Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The power and pain of market-based carbon policies: a global application to greenhouse gases from ruminant livestock production

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objectives of this research are to assess the greenhouse gas mitigation potential of carbon policies applied to the ruminant livestock sector [inclusive of the major ruminant species—cattle (Bos Taurus and Bos indicus), sheep (Ovis aries), and goats (Capra hircus)]—with particular emphasis on understanding the adjustment challenges posed by such policies. We show that market-based mitigation policies can greatly amplify the mitigation potential identified in marginal abatement cost studies by harnessing powerful market forces such as product substitution and trade. We estimate that a carbon tax of US$20 per metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent emissions could mitigate 626 metric megatons of CO2 equivalent ruminant emissions per year (MtCO2-eq year−1). This policy would also incentivize a restructuring of cattle production, increasing the share of cattle meat coming from the multiproduct dairy sector compared to more emission intensive, single purpose beef sector. The mitigation potential from this simple policy represents an upper bound because it causes ruminant-based food production to fall and is therefore likely to be politically unpopular. In the spirit of the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC 2015), which expresses the ambition of reducing agricultural emissions while protecting food production, we assess a carbon policy that applies both a carbon tax and a subsidy to producers to manage the tradeoff between food production and mitigation. The policy maintains ruminant production and consumption levels in all regions, but for a much lower global emission reduction of 185 MtCO2-eq year−1. This research provides policymakers with a quantitative basis for designing policies that attempt to trade off mitigation effectiveness with producer and consumer welfare.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Avetisyan M, Golub A, Hertel T, Rose S et al (2011) Why a global carbon policy could have a dramatic impact on the pattern of the worldwide livestock production. Appl Econ Perspect Pol. doi:10.1093/aepp/ppr026

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol W, Oates W (1988) The theory of environmental policy, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beach R, DeAngelo B, Rose S et al (2008) Mitigation potential and costs for global agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. Agr Econ 38:109–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burniaux J, Truong T (2002) GTAP-E: an energy-environmental version of the GTAP model. GTAP technical paper no. 16, Center for Global Trade Analysis. Purdue University, West Lafayette

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbon Pricing Leadership (2016) www.carbonpricingleadership.org. Cited 24 Aug 2016

  • DeVuyst E, Preckel P (1997) Sensitivity analysis revisited: a quadrature-based approach. J Pol Model 19:175–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2016) Paris Agreement. In: Climate Action. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris/index_en.htm. Cited 6 July 2016

  • Gerber P, Steinfeld H, Henderson B et al (2013) Tackling climate change through livestock—a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock (2016) Panama declaration. www.livestockdialogue.org/fileadmin/templates/res_livestock/docs/2016/Panama/2016_GASL_PANAMA_DECLARATION.pdf. Cited 24 Aug 2016

  • Global Dairy Agenda for Action (2016) The dairy sector: ready to help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. http://dairysustainabilityframework.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/The-Dairy-Sector-Ready-to-Help-Achieve-The-Sustainable-Development-Goals.pdf. Cited 24 Aug 2016

  • Golub A, Hertel T, Huey-Lin L et al (2009) The opportunity cost of land use and the global potential for greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture and forestry. Resour Energ Econ 31:299–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golub A, Henderson B, Hertel T et al (2013) Global climate policy impacts on livestock, land use, livelihoods, and food security. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:20894–20899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havlík P, Schneider U, Schmid E et al (2011) Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets. Energ Pol 39:5690–5702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havlík P, Valin H, Herrero M et al (2014) Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:3709–3714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson B (2010) Are market-based instruments effective tools for environmental management?. CAB Rev 5(015)

  • Henderson B, Falcucci A, Mottet A et al (2015a) Marginal costs of abating greenhouse gases in the global ruminant livestock sector. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. doi:10.1007/s11027-015-9673-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson B, Gerber P, Hilinski T et al (2015b) Greenhouse gas mitigation potential of the world’s grazing lands: modelling soil carbon and nitrogen fluxes of mitigation practices. Agric Ecosyst Environ 207:91–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrero M, Henderson B, Petr H et al (2016) Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat Clim Chang 6:452–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertel TW (ed) (1997) Global trade analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertel TW, Lee H-L, Rose S et al. (2009) Modeling land-use related greenhouse gas sources and sinks and their mitigation potential. In: Policy, Hertel T, Rose S, Tol R (eds) Economic analysis of land use in global climate change policy. Routledge, London, p 72

  • IPCC (2014) Summary for policymakers. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y et al (eds) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Irfanoglu B (2013) Three essays on the interaction between global trade and greenhouse gas mitigation agreements. Dissertation, Purdue University, Indiana, USA

  • Lee H-L, Hertel T, Rose S et al (2009) An integrated global land use database for CGE analysis of climate policy options. In: Hertel T, Rose S, Tol R (eds) Economic analysis of land use in global climate change policy. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Livestock Global Alliance (2016) Livestock for sustainable development in twenty-first century. www.livestockglobalalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/LGA-Livestock-for-SDGs.pdf. Cited 24 Aug 2016

  • McDougall R, Golub A (2007) GTAP-E release 6: a revised energy-environmental version of the GTAP model. GTAP research memorandum no. 15, Center for Global Trade Analysis. Purdue University, West Lafayette

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell D, James R, Forster PM et al. (2016) Realizing the impacts of a 1.5 [deg] C warmer world. Nat Clim Change, 2016/06/06 advance online publication

  • Moran D, MacLeod M, Wall E et al (2011) Marginal abatement cost curves for UK agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. J Agr Econ 62:93–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayanan B, Walmsley T (2008) Global trade, assistance, and production: the GTAP 7 data base, Center for Global Trade Analysis. Purdue University, West Lafayette

    Google Scholar 

  • Opio C, Gerber P, Mottet A, Falcucci et al (2013) Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains—a global life cycle assessment. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson K, Arndt C (1998) Implementing systematic sensitivity analysis using GEMPACK (GTAP technical paper no. 03). Purdue University, West Lafayette

    Google Scholar 

  • Pezzey J (2003a) Emission taxes and tradeable permits: a comparison of views on long-run efficiency. Environ Resour Econ 26:329–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pezzey J (2003b) Will Cinderella ever be invited to the asymmetric instruments ball? The case for considering emission taxes with thresholds. Assoc Environ Resour Econ 23(2)

  • Popp A, Lotze-Campen H, Bodirsky B (2010) Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Glob Environ Change 20:451–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z et al (2007) Agriculture. In: Metz B, Davidsons O, Bosch P et al (eds) Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith P, Bustamante M, Ahammad H et al (2014) Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y et al (eds) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge and New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T et al (2006) Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D, Clark M (2014) Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515:518–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2015) Adoption of the Paris Agreement, 21st Conference of the Parties, Paris: United Nations

  • US EPA (2006) Global mitigation of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. EPA 430-R-06-005. US EPA, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • US EPA (2013) Global mitigation of non-CO2 greenhouse gases: 2010–2030. EPA 430-R-13-011. US EPA, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Wollenberg E, Richards M, Smith P et al (2016) Reducing emissions from agriculture to meet the 2 °C target. Glob Change Biol. doi:10.1111/gcb.13340

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Henderson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Henderson, B., Golub, A., Pambudi, D. et al. The power and pain of market-based carbon policies: a global application to greenhouse gases from ruminant livestock production. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 23, 349–369 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-017-9737-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-017-9737-0

Keywords

Navigation