Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 63, Issue 3, pp 545–570 | Cite as

Confronting the Food–Energy–Environment Trilemma: Global Land Use in the Long Run

Article

Abstract

Economic, agronomic, and biophysical drivers affect global land use, so all three influences need to be considered in evaluating economically optimal allocations of the world’s land resources. A dynamic, forward-looking optimization framework applied over the course of the coming century shows that although some deforestation is optimal in the near term, in the absence of climate change regulation, the desirability of further deforestation is eliminated by mid-century. Although adverse productivity shocks from climate change have a modest effect on global land use, such shocks combined with rapid growth in energy prices lead to significant deforestation and higher greenhouse gas emissions than in the baseline. Imposition of a global greenhouse gas emissions constraint further heightens the competition for land, as fertilizer use declines and land-based mitigation strategies expand. However, anticipation of the constraint largely dilutes its environmental effectiveness, as deforestation accelerates prior to imposition of the target.

Keywords

Biofuels Climate change Deforestation Energy Environment Food Forestry GHG emissions Global land use 

JEL Classification

C61 Q15 Q23 Q26 Q40 Q54 

Supplementary material

10640_2014_9848_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (2.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 2123 KB)

References

  1. Antoine B, Gurgel A, Reilly J (2008) Will recreation demand for land limit biofuels production? J Agric Food Ind Org 6(2):5Google Scholar
  2. Babiker M, Gurgel A, Paltsev S, Reilly J (2009) Forward-looking versus recursive-dynamic modeling in climate policy analysis: a comparison. Econ Model 26(6):1341–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bahel E, Marrouch W, Gaudet G (2013) The economics of oil, biofuel and food commodities. Resour Energy Econ 35(4):599–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benayas J, Newton A, Diaz A, Bullock J (2009) Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science 325(5944):1121–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouwman A, Kram T, Goldewijk K (2006) Integrated modelling of global environmental change: an overview of image 2.4. Technical report, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown R, Rosenberg N, Hays C, Easterling W, Mearns L (2000) Potential production and environmental effects of switchgrass and traditional crops under current and greenhouse-altered climate in the central United States: a simulation study. Agric Ecosyst Environ 78(1):31–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bulte E, van Soest D, Van Kooten G, Schipper R (2002) Forest conservation in Costa Rica when nonuse benefits are uncertain but rising. Am J Agric Econ 84(1):150–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chakravorty U, Hubert M, Moreaux M, Nostbakken L (2011) Will biofuel mandates raise food prices? Working paper 2011–01, Department of Economics, University of AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  9. Chakravorty U, Magné B, Moreaux M (2008) A dynamic model of food and clean energy. J Econ Dyn Control 32(4):1181–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chazdon R (2008) Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Science 320(5882):1458–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Choi S, Sohngen B, Rose S, Hertel T, Golub A (2011b) Total factor productivity change in agriculture and emissions from deforestation. Am J Agric Econ 93(2):349–355Google Scholar
  12. Conrad J (1997) On the option value of old-growth forest. Ecol Econ 22(2):97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conrad J (2000) Wilderness: options to preserve, extract, or develop. Resour Energy Econ 22(3):205–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cranfield J, Eales J, Hertel T, Preckel P (2003) Model selection when estimating and predicting consumer demands using international, cross section data. Empir Econ 28(2):353–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daigneault AJ, Miranda MJ, Sohngen B (2010) Optimal forest management with carbon sequestration credits and endogenous fire risk. Land Econ 86(1):155–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deaton A, Muellbauer J (1980) An almost ideal demand system. Am Econ Rev 70(3):312–326Google Scholar
  17. Dunn J, Eason J, Wang M (2011) Updated sugarcane and switchgrass parameters in the GREET model. Technical report, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  18. EIA (2010) Annual energy outlook. Publication DOE/EIA-0383, U.S. Department of EnergyGoogle Scholar
  19. Fearnside P (2000) Global warming and tropical land-use change: greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning, decomposition and soils in forest conversion, shifting cultivation and secondary vegetation. Clim Change 46(1):115–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer C, Salant S (2012) Alternative climate policies and intertemporal emissions leakage: quantifying the green paradox. Working paper RFF DP 12–16, Resources for FutureGoogle Scholar
  21. Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Johnston M, Mueller ND, O’Connell C, Ray DK, West PC et al (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478(7369):337–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fujimori S, Masui T, Matsuoka Y (2012) AIM/CGE [basic] manual. Technical report 2012–01, Center for Social and Environmental Systems, NIESGoogle Scholar
  23. Golub A, Hertel T, Sohngen B (2009) Land use modeling in recursively-dynamic GTAP framework. In: Hertel T, Rose S, Tol R (eds) Economic analysis of land use in global climate change policy. Routledge, London, pp 235–278Google Scholar
  24. Gurgel A, Cronin T, Reilly J, Paltsev S, Kicklighter D, Melillo J (2011) Food, fuel, forests and the pricing of ecosystem services. Am J Agric Econ 92(2):342–348Google Scholar
  25. Gurgel A, Reilly J, Paltsev S (2007) Potential land use implications of a global biofuels industry. J Agric Food Ind Org 5(2):1–34Google Scholar
  26. Hanoch G (1975) Production and demand models with direct or indirect implicit additivity. Econometrica 43(3):395–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Havlík P, Schneider UA, Schmid E, Böttcher H, Fritz S, Skalskỳ R, Aoki K, Cara SD, Kindermann G, Kraxner F et al (2011) Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets. Energy Policy 39(10):5690–5702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hertel T, Tyner W, Birur D (2010) The global impacts of biofuel mandates. Energy J 31(1):75–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hertel TW, Burke MB, Lobell DB (2010) The poverty implications of climate-induced crop yield changes by 2030. Glob Environ Change 20(4):577–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Houghton R (2003) Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management 1850–2000. Tellus B 55(2):378–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ianchovichina E, Darwin R, Shoemaker R (2001) Resource use and technological progress in agriculture: a dynamic general equilibrium analysis. Ecol Econ 38(2):275–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. IPCC (2007a) Climate Change 2007: Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Synthesis Report, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  33. IPCC (2007) Summary for Policymakers. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt K, Tignor M, Miller H (eds) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  34. Leroux A, Martin V, Goeschl T (2009) Optimal conservation, extinction debt, and the augmented quasi-option value. J Environ Econ Manage 58(1):43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Long S (1991) Modification of the response of photosynthetic productivity to rising temperature by atmospheric CO2 concentrations: has its importance been underestimated? Plant Cell Environ 14(8):729–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Long SP, Ainsworth EA, Leakey AD, Nösberger J, Ort DR (2006) Food for thought: lower-than-expected crop yield stimulation with rising \({\text{ CO }}_2\) concentrations. Science 312(5782):1918–1921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lotze-Campen H, Müller C, Bondeau A, Rost S, Popp A, Lucht W (2008) Global food demand, productivity growth, and the scarcity of land and water resources: a spatially explicit mathematical programming approach. Agric Econ 39(3):325–338Google Scholar
  38. Melillo JM, Reilly JM, Kicklighter DW, Gurgel AC, Cronin TW, Paltsev S, Felzer BS, Wang X, Sokolov AP, Schlosser CA (2009) Indirect emissions from biofuels: how important? Science 326(5958):1397–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meyer S, Binfield J, Westhoff P, Thompson W (2011) U.S. biofuels baseline: the impact of extending the $0.45 ethanol blenders credit, FAPRI-MU Report 07–11, Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri-ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  40. Moss RH, Babiker M, Brinkman S, Calvo E, Carter T, Edmonds JA, Elgizouli I, Emori S, Lin E, Hibbard K et al (2008) Towards new scenarios for analysis of emissions, climate change, impacts, and response strategies. Technical report PNNL-SA-63186, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Richland, WA (US)Google Scholar
  41. National Research Council (2011) Renewable fuel standard: potential economic and environmental effects of U.S. biofuel policy. National Academies PressGoogle Scholar
  42. Nelson GC, Rosegrant MW, Koo J, Robertson R, Sulser T, Zhu T, other, (2009) Climate change: impact on agriculture and costs of adaptation. Technical report, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. Nesshöver C, Aronson J, Blignaut J, Lehr D, Vakrou A, Wittmer H (2009) Investing in ecological infrastructure. In: ten Brink P (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: national and international policy making. An output of TEEB, Earthscan, pp 401–448Google Scholar
  44. Nordhaus WD (1973) The allocation of energy resources. Brookings Pap Econ Act 1973(3):529–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Odum E (1969) The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164:262–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Paltsev S, Reilly J, Jacoby H, Eckaus R, McFarland J, Sarofim M, Asadoorian M, Babiker M (2005) The MIT emissions prediction and policy analysis (EPPA) model: version 4. Technical report, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global ChangeGoogle Scholar
