofuels, particularly for cellulosic biofuels. The Biomass Crop Assistance Program and volumetric tax credits for biofuels seek to supplement the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and provide incentives for producing and blending cellulosic biofuels. This paper examines the effects of these policies on the mix of biofuels produced, food and fuel prices and consumption and GHG emissions as compared to the RFS alone. It also examines the effects of two performance-based policies that target incentives based on the GHG intensity of fuels. We find that the BCAP and volumetric tax credits together lead to biofuel production that exceeds the minimum required by the RFS by 26% and to a significant transition away from corn ethanol and towards cellulosic biofuels. They also reduce GHG emissions by 3% and gasoline consumption by 100 B liters relative to the level with the RFS alone. However, these subsidy policies are costly for the government and for the economy and impose a welfare cost of 122Boverthe2007−2022period.ReplacingthesepaymentsbysubsidiesbasedoncarboncreditsgeneratedbyafeedstockrelativetogasolinewhilelesscostlydoesnotcreatesignificantincentivestochangethemixofbiofuelsbeyondthelevelsmandatedbytheRFS.Incontrast,tothesesubsidypolicies,supplementingtheRFSwitha122B over the 2007-2022 period. Replacing these payments by subsidies based on carbon credits generated by a feedstock relative to gasoline while less costly does not create significant incentives to change the mix of biofuels beyond the levels mandated by the RFS. In contrast, to these subsidy policies, supplementing the RFS with a 122Boverthe2007−2022period.ReplacingthesepaymentsbysubsidiesbasedoncarboncreditsgeneratedbyafeedstockrelativetogasolinewhilelesscostlydoesnotcreatesignificantincentivestochangethemixofbiofuelsbeyondthelevelsmandatedbytheRFS.Incontrast,tothesesubsidypolicies,supplementingtheRFSwitha30 per metric ton of CO 2 e carbon price instrument is found to achieve the 3% reduction in GHG emissions with a gain in social welfare and lower costs to the government relative to the RFS alone.
Indirect land use change and biofuel policy
Environmental Research Letters, 2009
Biofuel debates often focus heavily on carbon emissions, with parties arguing for (or against) biofuels solely on the basis of whether the greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels are less than (or greater than) those of gasoline. Recent studies argue that land use change leads to significant greenhouse gas emissions, making some biofuels more carbon intensive than gasoline. We argue that evaluating the suitability and utility of biofuels or any alternative energy source within the limited framework of plus and minus carbon emissions is too narrow an approach. Biofuels have numerous impacts, and policy makers should seek compromises rather than relying solely on carbon emissions to determine policy. Here, we estimate that cellulosic ethanol, despite having potentially higher life cycle CO 2 emissions (including from land use) than gasoline, would still be cost-effective at a CO 2 price of $80 per ton or less, well above estimated CO 2 mitigation costs for many alternatives. As an example of the broader approach to biofuel policy, we suggest the possibility of using the potential cost reductions of cellulosic ethanol relative to gasoline to balance out additional carbon emissions resulting from indirect land use change as an example of ways in which policies could be used to arrive at workable solutions.
Interface focus, 2011
Biofuels have gained increasing attention as an alternative to fossil fuels for several reasons, one of which is their potential to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the transportation sector. Recent studies have questioned the validity of claims about the potential of biofuels to reduce GHG emissions relative to the liquid fossil fuels they are replacing when emissions owing to direct (DLUC) and indirect land use changes (ILUC) that accompany biofuels are included in the life cycle GHG intensity of biofuels. Studies estimate that the GHG emissions released from ILUC could more than offset the direct GHG savings by producing biofuels and replacing liquid fossil fuels and create a 'carbon debt' with a long payback period. The estimates of this payback period, however, vary widely across biofuels from different feedstocks and even for a single biofuel across different modelling assumptions. In the case of corn ethanol, this payback period is found to range from 15...
Biofuels and Indirect Land Use Change
2011
A key component of the U.S. and EU responses to climate change concerns was the introduction of a target for the inclusion of biofuels in the road transport sector to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As biofuel consumption rose, so too did concern that the use of agricultural land to produce its feedstocks could lead to a reduction in available land for food production, potentially leading to increased food price volatility and the conversion of natural land, such as forests, grasslands or peatlands (Ecofys, 2013)1.