Kyoto Protocol: Effects on Agriculture. Chantelle Washenfelder (CAEEDAC)

Transcription

1 Kyoto Protocol: Effects on Agriculture By Chantelle Washenfelder (CAEEDAC) January 000 1

2 Kyoto Protocol: Effects on Agriculture What if the atmosphere retained a greater amount of the sun s energy due to a change its gaseous composition? What if instead of letting heat escape the earth s atmosphere, more heat was reflected back to earth raising the temperature of the air, the sea, and the soil? The changes in levels of atmospheric gases have been predicted to cause a rise in ocean levels, the melting of polar ice caps, changes in precipitation patterns, and an increase in extreme weather occurrences. If negative climatic impacts are not mitigated through the stabilization of atmospheric conditions island nations, coastal communities, and developing countries will experience severe disturbances including flooding, famine, species migration and extinction, and desertification, but these are not the only regions of the world that would suffer under the volatile weather conditions which could arise from climatic change (Bryce, 1999) (The Canada-Country Study). Canada could experience more extreme weather events, loss of soil moisture, immigration of new pests, and increased soil erosion and degradation (Bryce, 1999, p.9) (Martin, 1991, p.7). As a country with semi-arid areas and areas prone to drought Canada is at risk to the negative impacts of climate change. Agricultural lands, hard hit by extreme weather events, increased soil moisture evaporation, and organic soil carbon loss, could be invaded by migrating pests and wildlife in search of new habitat and experience a percent loss in yields (Environment Canada) (The Canada-Country Study). The concern about global warming or the Greenhouse Effect first arose on the international agenda in 1988 at the Conference on the Changing Atmosphere in Toronto, Canada. The potential for climate change to escalate beyond the natural feedback cycle, which regulates weather and temperature, and create positive feedbacks spurring change beyond intervention, was too great a risk to leave policy in the hands of nation states. Therefore, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third session of the Conference to the Parties (COP-3) to the Convention in Kyoto, Japan on December 11, 1997 to mediate climate change through internationally negotiated reductions in greenhouse gases. Agriculture is a contributing source of about one-fifth of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. In Canada, agriculture is responsible for approximately 11-1% of total man-made emissions. The three gases which cause the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Carbon dioxide is released by combusting fossil fuels for energy and the losses of soil organic matter due to conventional, intensive tillage practices which involve intensive tillage practices and the removal of crop residue (National Sinks Table, 1998, p.50). Methane from manure and ruminant animals is a contributing factor as is the release of nitrous oxide from fertilizer usage, crops and manure (Daynard). Canada has made a commitment to the Kyoto Protocol of 6% reduction from the base year of 1990 by the year 01. To reach these safe levels where greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilized some changes in farming methods may have to be undertaken. Farmers can help reduce emissions by using no-till or conservation tillage, reducing the amount of land left to summer fallow, planting shelterbelts, waste management, more efficient fuel use, and through the usage of renewable fuels like ethanol. All of these practices carry costs and benefits. The cost of learning-by-doing applies to all new practices farmers undertake, although it may be

