DOCSLIB.ORG

A Guide for the Perplexed to the Indirect Effects of Biofuels Production

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Guide for the Perplexed to the Indirect Effects of Biofuels Production A Guide for the Perplexed to the Indirect Effects of Biofuels Production Chris Malins, Stephanie Searle, and Anil Baral www.theicct.org [email protected] BEIJING | BERLIN | BRUSSELS | SAN FRANCISCO | WASHINGTON ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors acknowledge the invaluable contributions of the following people and organizations in the completion of this project. While this report would not have been possible without the engagement of these individuals and institutions, they do not necessarily endorse any or all of the conclusions expressed herein, which represent the position of the International Council on Clean Transportation only. Reviewers: David Laborde, Ignacio Vazquez. Other contributors: Peter Witzke, Chris Sichko, Gaurav Bansal, Drew Kodjak, John German, Richard Plevin, Ralph Heimlich, Nic Lutsey, Jacinto Fabiosa, Steve Berry, Wolfram Schlenker, Robert Edwards. Funder: The ClimateWorks Foundation. Cover photographs via Wikimedia Commons: Oil Palm Plantation in Cigudeg-03, by Achmad Rabin Taim, Jakarta, Indonesia (P3260481) Rapeseed, Champ de colza, Côte-d’Or Bourgogne, Avril 2014, by Myrabella Soybean Plantação de soja, by Coloradogoias Minnesota Corn (20030826), by Kris from Seattle, USA (Minnesota) In the Corn Field, by Lars Plougmann (originally posted to Flickr as In the corn field) TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary ....................................................................................................................1 ES.I. Biofuels policy overview ............................................................................................................... 1 ES.II. Indirect land use change, and indirect land use change modeling ........................... 2 ES.II.i Why ILUC is important for policy .................................................................................4 ES.II.ii ILUC models, and why you may be perplexed ..................................................... 5 ES.III. A guide for the perplexed—Why are the answers different? ...................................... 8 ES.III.i. The key factors ................................................................................................................... 9 ES.IV. ILUC—An illustrative calculation ............................................................................................11 ES.V. Understanding the factors ........................................................................................................15 ES.V.i. Demand change: Elasticity of food demand to price ..........................................15 ES.V.ii. Productivity change: Elasticity of yield to price ...................................................16 ES.V.iii. Productivity change: Crop choices ...........................................................................17 ES.V.iv. Productivity change: Utilization of co-products ..................................................19 ES.V.v. Land use expansion: Elasticity of area to price .....................................................19 ES.V.vi. Emissions implications: Carbon stock of new land ........................................... 20 ES.VI. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................22 1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................24 1.1 Indirect land use change ................................................................................................................25 1.1.1. Why are the land use implications of biofuels important? ................................... 30 1.2. Indirect land use change modeling .........................................................................................33 1.2.1. Other methodological questions ...................................................................................36 1.2.2. Noneconomic modeling approaches ..........................................................................37 1.2.3. Modeling: In conclusion ....................................................................................................38 1.3. This report—A Guide for the Perplexed .................................................................................38 2. Direct emissions ................................................................................................................. 40 3. What are the determinants of ILUC emissions? .............................................................43 3.1. Elasticity of food demand to price ......................................................................................... 44 3.1.1. The 2008 food price spikes and the welfare implications of elastic food and feed demand .....................................................................................................47 3.1.2. Food price volatility ...........................................................................................................52 3.1.3. Food consumption reduction in the modeling of indirect land use change ............................................................................................................................53 3.2. Elasticity of yield to price ...........................................................................................................56 3.2.1. Baseline yields ......................................................................................................................56 3.2.2. Price-induced yield increase ..........................................................................................59 3.2.3. Yield on price elasticity ...................................................................................................63 3.2.4. Cropping intensification ..................................................................................................67 i ICCT 3.2.5. Yield at the margin of production ...............................................................................68 3.2.6. Yield in the modeling of indirect land use change ...............................................72 3.3. Choice of crops ..............................................................................................................................74 3.3.1. Crop switching .....................................................................................................................74 3.3.2. Location of expansion ......................................................................................................75 3.3.3. Crop location and switching in the modeling of indirect land use change ..........................................................................................................................78 3.4 Utilization of co-products ...........................................................................................................79 3.4.1. How do co-products affect land use? ........................................................................ 80 3.4.2. Ethanol co-products .........................................................................................................82 3.4.3. Biodiesel co-products ......................................................................................................86 3.4.4. Co-products in the modeling of indirect land use change ..............................88 3.5. Elasticity of area to price ............................................................................................................89 3.5.1. Area on price elasticity ......................................................................................................91 3.5.2. Area expansion in the modeling of indirect land use change ..........................92 3.6. Carbon stock of new land .........................................................................................................95 3.6.1. What type of ecosystem is converted? ..................................................................... 96 3.6.2. How much carbon was there?.................................................................................... 100 3.6.3. How much carbon is removed? ...................................................................................101 3.6.4. Peat soils .............................................................................................................................102 3.6.5. Emissions factors in the modeling of indirect land use change ....................103 4. ILUC illustrations ..............................................................................................................106 4.1. Biofuel visions: Economic model versus model of best practice ...............................106 4.2. ICCT simple macromodel of ILUC ......................................................................................... 107 4.2.2. First factor: Food consumption falls, reducing ILUC by 30 percent ............108 4.2.3. Second factor: Yields change, reducing ILUC by 15 percent ..........................109 4.2.4. Third factor: Crop choices change, reducing ILUC by 40 percent ...............109 4.2.5. Fourth factor: Co-products reduce ILUC by 40 percent ..................................109 4.2.6. Fifth factor: Elasticity of area to price .....................................................................109 4.2.7. Sixth factor: Land expansion tends to avoid higher-carbon biomes, reducing ILUC by 30 percent ......................................................................................109 4.2.8. Relative importance
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Impact of Ethanol Use on Food Prices and Greenhouse-Gas Emissions Pub
    CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE A CBO PAPER APRIL 2009 The Impact of Ethanol Use on Food Prices and Greenhouse-Gas Emissions Pub. No. 3155 A CBO PAPER The Impact of Ethanol Use on Food Prices and Greenhouse-Gas Emissions April 2009 The Congress of the United States O Congressional Budget Office Notes Unless otherwise indicated, all years referred to in this report are calendar years. On the cover: Cornfield, copyright JupiterImages; bowl of breakfast cereal, photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and grocery store and traffic, images by Maureen Costantino. Preface The production and use of ethanol in the United States have been steadily increasing since 2001, boosted in part by long-standing production subsidies. That growth has exerted upward pressure on the price of corn and, ultimately, on the retail price of food, affecting both individual consumers and federal expenditures on nutritional support programs. It has also raised questions about the environmental consequences of replacing gasoline with ethanol. This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis, which was prepared at the request of Representatives Ron Kind, Rosa DeLauro, and James McGovern, examines the relationship between increasing production of ethanol and rising prices for food. In particular, CBO esti- mated how much of the rise in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008 was due to an increase in the production of ethanol and how much that increase in prices might raise federal expenditures on food assistance programs. CBO also examined how much the increased use of ethanol might lower emissions of greenhouse gases.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Demand for Non-Food Crops
    Market demand for non-food crops Inventarisation of the present situation Harriëtte Bos, Wolter Elbersen, Karin Molenveld, WageningenUR, the Netherlands Carlos Cadórniga Valiño, INIA, Spain Efi Alexopoulou, CRES, Greece Report 4FCrops task 1.3 Colophon Title Market demand for non food crops Author(s) Harriëtte Bos , Wolter Elbersen, Carlos Cadórniga Valiño, Efi Alexopoulou AFSG number AFSG number ISBN -number ISBN number Date of publication Date of publication Confidentiality No OPD code OPD code Approved by Name of approving official Agrotechnology and Food Sciences Group P.O. Box 17 NL-6700 AA Wageningen Tel: +31 (0)317 475 024 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.afsg.wur.nl © Agrotechnology and Food Innovations b.v. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system of any nature, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. The publisher does not accept any liability for inaccuracies in this report. The quality management system of Agrotechnology and Food Innovations b.v. is certified by SGS International Certification Services EESV according to ISO 9001:2000. 2 © Agrotechnology and Food Innovations b.v., member of Wageningen UR Summary This report summarizes the results of task 1.3 of the 4FCrops project. Methods In this report an estimation is presented of the present day non-food markets for renewable materials. These markets cover a wide range of products, ranging from paper and wood to specialty chemicals and high value added plastics. Estimation of the market size was made starting from the Eurostat data of manufactures goods.
