IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/333107.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Renewable Fuel Standard: Implications for Land Use Changes in Malaysia and Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Taheripour, Farzad
  • Tyner, Wally

Abstract

plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia (M&I). The main focus of this literature was the environmental damage done when peat land is converted to palm plantation. The existing literature also has examined land use implications of biofuel production and policy in considerable detail. However, no major attempt has been made to highlight interactions between US biofuel policy and land use changes in M&I. This paper offers the first comprehensive analysis on the extent to which production of biofuels in US affects markets for vegetable oils, in particular for palm oil, and examines their land use implications. To achieve the goal of this paper, we modified and used the most recent version of the GTAP-BIO model that has been frequently used in analyzing the environmental, energy, biofuel, agricultural, and trade issues and policies. Unlike the earlier version of this model, the new model takes into account land intensification in the livestock industry due to expansion in supplies of oilseed meals. An expansion in the US soy biodiesel by 0.5 billion gallons increases the US imports of palm oil by 0.4% and that generates an expansion in palm plantation in M&I by 0.48% with only 6500 hectares expansion in cropland due to deforestation when all vegetable oils are included in the model, and the rate of substitution among vegetable oils in US is about 0.5. In this case, the induced land use change (ILUC) emissions for soy biodiesel produced in US is about 17.5 g CO2e MJ-1. With a substitution elasticity of 2 among vegetable oils, the same expansion in biodiesel increases US imports of palm oil by 2.2% but that does not lead to more production of palm oil in M&I, as there is greater global trade of and substitution between other vegetable oils. Even some countries extend palm plantation on lands with lower carbon content compared to M&I. With a substitution elasticity of 2, ILUC emissions for soy biodiesel drops to 16.6 g CO2e MJ-1.

Suggested Citation

  • Taheripour, Farzad & Tyner, Wally, 2019. "Renewable Fuel Standard: Implications for Land Use Changes in Malaysia and Indonesia," Conference papers 333107, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:333107
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/333107/files/9366.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruce A. Babcock, 2012. "The impact of US biofuel policies on agricultural price levels and volatility," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 4(4), pages 407-426, November.
    2. Searchinger, Timothy & Heimlich, Ralph & Houghton, R. A. & Dong, Fengxia & Elobeid, Amani & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Tokgoz, Simla & Hayes, Dermot J. & Yu, Hun-Hsiang, 2008. "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12881, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    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. Cui, Hao (David) & Tyner, Wally, 2017. "Modeling Land Intensification Response in GTAP: Implications for Biofuels Induced Land Use Change," Conference papers 332812, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    2. Condon, Nicole & Klemick, Heather & Wolverton, Ann, 2015. "Impacts of ethanol policy on corn prices: A review and meta-analysis of recent evidence," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 63-73.
    3. Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano & Di Gioia, Leonardo & Lamonaca, Emilia, 2021. "Price responsiveness of supply and acreage in the EU vegetable oil markets: Policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    4. Suopajärvi, Hannu & Umeki, Kentaro & Mousa, Elsayed & Hedayati, Ali & Romar, Henrik & Kemppainen, Antti & Wang, Chuan & Phounglamcheik, Aekjuthon & Tuomikoski, Sari & Norberg, Nicklas & Andefors, Alf , 2018. "Use of biomass in integrated steelmaking – Status quo, future needs and comparison to other low-CO2 steel production technologies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 384-407.
    5. Tonini, Davide & Vadenbo, Carl & Astrup, Thomas Fruergaard, 2017. "Priority of domestic biomass resources for energy: Importance of national environmental targets in a climate perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 295-309.
    6. Lotze-Campen, Hermann & von Witzke, Harald & Noleppa, Steffen & Schwarz, Gerald, 2015. "Science for food, climate protection and welfare: An economic analysis of plant breeding research in Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 79-84.
    7. Iriarte, Alfredo & Rieradevall, Joan & Gabarrell, Xavier, 2012. "Transition towards a more environmentally sustainable biodiesel in South America: The case of Chile," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 263-273.
    8. Knut Einar Rosendahl & Jon Strand, 2011. "Carbon Leakage from the Clean Development Mechanism," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 27-50.
    9. Kriegler, Elmar, 2011. "Comment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 594-596, July.
    10. Proost, Stef & Van Dender, Kurt, 2012. "Energy and environment challenges in the transport sector," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 77-87.
    11. repec:fpr:ifprib:2012ghienglish is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Canabarro, N.I. & Silva-Ortiz, P. & Nogueira, L.A.H. & Cantarella, H. & Maciel-Filho, R. & Souza, G.M., 2023. "Sustainability assessment of ethanol and biodiesel production in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Guatemala," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    13. Baral, Nabin & Rabotyagov, Sergey, 2017. "How much are wood-based cellulosic biofuels worth in the Pacific Northwest? Ex-ante and ex-post analysis of local people's willingness to pay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 99-106.
    14. Baka, Jennifer & Roland-Holst, David, 2009. "Food or fuel? What European farmers can contribute to Europe's transport energy requirements and the Doha Round," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2505-2513, July.
    15. Nguyen, Thu Lan T. & Hermansen, John E. & Mogensen, Lisbeth, 2010. "Fossil energy and GHG saving potentials of pig farming in the EU," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2561-2571, May.
    16. Sarah Jansen & William Foster & Gustavo Anríquez & Jorge Ortega, 2021. "Understanding Farm-Level Incentives within the Bioeconomy Framework: Prices, Product Quality, Losses, and Bio-Based Alternatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    17. Shortall, O.K., 2013. "“Marginal land” for energy crops: Exploring definitions and embedded assumptions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 19-27.
    18. Argueyrolles, Robin & Delzeit, Ruth, 2022. "The interconnections between Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reforms and biofuels," Conference papers 333492, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    19. Aruga, Kentaka, 2011. "非遺伝子組換え大豆とエネルギーの価格関係について [Relationships among the Non-Genetically Modified Soybean and Energy Prices]," MPRA Paper 38186, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 20 Aug 2011.
    20. Oskar Englund & Ioannis Dimitriou & Virginia H. Dale & Keith L. Kline & Blas Mola‐Yudego & Fionnuala Murphy & Burton English & John McGrath & Gerald Busch & Maria Cristina Negri & Mark Brown & Kevin G, 2020. "Multifunctional perennial production systems for bioenergy: performance and progress," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(5), September.
    21. Forslund, Agneta & Gohin, Alexandre & Le Mouël, Chantal & Levert, Fabrice, 2014. "Biodiesel vs. ethanol, UE vs. US biofuels: So different in terms of LUC impact?," Working Papers 207810, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land Economics/Use;

    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:ags:pugtwp:333107. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.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.