Advertisement

Estimating carbon supply curves from afforestation of agricultural land in the Northeastern U.S.

  • Jonathan WinstenEmail author
  • Sarah Walker
  • Sandra Brown
  • Sean Grimland
Original Article

Abstract

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative for the northeastern states of the U.S. allows for terrestrial carbon (C) sequestration offsets generated by afforestation activities only. This paper estimates the maximum potential quantity and associated costs of increasing the storage of carbon by afforestation of existing agricultural land in the 11 states of the Northeast United States. The focus of the work was to describe location, the quantity, and at what cost it would be economically attractive to shift agricultural production to afforestation to increase carbon storage in the region. Widely available data sets were used to (1) identify spatially-explicit areas for lower costs carbon offsets and (2) estimate carbon supply curves related to afforestation of agricultural land over three time periods (10, 20, and 40 years). Carbon accumulation and total carbon offset project costs were estimated at a county scale and combined to identify expected costs per ton of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Large variation in estimated costs per ton of CO2e are driven by varying carbon accumulation potentials and opportunity costs of taking land out of agricultural production, as well as the duration of the project activity. Results show that the lowest cost carbon offset projects will be in certain counties of Maine, Vermont, and New York. Pasture land, with lower opportunity costs, generally presents the opportunity for lower cost carbon offset projects relative to cropland. This analysis estimates that afforestation of pasture land in the northeast will not become economically attractive until the price rises above $10 per metric tonne (MT) CO2e and that up to 583 million MT could be economically sequestered if the price were to rise to $50 per MT CO2e, based on a 40-year project life. With regard to cropland in the northeast, afforestation does not become economically advantageous for land owners until the price rises above $40 per MT CO2e. It is estimated that up to 487,000 MT could be sequestered from cropland if the price were to rise to $50 per MT CO2e, based on a 40-year project life.

Keywords

Afforestation Agriculture Carbon sequestration Carbon supply curves Climate change mitigation Economic analysis Opportunity costs 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was accomplished with the support of the Cooperative Agreement between the US Department of Energy and The Nature Conservancy, Award No. DE-FC26-01NT41151, Bill Stanley and Sandra Brown, co-principle investigators. The research presented in this paper was part of a larger study entitled “Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration in the Northeast: Quantities and Costs”, final report submitted to US DOE-NETL, S. Brown, S. Murdock, N. Sampson, and B. Stanley report collaborators (available at http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/necarbonproject). We thank several colleagues for their input and comments at various stages of this work including Neil Sampson and Sarah Murdock, and Daiva Kacenauskaite for the background review of literature.

References

  1. FAPRI (Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute) (2005) U.S. and World Agricultural Outlook 2005. Staff Report 1–05. ISSN 1534–4533. FAPRI Publications. Center for Agriculture and Rural Development Iowa State University http://www.fapri.iastate.edu/outlook/2005/ Cited 27 April, 2011
  2. Lewandrowski J, Jones C, House R et al (2004) Economics of Sequestering Carbon in the U.S. Agricultural sector. USDA-ERS Technical bulletin number 1909. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Lubowski R, Plantinga A, Stavins R (2005) Land-use change and carbon sinks: econometric estimation of the carbon sequestration supply function. Resources for the Future.National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA, http://www.nass.usda.gov/index.asp Cited 27 April, 2011
  4. Penn State University (2005) Penn State Agronomy Guide Department of Agronomy. College of Agricultural Sciences. The Pennsylvania State University. http://agguide.agronomy.psu.edu Cited 27 April, 2011
  5. Plantinga A, Mauldin T, Miller D (1999) An econometric analysis of the costs of sequestering carbon in forests. Am J Agric Econ 81:812–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Richards K, Sampson R, Brown S (2006) Agricultural and forestlands: US carbon policy strategies. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. Smith J, Heath L, Jenkins J (2003) Forest tree volume-to-biomass models and estimates for live and standing dead trees of U.S. Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep., USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA 49(1):12–35Google Scholar
  8. Stavins R (1999) The cost of carbon sequestration: a revealed preference approach. Am Econ Rev 89(4):994–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Stavins R, Richards K (2005) The cost of U.S. forest-based carbon sequestration. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Sequest_Final.pdf Cited April 20, 2011
  10. USDA Economic Research Service (2006) Commodity Costs and Returns. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/CostsAndReturns Cited 27 April, 2011
  11. Walker S, Grimland S, Winsten J, Brown S (2007) Opportunities for improving carbon storage through afforestation of agricultural lands. Part 3A In: Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration in the Northeast: Quantities and Costs,, S. Brown, S. Murdock, N. Sampson, and B. Stanley, Report Collaborators, Final report submitted to US DOE-NETL http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/necarbonproject Cited 27 April, 2011

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Winsten
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Sarah Walker
    • 1
  • Sandra Brown
    • 1
  • Sean Grimland
    • 1
  1. 1.Winrock International Institute for Agricultural DevelopmentArlingtonUSA
  2. 2.ArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations