Skip to main content

Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Implications of Biofuels: Role of Technology and Policy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Bioenergy Economics and Policy: Volume II

Part of the book series: Natural Resource Management and Policy ((NRMP,volume 40))

Abstract

This paper examines the changes in land use in the U.S. likely to be induced by biofuel and climate policies and the implications of these policies for GHG emissions over the 2007–2030 period. The policies considered here include a modified Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) by itself as well as combined with a cellulosic biofuel tax credit, a carbon price policy, or a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). We use a dynamic, spatial, multi-market equilibrium model, biofuel and environmental policy analysis model (BEPAM), to trace the impacts of alternative biofuel policies on the mix of biofuel feedstocks, crop prices, land use pattern, and GHG emissions. We endogenously determine the effects of these policies on cropland allocation, food and fuel prices, and the mix of first- and second-generation biofuels. We find that the RFS could be met by diverting 5% of cropland for biofuel production and would result in corn prices increasing by 31% in 2030 relative to the business-as-usual baseline. The reduction in GHG emissions in the U.S. due to the RFS is about 4%; these domestic GHG savings can be severely eroded by emissions due to indirect land use changes and the increase in gasoline consumption in the rest of the world. Supplementing the RFS with a carbon price policy, a cellulosic biofuel tax credit, or a LCFS induces a switch away from corn ethanol to cellulosic biofuels and achieves the mandated level of biofuel production with a smaller adverse impact on crop prices. These supplementary policies enhance the GHG savings achieved by the RFS alone, although through different mechanisms; greater production of cellulosic biofuels with the tax credit and the LCFS but larger reduction in fossil fuel consumption with a carbon tax.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
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.

    A state-wide LCFS has been established in California, which requires a 10% reduction in the GHG intensity of transportation fuels sold in the state by 2020 CARB. “Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Volume I.” California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resouces Board: http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/030409lcfs_isor_vol1.pdf. Many other states have also proposed regional or state-level LCFS and a proposal for a national LCFS was also included initially in the proposed American Clean Energy Security Act in 2009.

  2. 2.

    Total cropland in 2007 under all crops in these CRDs was estimated to be about 150 M ha.

  3. 3.

    Blend rates after 2030 are assumed to be the same as that in 2030.

References

  • Adler, P.R., S.J.D. Grosso, and W.J. Parton. 2007. Life-cycle assessment of net greenhouse-gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems. Ecological Applications 17 (3): 675–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson-Teixeira, K.J., S.C. Davis, M.D. Masters, and E.H. Delucia. 2009. Changes in soil organic carbon under biofuel crops. Global Change Biology Bioenergy 1 (1): 75–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, R.H., and B.A. McCarl. 2010. U.S. Agricultural and Forestry Impacts of the Energy Independence and Security Act: FASOM Results and Model Description.” RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Final Report Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Document available online at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/Sab/Sabproduct.nsf/962FFB6750050099852577820072DFDE/$File/FASOM+Report_EISA_FR.pdf.

  • CARB. “Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Volume I.” California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resouces Board: http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/030409lcfs_isor_vol1.pdf.

  • Chakravorty, U., and M. Hubert. 2013. Global impacts of US and EU biofuels mandate and carbon taxex. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95 (2): 282–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., H. Huang, and M. Khanna. 2012. Land-use and greenhouse gas implications of biofuels: Role of technology and policy. Climate Change Economics 03 (03): 1250013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., H. Huang, M. Khanna, and H. Önal. 2014. Alternative transportation fuel standards: Welfare effects and climate benefits. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., H. Huang, M. Khanna, and H. Önal. 2011. “Meeting the Mandate for Biofuels: Implications for Land Use, Food and Fuel Prices” ed. J.Z.A.J. Perloff, University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S.C., S. W. Diegel, and R. G. Boundy. 2010. Transportation energy data book: Edition 29.” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drabhik, D., and H. de Gorter. 2011. Biofuel policies and carbon leakage. AgBioForum 14 (3): 104–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • EIA. 2010. “Annual Energy Outlook 2010: With Projections to 2035.” U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, U.S. Department of Energy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elobeid, A., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D.J., Babcock, B.A., and Hart, C.E. (2007). The long-run impact of corn-based ethanol on the grain, oilseed, and livestock sectors with implications for biotech crops.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/420r10006.pdf.

  • Greene, D.L., and N.L. Tishchishyna. 2000. “Costs of oil dependence: A 2000 update.” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamelinck, C.N., and A.P.C. Faaij. 2006. Outlook for advanced biofuels. Energy Policy 34 (17): 3268–3283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, J.D. 2009. Understanding crude oil prices. The Energy Journal 30 (2): 179–2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertel, T.W., A.A. Golub, A.D. Jones, M. O’Hare, R.J. Plevin, and D.M. Kammen. 2010. Effects of us maize ethanol on global land use and greenhouse gas emissions: Estimating marketmediated responses. BioScience 60 (3): 223–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochman, G., D. Rajagopal, and D. Zilberman. 2010. The Effect of Biofuels on Crude Oil Market. AgBioForum 13(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, H., M. Khanna, H. Önal, and X. Chen. 2013. Stacking low carbon policies on the renewable fuels standard: Economic and greenhouse gas implications. Energy Policy 56: 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain, A., M. Khanna, M. Erickson, and H. Huang. 2010. An integrated bio-geochemical and economic analysis of bioenergy crops in the Midwestern United States. GCB BioEnergy 2 (5): 258–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, M., X. Chen, H. Huang, and H. Onal. 2011a. Land use and greenhouse gas mitigation effects of biofuel policies. University of Illinois Law Review 549–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, M., and C.L. Crago. 2012. Measuring indirect land use change: Implications for policy. Annual Review of Resource Economics 4 (1): 161–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, M., C.L. Crago, and M. Black. 2011b. Can biofuels be a solution to climate change? The implications of land use change-related emissions for policy. Interface Focus: The Royal Society Journal 1 (233–247): 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H., and D.A. Sumner. 2009. “International Trade Patterns and Policy for Ethanol in the United States” ed. M. Khanna, J. Scheffran, and D. Zilberman. New York, Springer, pp. 327–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiby, P. 2008. “Estimating the energy security benefits of reduced U.S. oil imports: Final report.” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry, I.W.H., and K.A. Small. 2005. Does Britain or the United States have the right gasoline tax? American Economic Review 95 (4): 1276–1289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, W., J. Whistance, and S. Meyer. 2011. Effects of US biofuel policies on US and world petroleum product markets with consequences for greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Policy 39 (9): 5509–5518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, M.D., M. Junginger, S. Lensink, M. Londo, and A. Faaij. 2010. Competition between biofuels: Modeling technological learning and cost reductions over time, biomass and bioenergy, a roadmap for biofuels in Europe. Biomass and Bioenergy 34(2): 203–217.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authorship is alphabetical. Funding from the Energy Biosciences Institute, University of California, Berkeley, the ESC Project and NSF is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Madhu Khanna .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chen, X., Khanna, M. (2017). Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Implications of Biofuels: Role of Technology and Policy. In: Khanna, M., Zilberman, D. (eds) Handbook of Bioenergy Economics and Policy: Volume II. Natural Resource Management and Policy, vol 40. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6906-7_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics