Climatic Change

, Volume 80, Issue 1–2, pp 173–197 | Cite as

Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from land use: creating incentives within greenhouse gas emissions trading systems

Original Article


Terrestrial carbon sinks and sources were introduced into climate change mitigation related policy relatively late in the design of the architecture of those policies. Much literature addresses how terrestrial sources and sinks differ from emissions from fossil fuel combustion and, hence, is a possible justification for differential treatment of them in policy design. Late introduction in climate policy discussions and perceived differences appear to have resulted in very different policy approaches for sinks versus fossil emission sources. The attempt to differentiate has generated complexity in policy design and likely inefficiency in the operation of these policies. We review these issues and find that the characteristics claimed to apply to sinks apply as well to fossil sources, and differences that do exist are often more a matter of degree than of kind. Because cap-and-trade has gained momentum as the instrument of choice to control fossil emissions, we use as a starting point, how such a cap-and-trade system could be altered to include terrestrial carbon sinks and sources.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Babiker M, Jacoby HD, Reilly JM, Reiner DM (2002) The evolution of a climate regime: Kyoto to Marrakech. Environ Sci Pol 5(3):195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babiker M, Viguier L, Reilly JM, Ellerman AD, Criqui P (2003) The welfare costs of hybrid carbon policies in the European Union. Environ Model Assess 8:187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babiker M, Reilly JM, Viguier L2004) Is emissions trading always beneficial. Energ J 25(2):33–56Google Scholar
  4. Betz R Eichhammer, W, Schleich J (2004) Designing national allocation plans for EU-emissions trading—a first analysis of outcomes. Energ Environ 15(3):375–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birdsey R, Cannell M, Galinski W, Gintings A, Hamburg S, Jallown B, Kirschbaum M, Krug T, Kurz W, Prisley S, Schulze D, Singh KD, Singh TP, Solomon AM, Villers L, Yamagata Y (2000) Afforestation, Reforestation, and Deforestation (ARD) Activities. In: Watson RT, Noble IR, Bolin B, Ravindranath NH, Verardo DJ, Dokken DJ (eds) Land use, land-use change, and forestry, Chapter 3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 125–179Google Scholar
  6. Bohringer C (2001) Climate Politics from Kyoto to Bonn: From Little to Nothing?!?. Working Paper. Center for European Economic Research, Mannheim, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  7. EC (2003) Directive 2003/87/EC Establishing a Scheme for Greenhouse Emission Allowance Trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. EC (2005) EU Emission Trading. an open scheme promoting global innovation to combat climate change, European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. EIA (2003) Analysis of S. 139, the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003. Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellerman AD (2001) Le defi europeen: Issues in the implementation of greenhouse gas emissions trading in Europe. Revue de l'Energie 524:105–111Google Scholar
  11. Ellerman AD, Joskow PL, Schmalensee R, Montero JP, Bailey EM (2000) Markets for clean air: the U.S. acid rain program. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Felzer B, Kicklighter DW, Melillo JM, Wang C, Zhuang Q, Prinn R (2004) Effects of ozone on net primary production and carbon sequestration in the conterminous United States using a biogeochemistry model. Tellus B 56(3):230–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Felzer B, Reilly JM, Melillo J, Kicklighter D, Sarofim M, Wang C, Prinn R, Zhuang Q (2005) Future effects of ozone on carbon sequestration and climate change policy using a global biogeochemical model. Clim Change 73(3):345–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herzog H, Caldeira K, Reilly JM (2003) An issue of permanence: Assessing the effectiveness of ocean carbon sequestration. Clim Change 59:293–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell J, Johnson CA (eds) (2001), Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. Kyoto Ratification Advisory Group (2003) Report of the Kyoto Ratification Advisory Group: A risk assessment. The Cabinet Office of New South Wales Government PrinterGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewandrowski J, Peters M, Jones C, House R, Sperow M, Eve M, Paustian K (2004) Economics of Sequestering Carbon in the US. Agricultural Sector Economic Research Service Technical Bulletin No. (TB1909). USDA, Washington DC, pp 1–69 (March)
