Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Natural Resource Management and Policy ((NRMP,volume 41))

  • 1710 Accesses

Abstract

The impacts of biofuels are not limited to biofuel industry and the agriculture sector, they spill over throughout an economy due to the inter-linkages between production sectors. The impacts are also felt across the borders through the international trade. For example, EU’s mandate on biofuels could boost Brazil and Indonesia’s economy. Using global macroeconomic models, particularly, computable general equilibrium (CGE) models, a number of studies have assessed economic impacts of EU’s or global mandates on biofuels (e.g., Timilsina et al. 2012; Hertel et al. 2010; Kretschmer et al. 2010). While a single biofuel project implemented in a country may not have economic impacts at a scale noticeable at a national and an international level, a large group of projects or a biofuel policy aiming a large-scale expansion of biofuels would certainly have significant economic impacts at country level if not at global level. For example, Timilsina et al. (2012) finds that if the biofuel mandates and targets announced by the 40 plus countries around the world are executed by 2020 thereby increasing the share of biofuels in the global liquid fuel demand for transportation to 9 % from the current level of 3 %, various countries or regions would exhibit significant difference in their economic impacts ranging from 0.23 % loss of GDP in India to 0.05 % increase in GDP in Thailand. However, at the global level the impact was fairly modest (0.02 %) compared to that in the baseline. Similarly, Kretschmer et al. (2009) find a 10 % EU-wide biofuel mandate not causing a noticeable change in aggregate welfare of EU countries compared to a reference scenario where EU meets its 20 % GHG mitigation targets without biofuel mandate. However, the welfare impacts differ significantly across EU countries with some countries gaining, while others loosing.

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

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The change in GDP was measured compared to the baseline where the share of biofuels in total liquid fuel consumption for transportation was 5.4 %.

  2. 2.

    The concept of equivalent variation was introduced by British economist Sir John Richard Hicks in 1937. For more details, please refer to Mas-Colell et al. (1995).

  3. 3.

    Rice production decreases as land is reallocated towards oilseeds, sugar, and grains. Behaving as an inferior good, rice exhibits a negative price response to income.

References

  • Banse, M., van Meijl, H., Tabeau, A., & Woltjer, G. (2008). Will EU biofuel policies affect global agricultural markets? European Review of Agricultural Economics, 35(2), 117–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gohin, A. (2008). Impacts of the European biofuel policy on the farm sector: A general equilibrium assessment. Review of Agricultural Economics, 30(4), 623–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertel, T. W., Tyner, W., & Birur, D. K. (2010). The global impacts of biofuel mandates. The Energy Journal, 31(1), 75–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J., Yang, J., Msangi, S., Rozelle, S., & Weersink, A. (2012). Biofuels and the poor: Global impact pathways of biofuels on agricultural markets. Food Policy, 37, 439–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kretschmer, B., Peterson, S., & Ignaciuk, A. M. (2009). Integrating biofuels into the DART model: Analysing the effects of the EU 10 % biofuel target. In Loy, J.-P. Müller, & Rolf A. E. (Eds.), Agrar- und Ernährungsmärkte nach dem Boom: 49. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e. V. vom 30. September bis 02. Oktober 2009, ISBN 978-3-7843-5106-3, pp. 63–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M., & Green, J. (1995). Microeconomic theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padella, M., Finco, A., & Tyner, W. E. (2012). Impacts of biofuels policies in the EU. Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, 1(3), 87–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taheripour, F., Hertel, T., Tyner, W., Beckman, J., & Birur, D. (2010). Biofuels and their by-products: global economic and environmental implications. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(3), 278–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timilsina, G. R., Beghin, J. C., van der Mensbrugghe, D., & Mevel, S. (2010). The impacts of biofuel targets on land-use change and food supply: A global CGE assessment (Policy research Working Paper 5513). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timilsina, G. R., Beghin, J. C., van der Mensbrugghe, D., & Mevel, S. (2012). The impacts of biofuel targets on land-use change and food supply: A global CGE assessment. Agriculture Economics, 43, 315–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Govinda R. Timilsina .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Timilsina, G.R. (2014). Economic Impacts of Biofuels. In: Timilsina, G., Zilberman, D. (eds) The Impacts of Biofuels on the Economy, Environment, and Poverty. Natural Resource Management and Policy, vol 41. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0518-8_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics