Climate consequences of low-carbon fuels: The United States Renewable Fuel Standard

被引:37
作者
Hill, Jason [1 ]
Tajibaeva, Liaila [2 ]
Polasky, Stephen [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Minnesota, Dept Bioprod & Biosyst Engn, St Paul, MN 55108 USA
[2] Univ Minnesota, Dept Appl Econ, St Paul, MN 55108 USA
关键词
Climate change; Fossil fuel; Rebound effect; GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; BIOFUEL POLICIES; MARKETS; PARADOX; IMPACT; US;
D O I
10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.035
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
A common strategy for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from energy use is to increase the supply of low-carbon alternatives. However, increasing supply tends to lower energy prices, which encourages additional fuel consumption. This "fuel market rebound effect" can undermine climate change mitigation strategies, even to the point where efforts to reduce GHG emissions by increasing the supply of low-carbon fuels may actually result in "increased GHG emissions. Here, we explore how policies that encourage the production of low-carbon fuels may result in increased GHG emissions because the resulting increase in energy use overwhelms the benefits of reduced carbon intensity. We describe how climate change mitigation strategies should follow a simple rule: a low-carbon fuel with a carbon intensity of X% that of a fossil fuel must displace at least X% of that fossil fuel to reduce overall GHG emissions. We apply this rule to the United States Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2). We show that absent consideration of the fuel market rebound effect, RFS2 appears to reduce GHG emissions, but once the fuel market rebound effect is factored in, RFS2 actually increases GHG emissions when all fuel GHG intensity targets are met. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:351 / 353
页数:3
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2015, EC BIOFUEL PRODUCTIO
[2]  
[Anonymous], REN FUEL STAND POT E
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2010, 1006 GLOB EN POL CTR
[4]   Are there Carbon Savings from US Biofuel Policies? The Critical Importance of Accounting for Leakage in Land and Fuel Markets [J].
Bento, Antonio M. ;
Klotz, Richard ;
Landry, Joel R. .
ENERGY JOURNAL, 2015, 36 (03) :75-109
[5]   Climate Policy Decisions Require Policy-Based Lifecycle Analysis [J].
Bento, Antonio M. ;
Klotz, Richard .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 48 (10) :5379-5387
[6]  
Chen XiaoGuang Chen XiaoGuang, 2012, AgBioForum, V15, P89
[7]   Components of carbon leakage in the fuel market due to biofuel policies [J].
de Gorter, Harry ;
Drabik, Dusan .
BIOFUELS-UK, 2011, 2 (02) :119-121
[8]  
Drabik D., 2011, AgBioForum, V14, P104
[9]  
Erickson P, 2014, NAT CLIM CHANGE, V4, P778, DOI [10.1038/nclimate2335, 10.1038/NCLIMATE2335]
[10]   US biofuels subsidies and CO2 emissions: An empirical test for a weak and a strong green paradox [J].
Grafton, R. Quentin ;
Kompas, Tom ;
Ngo Van Long ;
To, Hang .
ENERGY POLICY, 2014, 68 :550-555