  18. Manne A, Richels R (2001) US Rejection of the Kyoto Protocol: The Impact on Compliance Cost and CO2 Emissions. Working Paper, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, pp 1–12 (October)Google Scholar
  19. Marland G, McCarl B, Schneider U (2001) Soil carbon: policy and economics. Clim Change 51(1):101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) (2001) Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UKGoogle Scholar
  21. McCarl BA, Murray BC, Schneider UA (2005) The Comparative Value of Biological Carbon Sequestration.
  22. McCarl BA, Kim M-K, Lee H-C, Murray BC, Sands RD, Schneider UA (2006) Insights from agricultural and forestry GHG offset studies that might influence IAM modeling. In: Schlesinger M, Kheshgi H, Smith J, de al Chesnaye F, Reilly JM, Wilson T, Kolstad C (eds) Integrated assessment of human induced climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK (forthcoming) Google Scholar
  23. Metz B, Davidson O, Swart R, Pan J (eds) (2001) Climate change 2001: Mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UKGoogle Scholar
  24. Paltsev S, Reilly JM, Jacoby HD, Ellerman AD, Tay KH (2003) Emissions Trading to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States: The McCain-Lieberman Proposal. MIT Joint Program for the Policy and Science of Global Change Report No. 97. MIT, Cambridge MA (June) (
  25. Paltsev S, Reilly JM, Jacoby HD, Tay KH (2006) How (and why) do climate policy costs differ among countries?. In: Schlesinger M, Kheshgi H, Smith J, de al Chesnaye F, Reilly JM, Wilson T, Kolstad C (eds) Integrated Assessment of human induced climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  26. Pew Center (2005) The european union emissions trading scheme (EU-ETS): Insights and opportunities. Pew Center, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  27. Point Carbon (2005a) Carbon market Europe, September 23, 2005. A point carbon Publication
  28. Point Carbon (2005b) Carbon market Europe, September 30, 2005. A point carbon publication (available at:
  29. Reilly JM (2003) Reconstructing climate policy: beyond Kyoto. (Book Review). Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 2003 Yearbook 117–124Google Scholar
  30. Reiner DM (2001) Climate impasse: how the hague negotiations failed. Environment 43(2):36–43Google Scholar
  31. Sarmiento JL Gruber N (2002) Sinks for anthropogenic carbon. Phys Today 55(8):30–36Google Scholar
  32. Schlamadinger B, Marland G (1999) Net effect of forest harvest on CO2 emissions to the atmosphere: a sensitivity analysis on the influence of time. Tellus 51B, 314–325Google Scholar
  33. UNFCCC (1997) The Kyoto protocol. Climate Change Secretariat, BonnGoogle Scholar
  34. UNFCCC (2000) Methodological issues: land—use, land-use change, and forestry. FCCC/SBSTA/2000/9 (Aug. 25)Google Scholar
  35. UNFCCC (2005) Kyoto protocol: status of ratification. (Updated January 20, 2005)
  36. US DOE (2002) Voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, reductions, and carbon sequestration. Fed Register 67(87):30370–30373 (May 6)Google Scholar
  37. Watson RT, Noble IR, Bolin B, Ravindranath NH, Verardo DJ, Dokken DJ (eds) (2000) Land use, land-use change, and forestry, intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Wiebe K, Tegene A Kuhn B (1996) Partial interests in land: policy tools for resource use and conservation. Economic Research Service, USDA Agricultural Economic Report No AER744, Washington DC (November)Google Scholar
  39. White House (2002) U.S. climate strategy: a new approach. policy briefing book. Washington DC (February)Google Scholar
  40. Yang T, Matus K, Paltsev S, Reilly J (2005) Economic benefits of air pollution regulation in the USA: An integrated approach. MIT Joint Program for the Policy and Science of Global Change Report No. 113. MIT, Cambridge MA (January)Google Scholar
  41. Zhuang Q, Melillo JM, Kicklighter DW Prinn RG, Steudler PA, McGuire AD, Felzer BS, Hu S (2003) A process-based analysis of methane exchanges between alaskan terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere. MIT Joint Program for the Policy and Science of Global Change Report No. 104. Cambridge, MA

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global ChangeMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations