IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcom/v15y2024i1d10.1038_s41467-024-53915-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

US land sector mitigation investments and emissions implications

Author

Listed:
  • Alice Favero

    (Center for Applied Economics and Strategy)

  • Christopher M. Wade

    (Center for Applied Economics and Strategy)

  • Yongxia Cai

    (Center for Applied Economics and Strategy)

  • Sara B. Ohrel

    (N.W)

  • Justin Baker

    (Campus Box 8109)

  • Jared Creason

    (N.W)

  • Shaun Ragnauth

    (N.W)

  • Gregory Latta

    (875 Perimeter Drive MS 1139)

  • Bruce A. McCarl

    (TAMU 2124)

Abstract

The land sector is anticipated to play an important role in achieving U.S. GHG emissions targets by reducing emissions and increasing sequestration from the atmosphere. This study assesses how much different levels of investment could stimulate land-based mitigation activities in the U.S. By applying a dynamic economic model of the land use sectors, with representation of 26 forestry and agricultural mitigation strategies across 11 U.S. regions, the study shows that annual investments of $2.4 billion could deliver abatement of around 80 MtCO2e annually. Under an optimal allocation of investments, the forestry sector and the Corn Belt are projected to receive the largest share of funds. Restricting land-based activities eligible for funds significantly reduces overall potential mitigation. For instance, if $24 billion investments are allocated only to agricultural activities, mitigation declines by 48% to 54 MtCO2e/yr over the next ten years. Finally, the level of abatement from each policy depends on the timing of implementation as the lowest cost mitigation actions are generally taken by the policy implemented first.

Suggested Citation

  • Alice Favero & Christopher M. Wade & Yongxia Cai & Sara B. Ohrel & Justin Baker & Jared Creason & Shaun Ragnauth & Gregory Latta & Bruce A. McCarl, 2024. "US land sector mitigation investments and emissions implications," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-8, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:15:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-024-53915-w
    DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-53915-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-53915-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41467-024-53915-w?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. K. G. Austin & J. S. Baker & B. L. Sohngen & C. M. Wade & A. Daigneault & S. B. Ohrel & S. Ragnauth & A. Bean, 2020. "The economic costs of planting, preserving, and managing the world’s forests to mitigate climate change," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Bruce A. McCarl & Thomas H. Spreen, 1980. "Price Endogenous Mathematical Programming As a Tool for Sector Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(1), pages 87-102.
    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. Oliver, Anthony & Khanna, Madhu, 2013. "Renewable Energy Policies for the Electricity, Transportation, and Agricultural Sectors: Complements or Substitutes," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150406, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Williams, R. Lynn & Dillion, Carl R. & McCarl, Bruce A., 1992. "An Economic Investigation of Edwards Aquifer Water Use Tradeoffs," WAEA/ WFEA Conference Archive (1929-1995) 321395, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    3. David Walker, 2014. "The Economic Potential for Forest-Based Carbon Sequestration under Different Emissions Targets and Accounting Schemes," Working Papers 2014.02, School of Economics, La Trobe University.
    4. Hof, John G. & Loomis, John B., 1983. "A Recreation Optimization Model Based On The Travel Cost Method," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 8(01), pages 1-10, July.
    5. Xin Zhao & Bryan K. Mignone & Marshall A. Wise & Haewon C. McJeon, 2024. "Trade-offs in land-based carbon removal measures under 1.5 °C and 2 °C futures," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Valin, Hugo & Havlik, Petr & Mosnier, Aline & Obersteiner, Michael, 2012. "Impacts of Alternative Climate Change Mitigation Policies on Food Consumption under various Diet Scenarios," Conference papers 332253, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    7. Kung, Chih-Chun & Wu, Tao, 2021. "Influence of water allocation on bioenergy production under climate change: A stochastic mathematical programming approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    8. Lambert, David K. & McCarl, Bruce A. & He, Quifen & Kaylen, Michael S. & Rosenthal, Wesley & Chang, Ching-Cheng & Nayda, W.I., 1995. "Uncertain Yields In Sectoral Welfare Analysis: An Application To Global Warming," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Lynch, Lori & Malcolm, Scott A. & Zilberman, David, 2005. "Effect of a Differentially Applied Environmental Regulation on Agricultural Trade Patterns and Production Location: The Case of Methyl Bromide," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 34(01), pages 1-21, April.
    10. Cruz-Trinidad, A. (ed.), 1996. "Valuation of tropical coastal resources: theory and application of linear programming," Monographs, The WorldFish Center, number 11659, April.
    11. Havlík, Petr & Schneider, Uwe A. & Schmid, Erwin & Böttcher, Hannes & Fritz, Steffen & Skalský, Rastislav & Aoki, Kentaro & Cara, Stéphane De & Kindermann, Georg & Kraxner, Florian & Leduc, Sylvain & , 2011. "Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 5690-5702, October.
    12. Chen, Xiaoguang, 2016. "Economic potential of biomass supply from crop residues in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 141-149.
    13. Johansson, Robert & Peters, Mark & House, Robert, 2007. "Regional Environment and Agriculture Programming Model," Technical Bulletins 184314, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    14. Gallagher, Paul W. & Shapouri, Hosein & Price, Jeffrey, 2006. "Welfare maximization, pricing, and allocation with a product performance or environmental quality standard: Illustration for the gasoline and additives market," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 230-245, June.
    15. Mosnier, A. & Havlík, P. & Valin, H. & Baker, J. & Murray, B. & Feng, S. & Obersteiner, M. & McCarl, B.A. & Rose, S.K. & Schneider, U.A., 2013. "Alternative U.S. biofuel mandates and global GHG emissions: The role of land use change, crop management and yield growth," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 602-614.
    16. Ching-Cheng Chang, 1999. "Carbon sequestration cost by afforestation in Taiwan," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 2(3), pages 199-213, September.
    17. Fei, Chengcheng J. & Kung, Chih-Chun, 2024. "The effects of tiered-electrical-subsidy policy on biopower development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    18. Blandford, David & Gaasland, Ivar & Vardal, Erling, 2011. "Activity level, emission intensity, and optimal GHG abatement policy: An application to Norwegian agriculture," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108780, Agricultural Economics Society.
    19. Chen, Chi-Chung & McCarl, Bruce A., 2000. "The Value Of Enso Information To Agriculture: Consideration Of Event Strength And Trade," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-18, December.
    20. Schneider, Uwe A. & McCarl, Bruce A., 2005. "Implications of a Carbon-Based Energy Tax for U.S. Agriculture," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 265-279, October.

    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:nat:natcom:v:15:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-024-53915-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    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.