    [Show full text]
  • Scheme Principles for the Production of Biomass, Biofuels and Bioliquids
    REDcert Scheme principles for the production of biomass, biofuels and bioliquids Version 05 Scheme principles for the production of biomass, bioliquids and biofuels 1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 4 2 Scope of application .................................................................................................... 4 3 Definitions .................................................................................................................... 6 4 Requirements for sustainable biomass production .................................................. 9 4.1 Land with high biodiversity value (Article 17 (3) of Directive 2009/28/EC) .............. 9 4.1.1 Primary forest and other wooded land ............................................................ 9 4.1.2 Areas designated by law or by the relevant competent authority for nature protection purposes ......................................................................................................10 4.1.3 Areas designated for the protection of rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems or species .................................................................................................11 4.1.4 Highly biodiverse grassland ...........................................................................11 4.2 Land with high above-ground or underground carbon stock (Article 17 (4) of Directive 2009/28/EC) ..........................................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainability Criteria for Biofuels Specified Brussels, 13 March 2019 1
    European Commission - Fact Sheet Sustainability criteria for biofuels specified Brussels, 13 March 2019 1. What has the Commission adopted today? As foreseen by the recast Renewable Energy Directive adopted by the European Parliament and Council, which has already entered into force, the Commission has adopted today a delegated act setting out the criteria for determining high ILUC-risk feedstock for biofuels (biofuels for which a significant expansion of the production area into land with high-carbon stock is observed) and the criteria for certifying low indirect land-use change (ILUC)–risk biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels. An Annex to the act demonstrating the expansion of the production area of different kinds of crops has also been adopted. 2. What are biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels? Biofuels are liquid fuels made from biomass and consumed in transport. The most important biofuels today are bioethanol (made from sugar and cereal crops) used to replace petrol, and biodiesel (made mainly from vegetable oils) used to replace diesel. Bioliquids are liquid fuels made from biomass and used to produce electricity, heating or cooling. Biomass fuels are solid or gaseous fuels made from biomass. Therefore, all these fuels are made from biomass. They have different names depending on their physical nature (solid, gaseous or liquid) and their use (in transport or to produce electricity, heating or cooling). 3. What is indirect land use change (ILUC)? ILUC can occur when pasture or agricultural land previously destined for food and feed markets is diverted to biofuel production. In this case, food and feed demand still needs to be satisfied, which may lead to the extension of agriculture land into areas with high carbon stock such as forests, wetlands and peatlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Scheme Principles for GHG Calculation
    Scheme principles for GHG calculation Version EU 05 Scheme principles for GHG calculation © REDcert GmbH 2021 This document is publicly accessible at: www.redcert.org. Our documents are protected by copyright and may not be modified. Nor may our documents or parts thereof be reproduced or copied without our consent. Document title: „Scheme principles for GHG calculation” Version: EU 05 Datum: 18.06.2021 © REDcert GmbH 2 Scheme principles for GHG calculation Contents 1 Requirements for greenhouse gas saving .................................................... 5 2 Scheme principles for the greenhouse gas calculation ................................. 5 2.1 Methodology for greenhouse gas calculation ................................................... 5 2.2 Calculation using default values ..................................................................... 8 2.3 Calculation using actual values ...................................................................... 9 2.4 Calculation using disaggregated default values ...............................................12 3 Requirements for calculating GHG emissions based on actual values ........ 13 3.1 Requirements for calculating greenhouse gas emissions from the production of raw material (eec) .......................................................................................13 3.2 Requirements for calculating greenhouse gas emissions resulting from land-use change (el) ................................................................................................17 3.3 Requirements for
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Background for Carbon Finance and Carbon Credits
