Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:58:55.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Crop Agriculture: A Spatial-and Production-Level Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Lanier Nalley ,
Mike Popp  and
Corey Fortin
Lanier Nalley
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, Arkansas
Mike Popp
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, Arkansas
Corey Fortin
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, Arkansas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With the Waxman-Markey Bill passing the House and the administration's push to reduce carbon emissions, the likelihood of the implementation of some form of a carbon emissions policy is increasing. This study estimates the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the six largest row crops produced in Arkansas using 57 different production practices predominantly used and documented by the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service. From these GHG emission estimates, a baseline state “carbon footprint” was estimated and a hypothetical GHG emissions reduction of 5, 10, and 20 percent was levied on Arkansas agriculture using a cap-and-trade method. Using current production technology and traditional land use choices, results show that the trading of carbon-emitting permits to reduce statewide GHG emissions by 5 percent from the baseline would enhance GHG emissions efficiency measured as net crop farm income generated per unit of carbon emissions created. The 5 percent reduction in GHG emissions does cause marginal reductions in acres farmed and has marginal income ramifications. Beyond the 5 percent reduction target, gains in GHG emissions efficiency decline but remain positive in most counties through the 10 percent GHG reduction target. However, with a 10 percent GHG reduction, acreage and income reductions more than double compared to the 5 percent level. When GHG emissions are reduced by 20 percent from the baseline, the result is a major cropping pattern shift coupled with significant reductions in traditional row crop acreage, income, and GHG emissions efficiency.

Keywords

greenhouse gas emissionscarbon equivalentssustainabilitycap and trade
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , April 2011 , pp. 63 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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

Beckman, J., Hertel, T.W., and Tyner, W.E. 2009. “Why Previous Estimates of the Cost of Climate Mitigation Are Likely Too Low”. GTAP Working Paper No. 54, Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Available at https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/4564.pdf (accessed October 22, 2009).Google Scholar
Bouwman, A.F. 1996. “Direct Emission of Nitrous Oxide from Agricultural Soils.” Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 46(1): 53–70.Google Scholar
Century Model. 1995. “Model 4.0” Colorado State University. Available at http://www.nrel.colostate.edu/projects/century5/ (accessed October 22, 2009).Google Scholar
Del Grosso, S.J., Parton, W.J., Mosier, A.R., and Ojima, D.S. 2005. “DAYCENT National-Scale Simulations of Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Cropped Soils in the United States.” Journal of Environmental Quality 35(4) 1451–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Great Pacific Trading Company (GPTC). 2008. “Charts and Quotes.” Available at http://www.gptc.com/quotes.html (accessed June 5, 2008).Google Scholar
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (edited by Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., and Miller, H.L.). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Khan, S., Mulvaney, R., Ellsworth, T., and Boast, C. 2007. “The Myth of Nitrogen Fertilization for Soil Carbon Sequestration.” Journal of Environmental Quality 36(6): 1821–1832.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lal, R. 2004. “Carbon Emission from Farm Operations.” Environment International 30(7): 981–990.Google Scholar
McCarl, B.A. 2007. “Biofuels and Legislation Linking Biofuel Supply and Demand Using the FASOMGHG Model.” Paper presented at the Nicolas Institute Conference: Economic Modeling of Federal Climate Proposals: Advancing Model Transparency and Technology Policy Development (July, Duke University, Durham, NC).Google Scholar
Outlaw, J.L., Richardson, J.W., Bryant, H.L., Raulston, J.M., Knapeck, G.M., Herbst, B.K., Ribera, L.A., and Anderson, D.P. 2009. “Economic Implications of the EPA Analysis of the CAP and Trade Provisions of H.R. 2454 for U.S. Representative Farms.” Agricultural and Food Policy Center Research Paper No. 09–2, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.Google Scholar
Parton, W.J., Schimel, D.S., Cole, C.V., and Ojima, D.S. 1987. “Analysis of Factors Controlling Soil Organic Matter Levels in Great Plains Grasslands.” Soil Science of America Journal 51(5): 1173–1179.Google Scholar
Popp, M., Nalley, L., and Vickery, G. 2008. “Expected Changes in Farm Landscape with the Introduction of a Biomass Market.” Proceedings paper of the Farm Foundation conference “Transition to Bioeconomy: Environmental and Rural Development Impacts” (October 15–16, St. Louis, MO). Available at http://www.farmfoundation.org/news/articlefiles/401-Final_version_Farm_Foundation%20feb%2020%2009.pdf (accessed October 22, 2009).Google Scholar
Popp, M., Nalley, L., and Vickery, G. 2010. “Irrigation Restriction and Biomass Market Interactions: The Case of the Alluvial Aquifer”. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 42(1): 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reilly, J., and Paltsev, S. 2009. “The Outlook for Energy Alternatives.” Invited Paper from the conference “Transition to Bioeconomy: Global Trade and Policy Issues” (March 30–31, Washington, D.C.). Available at http://www.farmfoundation.org/news/articlefiles/1698-John%20Reilly%20Paper%203-27-09.pdf (accessed October 22, 2009).Google Scholar
SimaPro. 2009. SimaPro 7.1, Life Cycle Assessment Software, Pré Consultants, Amersfoort, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Smith, K.A., McTaggart, I.P., and Tsuruta, H. 1997. “Emissions of N2O and NO Associated with Nitrogen Fertilization in Intensive Agriculture, and the Potential for Mitigation.” Soil Use and Management 13(4): 296–304.Google Scholar
Smith, A., Popp, M., and Nalley, L. 2010. “Carbon Offset Payments and Spatial Biomass Supply in Arkansas: Implications of Pine and Switchgrass.” Presented at the Third National Forum on Socioeconomic Research in Coastal Systems, “Challenges for National Resource Economics and Policy,” New Orleans, LA (May). Available at http://www.cnrep.lsu.edu/2010/Presentations/ASmith.pdf (accessed January 30, 2011).Google Scholar
Snyder, C.S., Bruulsema, T.W., Jensen, T.L., and Fixen, P.E. 2009. “Review of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Crop Production Systems and Fertilizer Management Effects.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 133(3/4): 247–266.Google Scholar
Tyler, S. 2009. Personal correspondence sharing experimental data from numerous studies. Stanley Tyler, Atmospheric Science and Biogeochemistry, University of California, Irvine, CA.Google Scholar
University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service (UACES). 2008. “2007 Crop Production Budgets for Farm Planning.” Available at http://www.uaex.edu/depts/ag_economics/previous_budgets.htm (accessed February 23, 2010).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2008. “Arkansas County Data-Crops.” Arkansas field office of USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service, Little Rock, AR. Available at http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/Create_County_Indv.jsp (accessed June 7, 2008).Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2005.” EPA Report No. 430-R-07-002, EPA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007.” EPA Report No. 430-R-09-004, EPA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Wailes, E.J., and Chavez, E. 2010. “Updated Arkansas Global Rice Model.” Staff Paper No. 01–2010, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, University of Arkansas, AR.Google Scholar
Yanai, J., Sawamoto, T., Oe, T., Kusa, K., Yamakawa, K., Sakamoto, K., Naganawa, T., Inubushi, K., Hatano, R., and Kosaki, T. 2003. “Spatial Variability of Nitrous Oxide Emissions and Their Soil-Related Determining Factors in an Agricultural Field.” Journal of Environmental Quality 32(6): 1965–1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar