Global Impacts of the Biofuel Mandate Under a Carbon Tax Ujjayant Chakravorty, Marie-Hélène Hubert
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Global Impacts of the Biofuel Mandate under a Carbon Tax Ujjayant Chakravorty, Marie-Hélène Hubert To cite this version: Ujjayant Chakravorty, Marie-Hélène Hubert. Global Impacts of the Biofuel Mandate under a Carbon Tax. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press (OUP), 2013, 95 (2), pp.282 - 288. 10.1093/ajae/aas038. halshs-01892186 HAL Id: halshs-01892186 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01892186 Submitted on 10 Oct 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. American Journal of Agricultural Economics Advance Access published June 8, 2012 GLOBAL IMPACTS OF THE BIOFUEL MANDATE UNDER A CARBON TAX UJJAYANT CHAKRAVORTY AND MARIE-HÉLÈNE HUBERT Many countries are actively promoting bio- mandates lead to an increase in indirect car- fuel mandates as a means of reducing carbon bon emissions (Searchinger et al. 2008; Chen, emissions and dependence on imported oil. In Huang and Khanna 2012). the United States, the Federal Renewable Fuel None of these papers examine the joint Standard (RFS) calls for the minimum use of 15 effects of the US and EU mandates and a billion gallons per year of corn ethanol by 2015. carbon tax on a global model. We focus on Beyond 2015, the mandate calls for a steady this issue using a partial equilibrium model of increase in the use of second generation biofu- the world food and fuel markets developed by els to a level of 21 billion gallons in 2022. The Chakravorty et al. (2012). This model is unique EU biofuels mandate requires the share of bio- because it traces the effects of biofuel policies fuels to rise from the current share of 4% to by allowing for the endogenous conversion of 10% in 2020. marginal lands to farming in order to produce An important goal of these energy man- food and fuel. It determines where the biofu- dates is to reduce GHG emissions. However, els and food should be produced and on what many studies suggest that biofuel policies do quality of land (low,medium or high). Two bio- not induce significant reductions in emissions. fuel policies are considered. First, we focus on Chen, Huang and Khanna (2012) develop a the US and EU mandates without any carbon model of the US food and fuel sectors and con- tax. In the second scenario, the two mandates clude that the impact of the mandate alone in are accompanied by a carbon tax. In the regu- reducing GHG emissions is small,but increases lated countries, the mandates reduce gasoline when the mandate is accompanied by a sub- consumption and GHG emissions by trigger- sidy for second generation biofuels or a carbon ing a switch towards biofuels. But it differs tax. Other studies find that the biofuel mandate from a carbon price instrument in that it lowers can cause an increase in direct GHG emissions the price of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and (de Gorter and Just 2009). By lowering the leads to a rise in the consumption of blended price of the blending fuel, the mandate when fuels.When the mandates are imposed together combined with a tax credit results in an increase with a carbon tax, direct emissions are lower in in fuel consumption, which can raise GHG the regulated countries. emissions. Lasco and Khanna (2010) develop Biofuel use in the US does not change sig- a partial equilibrium model of the US fuel sec- nificantly with a carbon tax, when the mandate tor and show that a combined subsidy and tariff is in place. Hence indirect emissions do not increases ethanol demand and domestic pro- change appreciably in other countries that pro- duction in the US. GHG emissions increase duce and export biofuels to the US. Under compared to the no-intervention case. How- both policies, there is a leakage effect on the ever, all studies agree on one point: biofuel rest of the world. However, what changes is gasoline consumption. When the mandate is combined with the tax instrument, gaso- line use is lower in the US, hence leakage is higher in the rest of the world. Direct car- Ujjayant Chakravorty ([email protected]) is Professor of Eco- nomics at Tufts University (and Fellow, TSE and CESifo); bon emissions in the aggregate, go up. Indi- Marie-Hélène Hubert ([email protected]) is rect carbon emissions also increase some when Assistant Professor of Economics,University of Rennes 1 (CREM). the mandate is combined with the tax. Since This article was presented in an invited paper session at the 2012 ASSA annual meeting in Chicago, IL. The articles in these sessions carbon emissions from biofuels are released are not subjected to the journal’s standard refereeing process. during their production, a carbon tax in the Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 1–7; doi: 10.1093/ajae/aas038 © The Author (2012). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] 2 Amer. J. Agr. Econ. regulated countries improves the competitive- biofuels.1 Land may be expanded by convert- ness of imported biofuels. Acreage brought ing lands not yet cultivated, which may be of into cultivation increases causing a rise in class 1, 2 or 3, one being the highest quality. indirect carbon emissions. The initial stock of available land is given. At We next describe the model used. Impacts of each period, new land may be brought under biofuel policies on food and fuel markets and cultivation. The cost of land is endogenously on GHG emissions are described in section 3. determined by the shadow price of the land Finally, section 4 concludes. constraint in the model. The cost of convert- ing new land is assumed to be increasing and convex with respect to the acreage converted. We adopt the same functional form as in Gouel The model and Hertel (2006). Land is brought into culti- vation when the land rent exceeds the cost of The world economy is composed of five regions, conversion.2 described below. Each region supplies and Total area available is the sum of land cur- consumes two food commodities (cereals; and rently under farming and land under other meat/dairy) and fuel for transportation. Trans- uses, such as pasture and forests. The initial port fuel is domestically produced from a blend global endowment of agricultural land is 1.5 of gasoline and biofuels. Biofuels may be first billion hectares (FAOSTAT).About 1.6 billion or second generation biofuels. Gasoline is pro- hectares of additional land are available for duced from crude oil and its price depends on cropping possibly at a higher cost of produc- the world oil market. Biofuels and food com- tion (FAO 2008). Most fallow land is located modities are traded between regions. In each in South America and Africa. Land under region, available land may be allocated to food the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is or energy. assumed to be available for crop production The regions we consider are: High Income in the US. Food production is assumed to Countries (HICs), Medium (MICs) and Low exhibit constant returns to scale for each land Income Countries (LICs), classified by gross class. Hence, regional food supply is just yield national product per capita. The HICs are times the land area. Improvements in agri- then divided into three groups: US, EU and cultural productivity are allowed to vary by other HICs since our study focuses on US region and land category. Crops are trans- and EU mandatory blending policies. Fast- formed into cereals and meat/dairy at cost growing countries like China, India and Brazil (final goods). are included in the MICs whose average We consider a representative biofuel in each gross national product per capita was about region. In the US, 94% of biofuel production US$5,700 in 2007, the benchmark year for the comes from corn ethanol, while 76% of EU model. Finally, the LICs are mainly nations production is biodiesel from rapeseed (EIA from Africa with average gross national prod- 2011). In the MICs, 94% of biofuels are pro- uct per capita of about $1,060 in 2007. duced from sugar cane. In the Other HICs and Demands for the two food products, cere- LICs, biofuel production is marginal. Second als and meat/dairy, and transport fuel, are generation biofuel technologies are assumed modeled using a Cobb-Douglas function. They to be available only in the US and EU. Cellu- are exogenously driven by population and losic ethanol in the US and Biomass-to-Liquid per capita income. We distinguish between diesel (BTL) in the EU have been identified meat/dairy and cereals to account for the as among the most competitive second gen- change in dietary habits. Meat/dairy products eration biofuels. Even if they are less land include all types of meat and dairy such as consuming, their production cost is higher than milk and butter. Cereals include all grains, that of first generation biofuels. Table 1 reports starch crops, sugar, sweeteners and oil crops. energy yields and production costs for first and The demand for fuel is in Vehicles Miles Trav- second generation biofuels. First generation eled (VMT).