Potential complementarity between forest carbon sequestration incentives and biomass energy expansion

被引:42
作者
Baker, J. S. [1 ]
Wade, C. M. [1 ]
Sohngen, B. L. [2 ]
Ohrel, S. [3 ]
Fawcett, A. A. [3 ]
机构
[1] RTI Int, 3040 E Cornwallis Rd, Durham, NC 27709 USA
[2] Ohio State Univ, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[3] US EPA, 1200 Penn Ave NW, Washington, DC 20460 USA
关键词
Bioenergy expansion; Forestry; Carbon sequestration; SEQUESTER CARBON; MODEL;
D O I
10.1016/j.enpol.2018.10.009
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
There is a growing literature on the potential contributions the global forest sector could make toward long-term climate action goals through increased carbon sequestration and the provision of biomass for energy generation. However, little work to date has explored possible interactions between carbon sequestration incentives and bioenergy expansion policies in forestry. This study develops a simple conceptual model for evaluating whether carbon sequestration and biomass energy policies are carbon complements or substitutes. Then, we apply a dynamic structural model of the global forest sector to assess terrestrial carbon changes under different combinations of carbon sequestration price incentives and forest bioenergy expansion. Our results show that forest bioenergy expansion can complement carbon sequestration policies in the near- and medium-term, reducing marginal abatement costs and increasing mitigation potential. By the end of the century these policies become substitutes, with forest bioenergy expansion increasing the costs of carbon sequestration. This switch is driven by relatively high demand and price growth for pulpwood under scenarios with forest bioenergy expansion, which incentivizes management changes in the near- and medium-term that are carbon beneficial (e.g., afforestation and intensive margin shifts), but requires sustained increases in pulpwood harvest levels over the long-term.
引用
收藏
页码:391 / 401
页数:11
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]  
Baker J S., 2017, Economic Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential in the US Forest Sector, DOI [10.3768/rtipress.2017.pb.0011.1708, DOI 10.3768/RTIPRESS.2017.PB.0011.1708]
[2]  
Baker J. S., 2010, NET FARM INCOME LAND, V17
[3]   Economic Approach to Assess the Forest Carbon Implications of Biomass Energy [J].
Daigneault, Adam ;
Sohngen, Brent ;
Sedjo, Roger .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2012, 46 (11) :5664-5671
[4]   THE ROLE OF THE FOREST IN AN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT MODEL OF THE CLIMATE AND THE ECONOMY [J].
Eriksson, Mathilda .
CLIMATE CHANGE ECONOMICS, 2015, 6 (03)
[5]   Using forests for climate mitigation: sequester carbon or produce woody biomass? [J].
Favero, Alice ;
Mendelsohn, Robert ;
Sohngen, Brent .
CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2017, 144 (02) :195-206
[6]   Using Markets for Woody Biomass Energy to Sequester Carbon in Forests [J].
Favero, Alice ;
Mendelsohn, Robert .
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMISTS, 2014, 1 (1-2) :75-95
[7]  
Field CB, 2014, CLIMATE CHANGE 2014: IMPACTS, ADAPTATION, AND VULNERABILITY, PT A: GLOBAL AND SECTORAL ASPECTS, P1
[8]   Sustainability guidelines and forest market response: an assessment of European Union pellet demand in the southeastern United States [J].
Galik, Christopher S. ;
Abt, Robert C. .
GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY BIOENERGY, 2016, 8 (03) :658-669
[9]   The optimal time path for carbon abatement and carbon sequestration under uncertainty: The case of stochastic targeted stock [J].
Haim, David ;
Plantinga, Andrew J. ;
Thomann, Enrique .
RESOURCE AND ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2014, 36 (01) :151-165
[10]   Opportunities and Constraints for Forest Climate Mitigation [J].
Jackson, Robert B. ;
Baker, Justin S. .
BIOSCIENCE, 2010, 60 (09) :698-707