IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v71y2023i3-4p375-391.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Carbon offsets and agriculture: Options, obstacles, and opinions

Author

Listed:
  • G. Cornelis van Kooten
  • Rebecca Zanello

Abstract

While carbon offsets in agriculture can play a role in addressing climate change, they are not a perfect substitute for direct emission reductions. As shown in this paper through various arguments and case studies, climate policies in Canada have avoided the use of offsets to be sold in carbon markets, preferring instead to incentivize adoption of best management practices (BMPs) that provide environmental benefits along with climate mitigation benefits. We argue that this is a preferred policy option due to the perils and pitfalls inherent in the measurement and monitoring required to identify offset credits. While an appropriate approach might be to penalize Canadian farmers for any emissions their activities cause, this may do more harm than good. Canadian agricultural production is highly efficient and technologically advanced; therefore, reductions in Canada's contribution to the global food supply will result in less‐efficient production occurring elsewhere (i.e., leakage) that increases global greenhouse gas emissions. Même si les compensations de carbone dans l'agriculture peuvent jouer un rôle dans la lutte contre le changement climatique, elles ne constituent pas un substitut parfait aux réductions directes des émissions. Comme le montre cet article à travers divers arguments et études de cas, les politiques climatiques au Canada ont évité le recours aux compensations destinées à être vendues sur les marchés du carbone, préférant plutôt encourager l'adoption de meilleures pratiques de gestion (BPG) qui procurent des avantages environnementaux ainsi que des avantages en matière d'atténuation du climat. Nous soutenons qu'il s'agit d'une option politique privilégiée en raison des périls et des pièges inhérents à la mesure et au suivi requis pour identifier les crédits compensatoires. Bien qu'une approche appropriée pourrait consister à pénaliser les agriculteurs canadiens pour les émissions causées par leurs activités, cela pourrait faire plus de mal que de bien. La production agricole canadienne est très efficace et technologiquement avancée. Par conséquent, la réduction de la contribution du Canada à l'approvisionnement alimentaire mondial entraînera une production moins efficace ailleurs (c'est‐à‐dire des fuites), ce qui augmentera les émissions mondiales de gaz à effet de serre.

Suggested Citation

  • G. Cornelis van Kooten & Rebecca Zanello, 2023. "Carbon offsets and agriculture: Options, obstacles, and opinions," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 71(3-4), pages 375-391, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:71:y:2023:i:3-4:p:375-391
    DOI: 10.1111/cjag.12340
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12340
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/cjag.12340?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2017. "Forest carbon offsets and carbon emissions trading: Problems of contracting," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 83-88.
    2. Janssen, Larry & Hamda, Yonas, 2009. "Economic Analysis of SODSAVER Provision of the 2008 Farm Bill for South Dakota," Economics Staff Papers 56776, South Dakota State University, Department of Economics.
    3. Tiago A. Siqueira & Rodrigo S. Iglesias & J. Marcelo Ketzer, 2017. "Carbon dioxide injection in carbonate reservoirs – a review of CO 2 ‐water‐rock interaction studies," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 7(5), pages 802-816, October.
    4. G. Cornelis Kooten & Brad Stennes & Erwin H. Bulte, 2001. "Cattle and Wildlife Competition for Forage: Budget Versus Bioeconomic Analyses of Public Range Improvements in British Columbia," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 49(1), pages 71-86, March.
    5. Fredrik Carlsson & Christina Gravert & Olof Johansson-Stenman & Verena Kurz, 2021. "The Use of Green Nudges as an Environmental Policy Instrument," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(2), pages 216-237.
    6. Woodward, Richard T., 2011. "Double-dipping in environmental markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 153-169, March.
    7. G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2023. "Determining optimal forest rotation ages and carbon offset credits: Accounting for post‐harvest carbon storehouses," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 71(2), pages 255-272, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    2. Kooten, G. Cornelis Van, 2022. "The Impact of Carbon on Optimal Forest Rotation Ages: An Application to Coastal Forests in British Columbia," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322612, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Susann Stritzke & Malcolm Bricknell & Matthew Leach & Samir Thapa & Yesmeen Khalifa & Ed Brown, 2023. "Impact Financing for Clean Cooking Energy Transitions: Reviews and Prospects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-26, August.
    4. Morgan, Edward A. & Buckwell, Andrew & Guidi, Caterina & Garcia, Beatriz & Rimmer, Lawrence & Cadman, Tim & Mackey, Brendan, 2022. "Capturing multiple forest ecosystem services for just benefit sharing: The Basket of Benefits Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    5. Hussain, A.M. Tanvir & Tschirhart, John, 2013. "Economic/ecological tradeoffs among ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 116-127.
    6. Brick, Kerri & De Martino, Samantha & Visser, Martine, 2023. "Behavioural nudges for water conservation in unequal settings: Experimental evidence from Cape Town," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    7. Bruns, Hendrik & Perino, Grischa, 2023. "The role of autonomy and reactance for nudging — Experimentally comparing defaults to recommendations and mandates," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    8. van Kooten, G. Cornelis & Johnston, Craig & Xu, Zhen, 2012. "Economics of Forest Carbon Sequestration," Working Papers 130808, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    9. Miao, Ruiqing & Feng, Hongli & Hennessy, David A., 2011. "Land Use Consequences of Crop Insurance Subsidies," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103891, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik & Lanza, Gracia, 2024. "On the perils of environmentally friendly alternatives," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    11. Hao Wang & Sander Meijerink & Erwin van der Krabben, 2020. "Institutional Design and Performance of Markets for Watershed Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    12. repec:ags:aaea22:335920 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Pathak, Santosh & Wang, Hua & Adusumilli, Naveen C., 2022. "Contract Non-compliance and Moral Hazard: Evidence from Cost-share Programs in Louisiana, USA," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322324, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. John K. Stranlund & Insung Son, 2019. "Prices Versus Quantities Versus Hybrids in the Presence of Co-pollutants," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(2), pages 353-384, June.
    15. Chai, Yuan & J. Pannell, David & G. Pardey, Philip, 2023. "Nudging farmers to reduce water pollution from nitrogen fertilizer," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    16. Ankinée KIRAKOZIAN & Raphaël CHIAPPINI & Nabila ARFAOUI, 2023. "Nudging employees for greener mobility A field experiment," Bordeaux Economics Working Papers 2023-09, Bordeaux School of Economics (BSE).
    17. Wallander, Steven & Paul, Laura A. & Ferraro, Paul J. & Messer, Kent D. & Iovanna, Richard, 2023. "Informational nudges in conservation auctions: A field experiment with U.S. farmers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    18. Carlsson, Fredrik & Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Kataria, Mitesh, 2024. "How Much Liberty Should We Have? Citizens versus Experts on Regulating Externalities and Internalities," Working Papers in Economics 841, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    19. Qin, Botao & Shogren, Jason, 2023. "Endogenous Social Norms, Mechanism Design, and Payment for Environmental Services," MPRA Paper 112878, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Jimena González-Ramírez & Catherine L. Kling & Adriana Valcu, 2012. "An Overview of Carbon Offsets from Agriculture," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 4(1), pages 145-160, August.
    21. Loduca, Natalie R & Haqiqi, Iman & Liu, Jing & Reeling, Carson, 2020. "How Scale and Scope of Ecosystem Markets Impact Permit Trading: Evidence from Partial Equilibrium Modeling in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304319, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:71:y:2023:i:3-4:p:375-391. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.