3 mitigated by the aid of governmental organizations like PFRA through the Canada-Saskatchewan Agricultural Agreement (Soil Management: Economics of Conservation Tillage). Using no-till or conservation tillage increases organic soil carbon matter, reduces soil erosion, and decreases soil temperature by leaving residue cover over bare topsoil. There are several benefits to the elimination of fallow in combination with a conservation or no-till approach. The reduction of soil erosion and the increase of organic soil carbon will increase soil fertility and water-handling capacity. The cost of seedbed preparation is much lower than with conventional tillage in equipment, fuel, and labour. Fuel costs in no-till operation are less than 50% of conventional operations and labour costs are reduced by more than 40%. The decreases in cost are not as great with conservation tillage, but remain 15% lower than the total operating costs for conventional tillage operations (Soil Management: Economics of Conservation Tillage). The costs of no-till or conservation tillage include problems with weeds, pests and disease from remaining crop residue creating a greater dependence on herbicide. This initial increase in herbicide cost is expected to decrease over time to the same level as conventional tillage costs (Soil Management: Economics of Conservation Tillage). Changes in the machinery and conditions required to seed may also have additional costs to the farmer. Once changes in practices and machinery are integrated no-till or conservation tillage systems are expected to increase long-term yields through their conservation of soil fertility thereby the potential profitability of farming operations. Carbon sequestration and prevention of soil erosion through shelterbelts and wetland protection are two other means through which farmers can reduce emission levels. These tools serve to decrease soil erosion and hold organic soil carbon (IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Program - Forestry page and Reducing Emissions). Although planting shelterbelts and preserving on-farm wetlands cost farmers there are government incentives to off-set costs such as the conservation easements provisions in Saskatchewan (Annand and Curry, 1998). Changing fuel use patterns is crucial to emissions reductions. By changing from traditional fuel types to low-carbon or no-carbon fuels like ethanol, and improving the energy efficiency of machinery and farming practices farmers can reduce their fuel costs and their emissions. By using renewable energy like ethanol emissions are reduced and new markets for hay, straw, corn, wheat and other biomass sources are found. Costs to the farmer may arise in changing machinery to be bio-fuel compatibility, but denuded ethanol can be used without problems in conventional (Hadersbeck and Haggui, 1999). Table 1: Greenhouse gas emission factors for a number of fuels Fuel CO (gc/mj) CH 4 (gch4/gj) N O (gn O/GJ) Coal Oil Natural Gas Peat Wood Source: IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programmed - Fuel Switching The energy sector is the one of the biggest contributors to man-made climate change. Energy use itself is responsible for ¾ of mankind s carbon dioxide (CO ) emissions, ¼ of methane (CH 4 ) 1 3

4 emissions, as well as significant quantities of nitrous oxide (N O). The two most important greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide and methane. While an increase in carbon dioxide concentrations may boost crop productivity through photosynthesis stimulation, the cons of increased emissions outweigh the pros; implications include a shift in climate and agricultural zones (longer growing seasons but less moisture), a degradation in soil quality, decreased yields due to increased summer dryness, and extended periods of extreme weather. Methane emissions caused by human activities primarily come from domesticated animals such as cattle, dairy cows, buffalo, goats, sheep, camels, pigs, and horses. The environmental costs concerning rail versus road transportation in relation to the agricultural sector may be important considering the future implications of the Kyoto Protocol. Scant evidence suggests that agriculture may be a significant and increasing contributor to greenhouse gases. The linkages between greenhouse gas emissions and activities related to agriculture were noted a report prepared by Kulshreshtha, Bonneau, and Boehm (1997). The seven broad categories of linkages between agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions included: deforestation and clearing of lands for agricultural activities, tilling of land for crop production purposes, raising livestock, marketing and transportation of agricultural products, procurement of inputs needed for agricultural production (crop or livestock), other farm operations, and the second round effect on emissions through production and distribution of agricultural inputs. The effects of these linkages to greenhouse gas emissions can be seen in the table below. Table : Linkages Between Emissions of GHG and Activities Related to Agriculture Effect on CO CH4 NO Change in Land Use Positive (significant) Negative Minor Crop Production Negative (sink) Uncertain Positive (major) through photosynthesis and soil, but positive from farm operations depending on tillage regime and farming system used Animal Production Uncertain Positive (significant) Minor Marketing and Output Positive - Minor Procurement of Inputs Positive - Minor Other Farm Operations Positive from use of farm inputs, but negative from shelterbelts - Minor Second Round Emissions Positive (significant) Positive Minor Source: Kulshreshtha, Bonneau, and Boehm (1997) As Canada investigates ways to which reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, the agricultural sector, particularly the transportation and handling sector, may be an important link. Transportation adversely affects the environment through energy consumption in the form of fossil 4

5 fuels (a nonrenewable natural resource), and also by generating wastes, emissions, and spills (which contribute to ground, air, and water pollution). Studies have shown that the fuel consumption per 1000 tone mile is considerably higher (approximately 160 percent higher) for trucks than for trains (Roberts, Sloane, and Associates, 199). This is considerable given that trucking activities are projected to increase substantially due to rail line abandonment. An additional study prepared by Transport Concepts revealed that rail fuel consumption is superior to truck fuel consumption. Trains were found to be 3 times more fuel efficient and only produce one third as much carbon dioxide per tone mile than their truck counterparts. Truck transport generates several times more air pollution than rail for every tone shipped since it consumes to 4 times as much fuel per tone mile as does rail (Transport Concepts). These statistics are significant and cannot be ignored. Given that Canada may issue tools such as a carbon tax as a means for reducing emissions, producers will endure additional costs to their production. In any case, policies that are aimed to decrease the consumption of fossil fuels will likely increase transportation costs (which in turn will dampen the effect on economic activity). Aside from these environmental costs, there are also additional external costs. According to the study done by Transport Concepts entitled External Costs of Truck and Train, an external cost refers to all costs that are passed on to other transportation users or to society in general. Given the growing concerns about environmental degradation, it is important and worthwhile to include external cost calculations (which have been ignored so far). According to the study, the failure to account for external costs amounts to the equivalent of a subsidy from society to modes of transport that generate the highest external costs because users of road do not pay for external costs, road modes can therefore price business away from the rail. The external costs incorporated into the study included: accidents, pollution, congestion, infrastructure, cash subsidy, fuel taxes and license fees, and property taxes on rail corridors. Although the study investigated the trucking and rail industries as a whole and did not distinguish or separate grain transport, there are some interesting findings that are worth mentioning: The external costs of trucking (0.40 cents per tonne kilometer) is 6.7 times greater than the accident costs of rail (0.06 cents per tonne kilometer); With respect to land use, railway lines operate below capacity resulting in major highway congestion. To remedy the problem of congestion, more land would be required for transportation infrastructure. Extensive land requirements would ultimately contribute to agricultural land conversion, habitat conversion, congestion, and community disruption; Truck transport generates several times more air pollution than rail transport; The average cost of trucking for road infrastructure ranges between 0.5 and 0.69 cents per tonne kilometer, while the Canadian railways are able to recover all infrastructure costs from freight shippers; In comparing fuel taxes, trucking companies pay the equivalent of 0. to 0.9 cents per net tonne kilometer and license fees of 0.07 cents per net tonne kilometer, while rail companies pay fuel taxes of 0.06 cents per net tonne kilometer and no license fees. In summary, the report found that the environmental costs of trucking are approximately to 3 times greater than rail transportation. Hence, the effects of introducing a mechanism to price for external costs would ultimately send a price signal to the market. 5

6 Also worth noting, in recent years, there has been government environmental regulations on trucks while there have not been any such imposed regulations put on diesel locomotives. Railway locomotives emit a substantial amount of nitrogen per litre of fuel burned. This also has important environmental implications. Waste disposal is also of some concern. Trucks have a shorter life span than rail vehicles. Thus, the issues of tire and oil disposal are important environmental considerations. The disposal of tires has contributed to environmental problems such as: fire hazards and eyesores, toxic fumes and liquids resulting from tire fires, rodent and mosquito breeding grounds, and operational problems in the landfill. In addition, an increase in trucking translates to an increase in fuel and oil use. Fuel, oil, and other material leakages can contribute to land, surface, water, and groundwater contamination. As well, care and attention must be given to the disposal of materials such as oil filters. Oil filters, for example, must be properly drained before they can be disposed as a nonhazardous solid waste. 6

7 References Annand, Mel and Curry, Philip. Conservation Easements Guide For Saskatchewan. CSALE Occasional Paper, no.6, Saskatchewan: Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment, 1998 Bryce, James T. et al. The Kyoto Protocol: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Agricultural Sector. CSALE Working Paper Series, vol. 1, no.1, Saskatchewan: Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment, Canada-Saskatchewan Agricultural Green Plan Agreement. Climate Change Challenge - Climate Challenge Options Workbook. Daynard, Terry. What do Canadian commitments on Greenhouse Gas Emissions mean for Agriculture? Environment Canada. Conserving and protecting habitat and species. Hadersbeck, Sandra and Haggui, Faycal. Estimating the Net Energy Value of Ethanol. CAEEDAC Working Paper no.1, Saskatchewan: Canadian Agricultural Energy and End- Use Data Analysis Centre, 1999 IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Program web site. Martin, Jerome. (ed) Alternative Futures for Prairie Agricultural Communities. Alberta: University of Alberta, National Sinks Table. Foundation Paper. Canada: National Climate Change Process, Schewger, Charles. Climate Change and the Future of Prairie Agriculture. in Alternative Futures for Prairie Agricultural Communities. Alberta: University of Alberta, 1991, 1-36 Soil Management: Crop Production and Tillage Systems. Soil Management: Economics of Conservation Tillage. Soil Management: Tillage Systems. 7