Article thumbnail

The Impact of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Crop Agriculture: A Spatial- and Production-Level Analysis

By Lawton Lanier Nalley, Michael P. Popp and Corey Fortin

Abstract

With the Waxman-Markey Bill passing the House and the administration’s push to reduce carbon emissions, the likelihood of the implementation of some form of a carbon emissions policy is increasing. This study estimates the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the six largest row crops produced in Arkansas using 57 different production practices predominantly used and documented by the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service. From these GHG emission estimates, a baseline state “carbon footprint†was estimated and a hypothetical GHG emissions reduction of 5, 10, and 20 percent was levied on Arkansas agriculture using a cap-and-trade method. Using current production technology and traditional land use choices, results show that the trading of carbon-emitting permits to reduce statewide GHG emissions by 5 percent from the baseline would enhance GHG emissions efficiency measured as net crop farm income generated per unit of carbon emissions created. The 5 percent reduction in GHG emissions does cause marginal reductions in acres farmed and has marginal income ramifications. Beyond the 5 percent reduction target, gains in GHG emissions efficiency decline but remain positive in most counties through the 10 percent GHG reduction target. However, with a 10 percent GHG reduction, acreage and income reductions more than double compared to the 5 percent level. When GHG emissions are reduced by 20 percent from the baseline, the result is a major cropping pattern shift coupled with significant reductions in traditional row crop acreage, income, and GHG emissions efficiency.greenhouse gas emissions, carbon equivalents, sustainability, cap and trade, Environmental Economics and Policy, Resource /Energy Economics and Policy,

OAI identifier:

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. Analysis of Factors Controlling Soil Organic Matter Levels in
  2. (2008). Arkansas County Data-Crops.” Arkansas field office of USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service,
  3. (2007). Biofuels and Legislation Linking Biofuel Supply and Demand Using the FASOMGHG Model.” Paper presented at the Nicolas Institute Conference: Economic Modeling of Federal Climate Proposals: Advancing Model Transparency and
  4. (2004). Carbon Emission from Farm
  5. (2010). Carbon Offset Payments and Spatial Biomass Supply in Arkansas:
  6. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”
  7. (2008). Cooperative Extension Service (UACES).
  8. (1996). Direct Emission of Nitrous Oxide from Agricultural Soils.” Nutrient Cycling in
  9. (2008). Expected Changes in Farm Landscape with the Introduction of a Biomass Market.”
  10. (2007). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
  11. (2010). Irrigation Restriction and Biomass Market Interactions: The Case of the Alluvial Aquifer”.
  12. (2009). Personal correspondence sharing experimental data from numerous studies. Stanley Tyler, Atmospheric Science and Biogeochemistry,
  13. (2009). SimaPro 7.1, Life Cycle Assessment Software, Pré Consultants, Amersfoort, the Netherlands. Nalley, Popp, and Fortin The Impact of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in
  14. (2003). Spatial Variability of Nitrous Oxide Emissions and Their Soil-Related Determining Factors in an Agricultural Field.”
  15. The Myth of Nitrogen Fertilization for Soil Carbon Sequestration.”
  16. (2009). The Outlook for Energy Alternatives.” Invited paper from the conference “Transition to Bioeconomy: Global Trade and Policy Issues”
  17. (2008). Trading Company (GPTC).
  18. (2009). Why Previous Estimates of the Cost of Climate Mitigation Are Likely Too Low”.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.