  47. Parry ML, Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Livermore M, Fischer G (2004) Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Glob Environ Change 14(1):53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pindyck RS (1999) The long-run evolutions of energy prices. Energy J 20(2):1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Popp A, Dietrich J, Lotze-Campen H, Klein D, Bauer N, Krause M, Beringer T, Gerten D, Edenhofer O (2011) The economic potential of bioenergy for climate change mitigation with special attention given to implications for the land system. Environ Res Lett 6(3):034017Google Scholar
  50. Popp A, Lotze-Campen H, Bodirsky B (2010) Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-\(\text{ CO }_{2}\) greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Glob Environ Change 20(3):451–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Popp D (2002) Induced innovation and energy prices. Am Econ Rev 92(1):160–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reilly J, Paltsev S, Felzer B, Wang X, Kicklighter D, Melillo J, Prinn R, Sarofim M, Sokolov A, Wang C (2007) Global economic effects of changes in crops, pasture, and forests due to changing climate, carbon dioxide, and ozone. Energy Policy 35(11):5370–5383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Richards K, Stokes C (2004) A review of forest carbon sequestration cost studies: a dozen years of research. Clim Change 63(1):1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rimmer M, Powell A (1996) An implicitly additive demand system. Appl Econ 28(12):1613–1622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rose SK, Ahammad H, Eickhout B, Fisher B, Kurosawa A, Rao S, Riahi K, van Vuuren DP (2012) Land-based mitigation in climate stabilization. Energy Econ 34(1):365–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rosegrant MW, IMPACT Development Team (2012) International model for policy analysis of agricultural commodities and trade (IMPACT) model description. Technical report, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  57. Schmitz C, van Meijl H, Kyle P, Nelson GC, Fujimori S, Gurgel A, Havlik P, Heyhoe E, d’Croz DM, Popp A et al (2014) Land-use change trajectories up to 2050: insights from a global agro-economic model comparison. Agric Econ 45(1):69–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton R, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Tokgoz S, Hayes D, Yu T (2008) Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319(5867):1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sinn H (2008) Public policies against global warming: a supply side approach. Int Tax Public Financ 15(4):360–394Google Scholar
  60. Smulders S, Tsur Y, Zemel A (2014) Uncertain climate policy and the green paradox. In: Moser E, Semmler W, Tragler G, Veliov VM (eds) Dynamic optimization in environmental economics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  61. Sohngen B, Mendelsohn R (2003) An optimal control model of forest carbon sequestration. Am J Agric Econ 85(2):448–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sohngen B, Mendelsohn R (2007) A sensitivity analysis of forest carbon sequestration. In: Schlesinger M (ed) Human-induced climate change: an interdisciplinary assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stavins R (1999) The costs of carbon sequestration: a revealed-preference approach. Am Econ Rev 89(4):994–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Steinbuks J, Timilsina GR (2014) Land-use change and food supply. In: Timilsina G, Zilberman D (eds) The impacts of biofuels on the economy, environment, and poverty. Springer, New York, pp 91–102Google Scholar
  65. USGAO (2003) Natural gas: domestic nitrogen fertilizer production depends on natural gas availability and prices. Report to the Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, U.S. Senate GAO-03-1148, United States General Accounting OfficeGoogle Scholar
  66. Van der Mensbrugghe D (2013) The environmental impact and sustainability applied general equilibrium (ENVISAGE) model: version 8.0, processed. Technical report, FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  67. Wise M, Calvin K (2011) GCAM 3.0 agriculture and land use: technical description of modeling approach. Technical report, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (US)Google Scholar
  68. Wise M, Calvin K, Thomson A, Clarke L, Bond-Lamberty B, Sands R, Smith S, Janetos A, Edmonds J (2009) Implications of limiting \({\text{ CO }}_2\) concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324(5931):1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yu W, Hertel T, Preckel P, Eales J (2004) Projecting world food demand using alternative demand systems. Econ Model 21(1):99–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Development Research GroupThe World BankWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Center for Global Trade AnalysisPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations