Communicating to (with) policymakers Example in dealing with comprehensiveness and uncertainty

Transcription

1 Overview Communicating to (with) policymakers Example in dealing with comprehensiveness and uncertainty Emissions from Forestry & Agriculture and the panorama of policy choices 1

2 Perspective # 1 2 Global Net GHG Emissions CO2 Fuel/cement 55% CO2 LUCF 19% Total.11, MMTCE CH4 16% Source: EMF21, USEPA F-gases 1% N2O 9% 2

3 Perspective # 2: Process based mitigation policies Global GHG Emissions for 2 in MMTCE Sectors Sub-sectors CO2 Methane N2O F-gases Coal 2, ENERGY Nat Gas 1, Petroleum Syst 2, % Stationary/Mobile Sources LUCF (net) 2,81 LUCF Soils 656 AGRICULTURE Biomass Enteric Fermentation % Manure Management Rice 177 Cement 226 Adipic & Nitric Acid Prd 6 INDUSTRY HFCs PFCs 29 4% SF6 15 Substitution of ODS 52 WASTE Landfills Wastewater % TOTAL GHG 11,33 8,691 1, % 14% 8% 1% Sources: EPA, EMF21, CDIAC 3

4 Perspective # 2: Radiative Forcing by Species/Process Hansen (21) 4

5 Global Carbon Emissions in Reference Scenario (GtC)

6 5 4 3 Global CO 2 Emissions Range of model results uncertainty Mean +/- Standard Deviation 95% Probability Bounds IPCC SRES Scenarios 2 2 Emissions (Gt C Source: J. Reilly, MIT Year

7 If integrated assessment were perfect, would policymakers listen? Maybe Figure from Computational Science Education Project, 7

8 Economic Potential for Agricultural Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: An Investigation in the United States Bruce A. McCarl Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University U. A. Schneider Departments of Geosciences and Economics Hamburg University Dhazn Gillig Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University Hengchi Lee Department of Economics Western Ontario University Francisco de la Chesnaye U.S. Environment Protection Agency

9 ROLES OF U.S. AG & FORESTRY A carbon or GHG sequestering sink Offsetting net GHG emissions Operating in a mitigating world EMISSION REDUCERS Ag and forestry emit 7% of N2O Ag and forestry emit 5% of CH4 Ag and forestry emit 2% of CO2 9

10 MODELING APPROACH 1 year forest and agriculture model - FASOMGHG Covers GHG mitigation activities in U.S. regions (across 11 regions and 63 U.S. Sub-State regions), 28 foreign regions for 8 commodities, plus world market for other commodities. Simulates 1 years in decade time steps. Depicts sector linkage mainly through land transfers. 1

11 FASOMGHG REGIONS 11

12 FASOMGHG MITIGATION OPTIONS Strategy Basic Nature CO2 CH4 N2O Crop Mix Alteration Emis, Seq X X Crop Fertilization Alteration Emis, Seq X X Crop Input Alteration Emission X X Crop Tillage Alteration Emission X X Grassland Conversion Sequestration X Irrigated /Dry land Mix Emission X X Biofuel Production Offset X X X Afforestation Sequestration X Existing timberland Sequestration X Deforestation Emission X Stocker/Feedlot mix Emission X Enteric fermentation Emission X Livestock Herd Size Emission X X Livestock System Change Emission X X Manure Management Emission X X Rice Acreage Emission X X X 12

13 ECONOMIC POTENTIAL 1 Single-Gas $/Ton of CO2 metric NON-CO2 Emission reduction in MMT of CO2 Equivalent CO2 CH4 NO2 Economic potential: Mitigation potential when crediting each gas separately 13

14 ECONOMIC POTENTIAL 1 Single-Gas Non-CO2 $/Ton of CO CH4&N2O CO2 CH4 NO NON-CO2 Emission reduction in MMT of CO2 Equivalent Economic potential: Mitigation potential based on combination strategies 14

15 COMPETITIVE vs. ECONOMIC POTENTIAL 1 Single-Gas Two-Gas Multi-Gas Sum-Gas $/Ton of CO SUMGAS Multi-Gas CH4&N2O CO2 CH4 NO NON-CO2 Emission reduction in MMT of CO2 Equivalent Results do not add up due to competition and complementarity 15

16 INDIVIDUAL vs. MULTIGAS IMPLEMENTATION NON-CO2 emission reduction in MMT of CO2 NON-CO2 emission reduction in MMT of CO price ($/ton of CO2) (a) N2 and CH price ($/ton of CO2) (b) AllGas Joint implementation achieves more quantity reduction at the same price => interaction effects Individual implementation overstates reduction => land competition 16

17 Agricultural and Forest Carbon Equivalent GHG Mitigation by Strategy (Annual Avg ) **old results** Agricultural and Forest Carbon Equivalent GHG Mitigation by Strategy Annual Avg (2-23). Analyses by Bruce McCarl & Brian Murray $25 Carbon Equivalent Price in $/tonne $2 $15 $1 $5 Afforestation Ag Soil Sequestration Biofuels Animal CH4+N2O Crop CH4+N2O Total Sequestration $ Carbon Equivalent Quantity in MMT Analyses by Bruce McCarl & Brian Murray 17

18 DYNAMICS OF GHG MITIGATION 3 25 CH4 & N2O Soil Sequestration Multi-Gas MMT CO2 Eq Crop Management FF Afforestation (a) at $5/ton of CO2 Time MMT CO2 Eq Biomass offsets CH4 & N2O Soil Sequestration Crop Management FF Afforestation (b) at $15/ton of CO Time 18

19 DYNAMIC OF GHG MITIGATION MMT CO2 Eq CH4 & N2O Biomass offsets Soil Sequestration Crop Management FF Afforestation Time Multi-Gas (c) at $5/ton of CO2 MMT CO2 Eq CH4 & N2O Biomass offsets Soil Sequestration Crop Management FF Afforestation Time Sequestration saturates Biofuels and non CO2 grow in long run Biofuel dominates at high price (d) $8/ton of CO2 19

20 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1 % Change from BASE % Change from BASE $/Ton of CO Carbon Price ($/metric ton of CO2) (a) NPK Nutrient (b) Erosion 2

21 WELFARE IMPACT change from BASE (billion $) U.S. Consumer U.S. Consumers lose U.S. Producers gain ROW lose change from BASE (billion $) U.S. Producer Carbon Price ($/metric ton of CO2) change from BASE (billion $) ROW Carbon Price ($/metric ton of CO2) 21

22 ECONOMIC INDICATORS 13 Fisher Index Fisher Index Multi-Gas Crop Price Two-Gas Crop Production Livestock Price Multi-Gas Two-Gas Livestock Production Single-Gas Trade off between emission reduction and agricultural price and production Carbon Price ($/metric ton of CO2) 22

23 Contact Information Francisco de la Chesnaye Tel: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation Non-CO 2 Gases & Sequestration Branch 12 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (622 J) Washington, DC 246