    CHAPTER 1 THE BACKGROUND FOR CARBON FINANCE AND CARBON CREDITS THE LINK BETWEEN CLIMATE CHANGE, GHG EMISSIONS, AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY Climate change is one of the biggest threats we face. Everyday activities like driving a car or a motorbike, using air conditioning and/or heating and lighting houses consume energy and produce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), which contribute to climate change. When the emissions of GHGs are rising, the Earth’s climate is affected, the average weather changes and average temperatures increase. FIGURE 1 Sources of agricultural GHGs in megatons (Mt) CO2-eq 2128 1792 672 616 369 158 410 CO2 CO2 CH 413 CH4+ N2O 4 CO2 + N2O Irrigation N02 Farm Rice machinery Biomass production CH4 N0 +CH burning 2 4 Fertiliser production Nitrous oxide from fertilised soils + land conversion Manure to agriculture 5900 Mt CO2-eq Methane from cattle enteric fermentation Source: Greenpeace International, 2008. In agriculture and forestry different sources and sinks release, take up and store three types of GHGs: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Many agricultural and forestry practices emit GHGs to the atmosphere. Figure 1 shows the main sources of agricultural GHGs: for example, by using fertilizers N2O is released from the soil and by burning agricultural residues CO2 levels rise. CH4 is set free in the digestion 1 ] process of livestock, as well as if rice is grown under flooded conditions. When land is converted to cropland and trees are felled, a source of CO2 emissions is created. Agriculture is an important contributor to climate change, but it also provides a sink and has the potential to lessen climate change.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Restoration for Protected Areas Principles, Guidelines and Best Practices
    Ecological Restoration for Protected Areas Principles, Guidelines and Best Practices Prepared by the IUCN WCPA Ecological Restoration Taskforce Karen Keenleyside, Nigel Dudley, Stephanie Cairns, Carol Hall and Sue Stolton, Editors Peter Valentine, Series Editor Developing capacity for a protected planet Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No.18 IUCN WCPA’s BEST PRACTICE PROTECTED AREA GUIDELINES SERIES IUCN-WCPA’s Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines are the world’s authoritative resource for protected area managers. Involving collaboration among specialist practitioners dedicated to supporting better implementation in the field, they distil learning and advice drawn from across IUCN. Applied in the field, they are building institutional and individual capacity to manage protected area systems effectively, equitably and sustainably, and to cope with the myriad of challenges faced in practice. They also assist national governments, protected area agencies, non- governmental organisations, communities and private sector partners to meet their commitments and goals, and especially the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Programme of Work on Protected Areas. A full set of guidelines is available at: www.iucn.org/pa_guidelines Complementary resources are available at: www.cbd.int/protected/tools/ Contribute to developing capacity for a Protected Planet at: www.protectedplanet.net/ IUCN PROTECTED AREA DEFINITION, MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES AND GOVERNANCE TYPES IUCN defines a protected area as: A clearly defined geographical space,
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Justice: EU Biofuel Demand and Oil Palm Cultivation in Malaysia
    Lund Conference on Earth System Governance 2012 Environmental justice: EU biofuel demand and oil palm cultivation in Malaysia Erika M. Machacek Conference Paper Lund, Sweden, March 2012 "As a metaphorical image, friction reminds us that heterogeneous and unequal encounters can lead to new arrangements of culture and power" (Tsing, 2005) Table of Contents ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................... VIII 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 PROBLEM DEFINITION ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 METHOD ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 LIMITATION AND SCOPE .............................................................................................................................. 2 1.5 AUDIENCE ................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.6 DISPOSITION ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Biofuel Contributions to Carbon Mitigation and Energy Independence
    Forests 2011, 2, 861-874; doi:10.3390/f2040861 OPEN ACCESS forests ISSN 1999-4907 www.mdpi.com/journal/forests Article Sustainable Biofuel Contributions to Carbon Mitigation and Energy Independence Bruce Lippke 1,*, Richard Gustafson 1, Richard Venditti 2, Timothy Volk 3, Elaine Oneil 1, Leonard Johnson 4, Maureen Puettmann 5 and Phillip Steele 6 1 Anderson Hall, Room 107, School of Forest Resources, College of Environment, University of Washington, P.O. Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; E-Mails: [email protected] (R.G.); [email protected] (E.O.) 2 Department of Forest Biomaterials, College of Natural Resources, North Carolina State University, 2820 Faucette Drive, Raleigh, NC 27695-8005, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] 3 Department of Forest and Natural Resources Management, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] 4 Leonard Johnson and Associates, 1205 Kamiaken, Moscow, ID 83843, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] 5 WoodLife Environmental Consultants, LLC, 8200 NW Chaparral Drive, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] 6 Forest Products, Building 1, Room 1201, Department of Forest Products, Mississippi State University, P.O. Box 9820, Mississippi State, MS 39762-9820, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-206-543-8684; Fax: +1-206-685-0790. Received: 17 August 2011; in revised form: 25 September 2011 / Accepted: 27 September 2011 / Published: 19 October 2011 Abstract: The growing interest in US biofuels has been motivated by two primary national policy goals, (1) to reduce carbon emissions and (2) to achieve energy independence.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioenergy's Role in Balancing the Electricity Grid and Providing Storage Options – an EU Perspective
    Bioenergy's role in balancing the electricity grid and providing storage options – an EU perspective Front cover information panel IEA Bioenergy: Task 41P6: 2017: 01 Bioenergy's role in balancing the electricity grid and providing storage options – an EU perspective Antti Arasto, David Chiaramonti, Juha Kiviluoma, Eric van den Heuvel, Lars Waldheim, Kyriakos Maniatis, Kai Sipilä Copyright © 2017 IEA Bioenergy. All rights Reserved Published by IEA Bioenergy IEA Bioenergy, also known as the Technology Collaboration Programme (TCP) for a Programme of Research, Development and Demonstration on Bioenergy, functions within a Framework created by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Views, findings and publications of IEA Bioenergy do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the IEA Secretariat or of its individual Member countries. Foreword The global energy supply system is currently in transition from one that relies on polluting and depleting inputs to a system that relies on non-polluting and non-depleting inputs that are dominantly abundant and intermittent. Optimising the stability and cost-effectiveness of such a future system requires seamless integration and control of various energy inputs. The role of energy supply management is therefore expected to increase in the future to ensure that customers will continue to receive the desired quality of energy at the required time. The COP21 Paris Agreement gives momentum to renewables. The IPCC has reported that with current GHG emissions it will take 5 years before the carbon budget is used for +1,5C and 20 years for +2C. The IEA has recently published the Medium- Term Renewable Energy Market Report 2016, launched on 25.10.2016 in Singapore.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Soil Carbon Credits: Making Sense of Protocols for Carbon Sequestration and Net Greenhouse Gas Removals
    Agricultural Soil Carbon Credits: Making sense of protocols for carbon sequestration and net greenhouse gas removals NATURAL CLIMATE SOLUTIONS About this report This synthesis is for federal and state We contacted each carbon registry and policymakers looking to shape public marketplace to ensure that details investments in climate mitigation presented in this report and through agricultural soil carbon credits, accompanying appendix are accurate. protocol developers, project developers This report does not address carbon and aggregators, buyers of credits and accounting outside of published others interested in learning about the protocols meant to generate verified landscape of soil carbon and net carbon credits. greenhouse gas measurement, reporting While not a focus of the report, we and verification protocols. We use the remain concerned that any end-use of term MRV broadly to encompass the carbon credits as an offset, without range of quantification activities, robust local pollution regulations, will structural considerations and perpetuate the historic and ongoing requirements intended to ensure the negative impacts of carbon trading on integrity of quantified credits. disadvantaged communities and Black, This report is based on careful review Indigenous and other communities of and synthesis of publicly available soil color. Carbon markets have enormous organic carbon MRV protocols published potential to incentivize and reward by nonprofit carbon registries and by climate progress, but markets must be private carbon crediting marketplaces. paired with a strong regulatory backing. Acknowledgements This report was supported through a gift Conservation Cropping Protocol; Miguel to Environmental Defense Fund from the Taboada who provided feedback on the High Meadows Foundation for post- FAO GSOC protocol; Radhika Moolgavkar doctoral fellowships and through the at Nori; Robin Rather, Jim Blackburn, Bezos Earth Fund.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Carbon to Offset Emissions from the EU Refining And/Or Road Transport Sector
    Forest carbon to offset emissions from the EU refining and/or road transport sector Presentation for the 12th Concawe Symposium, March 2017 Prof. Dr Lars Hein Contents of the presentation .Rationale .Forest carbon and the carbon market .Recent developments .Criteria for purchasing offsets .Options to test offsetting in the refining and road transport sector Rationale . Changing regulatory and market environments provide a strong incentive to better understand options to reduce the sector’s CO2 footprint. Carbon credits including from forest carbon may be used to offset emissions from the EU refining and road transport sector. Carbon offsets may provide an option to cost-effectively enhance the environmental performance of road fuels. However understanding the technical, economic and policy environment is essential. The global carbon balance . Land based (LULUCF) emissions contribute around 1 + 0.5 Gton C/year to global CO2 emissions (period 2006- 2015) Forest carbon . Temperate and boreal zones: increases in carbon stocks over time due to expansion of the forest cover . Tropical zones: net emissions highest in the tropics, from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) . Emissions from peat lands (marshes): ● Peat oxidation leads to an emission of around 0.3- 0.6 Gton C world-wide, most of this in the tropics. ● Peat fires add another 0.1 - 0.5 Gton C (El Niño effect). Peat lands in the Netherlands and Indonesia Forest carbon credit projects . Three types of forest carbon projects: ● Reforestation and afforestation (tree planting) ● Enhanced forest management (plus agroforestry) ● REDD : Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) (/REDD+) . REDD projects claim carbon credits from avoided deforestation (i.e.
    [Show full text]