Abstract
In the coming century, modern bioenergy crops have the potential to play a crucial role in the global energy mix, especially under policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as proposed by many in the international community. Previous studies have not fully addressed many of the dynamic interactions and effects of a policy-induced expansion of bioenergy crop production, particularly on crop yields and human food demand. This study combines an updated agriculture and land use (AgLU) model with a well-developed energy-economic model to provide an analysis of the effects of bioenergy crops on energy, agricultural and land use systems. The results indicate that carbon dioxide mitigation policies can stimulate a large production of bioenergy crops, dependent on the level of the policy. This production of bioenergy crops can lead to several impacts on the agriculture and land use system: decreases in forestland and unmanaged land, decreases in the average yield of food crops, increases in the prices of food crops, and decreases in the level of human demand of calories.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The production and transportation of bioenergy crops can produce CO2 and nitrous oxide emissions. There might also be additional nitrous oxide emissions due to bioenergy crop fertilization. This study does not address these emissions.
The market for forward forest products is the market for forest products 45 years from the current period.
Hydrogen for fuel cells is only produced in scenarios that assume hydrogen fuel cell development as an energy end-use option.
Bioenergy crops may still be economical and used in more marginal lands, with correspondingly lower yields. An interesting extension of this research would be to examine policies to promote bioenergy crops only in wastelands or other more marginal lands so they do not compete directly with food crops.
The average food crop yield data on China is very likely biased upwards due to a systematic under-reporting of food cropland by China’s State Land Administration. This is likely due to incentives created by agricultural policies in China. See Seto et al. (2000), Frolking et al. (1999), and Heilig (1999) for further details.
Percent difference is calculated as follows: (policy land use-base land use)/(base land use).
References
Azar C, Larson E (2000) Bioenergy and land-use competition in Northeast Brazil. Energy Sustainable Develop 4(3):51–58
Berndes G, Azar C, Tomas K et al (2001) The feasibility of large-scale lignocellulose-based bioenergy production. Biomass Bioenergy 20:371–383
Berndes G, Hoogwijk M, van den Broek R (2003) The contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply: a review of 17 studies. Biomass Bioenergy 25:1–28
Brenkert A, Smith S, Pitcher H et al (2007) MiniCAM Documentation. available upon request
Carpentieri C, Larson E, Woods J (1993) Future biomass-based electricity supply in Northeast Brazil. Biomass Bioenergy 4(3):149–173
Edmonds J, Reilly J (1985) Global energy: assessing the future. New York, Oxford University Press
Edmonds J, Wise M, Sands R et al (1996) Agriculture, land use, and commercial biomass energy, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Report SA-27726, Richland, WA
Edmonds J, Wise M, Pitcher H et al (1997) An integrated assessment of climate change and the accelerated introduction of advanced energy technologies: an application of MiniCAM 1.0. Mitig Adapt Strategies Glob Chang 1:311–339
Fischer G, Schrattenholzer L (2001) Global bioenergy potentials through 2050. Biomass Bioenergy 20(3):151–159
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: 2001, FAOSTAT data base, http://apps.fao.org
Frolking S, Xiao X, Zhuang Y et al (1999) Agricultural land-use in China: a comparison of area estimates from ground-based census and satellite-borne remote sensing. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 8(5):407–416
Graham R (1994) An analysis of the potential land base for energy crops in the conterminous United States. Biomass Bioenergy 6:175–189
Graham R, Allison L, Becker D (1996) ORECCL-Oak Ridge Energy Crop County Level Database. Proceedings of BIOENERGY ’96—The Seventh National Bioenergy Conference: Partnerships to Develop and Apply Biomass Technologies, Nashville, TN
Hall D, Scrase J (1998) Will biomass energy be the environmentally friendly fuel of the future? Biomass Bioenergy 15(4–5):357–367
Hall D, Rosillo-Calle F, Williams R et al (1993) Biomass for energy: Supply prospects. In: Johansson TBJ, Kelly H, Reddy AKN, Williams R (Eds) Renewable energy: sources for fuel and electricity, Washington, DC, Island Press
Hanegraff M, Biewinga E, Van der Bijl G (1998) Assessing the ecological and economic sustainability of energy crops. Biomass Bioenergy 15(4–5):345–355
Hansen E (1991) Poplar woody biomass yields: a look into the future. Biomass Bioenergy 1:1–7
Heilig G (1999) ChinaFood. Can China feed itself?, CD-ROM Vers. 1.1. Laxenburg, Austria, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Kaya Y (1989) Impact of Carbon Dioxide Emissions on GNP growth: Interpretation of Proposed Scenarios, Geneva, Switzerland, IPCC/Response Strategies Working Group, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Kheshgi H, Prince R, Marland G (2000) The potential of biomass fuels in the context of global climate change: Focus on transportation fuels. Ann Rev Energy Environ 25:199–244
Lundborg A (1998) A sustainable forest fuel system in Sweden. Biomass Bioenergy 15(4–5):399–406
Nakicenovic N, Swart R (eds.) (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press
Pinstrup-Anderson P, Pandhya-Lorch R, Rosengrant M (1999) World food prospects: critical issues for the early 21st Century. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute
Raneses A, Hanson K, Shapouri H (1998) Economic impacts from shifting cropland use from food to fuel. Biomass Bioenergy 15(6):417–422
Rao P, Shastry G (1986) Changes in diet and nutrition profile in ten states in India, Hyderabad, India, Nutrition News, National Institute of Nutrition, 7(2)
Rogner H (1997) An assessment of world hydrocarbon resources. Ann Rev Energy Environ 22:217–262
Sands R, Edmonds J (2005) Climate change impacts for the conterminous USA: an integrated assessment, paper 7: economic analysis of field crops and land use with climate change. Clim Change 69(1):127–150
Sands R, Leimbach M (2003) Modeling agriculture and land use in an integrated assessment framework. Clim Change 56(1):185–210
Seto K, Kaufmann R, Woodcock C (2000) Landsat reveals China’s farmland reserves, but they’re vanishing fast. Nature 406(6792):121
Smith S, Pitcher H, Wigley T (2005) Future sulfur dioxide emissions. Clim Change 73(3):267–318
Wigley T, Richels R, Edmonds J (1996) Economic and environmental choices in the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Nature 379(6562):240–243
Yamamoto H, Yamaji K, Fujino J (1999) Evaluation of bioenergy resources with a global land use and energy model formulated with SD technique. Biomass Bioenergy 63(2):101–113
Yamamoto H, Yamaji K, Fujino J (2000) Scenario analysis of bioenergy resources and CO2 emissions with a global land use and energy model. Biomass Bioenergy 66(4):325–337
Yamamoto H, Yamaji K, Fujino J (2001) Evaluation of bioenergy potential with a multi-regional global-land-use-and-energy-model. Biomass Bioenergy 21(3):185–203
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge Karen Fisher-Vanden of Dartmouth College and Hugh Pitcher of the Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI) for helpful ideas at the germination stage of this paper. We would also like to thank Allison Thomson of JGCRI for reviewing this paper and providing additional comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gillingham, K.T., Smith, S.J. & Sands, R.D. Impact of bioenergy crops in a carbon dioxide constrained world: an application of the MiniCAM energy-agriculture and land use model. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 13, 675–701 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9122-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9122-5