Climatic Change

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 101–117

Soil Carbon: Policy and Economics

  • Gregg Marland
  • Bruce A. McCarl
  • Uwe Schneider
Article

Abstract

Agricultural soils provide a prospective way of mitigating the increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2. A number of agricultural practices are known to stimulate the accumulation of additional soil carbon and early indications are that some might sequester carbon at relatively modest costs with generally positive environmental effects. We discuss, under 10 themes, policy and economic issues that will determine whether programs for sequestration of carbon in agricultural soils can succeed. The issues involve contexts for implementation, economics, private property rights, agricultural policy, and institutional and social structures. Ultimately, success will depend on the incentive structure developed and the way in which carbon sequestration is integrated into the total fabric of agricultural policy.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Adams, R. M., Chang, C. C., McCarl, B. A., and Callaway, J. M.: 1992, 'The Role of Agriculture in Climate Change: A Preliminary Evaluation of Emission Control Strategies', in Reilly, J. M. and Anderson, M. (eds.), Economics Issues in Global Climate Change: Agriculture, Forestry, and Natural Resources, Westview Press, pp. 273–287.Google Scholar
  2. Antle, J.M.: 2000, Economic Feasibility of Using Soil Carbon Sequestration Policies and Markets to Alleviate Poverty and Enhance Sustainability of the World's Poorest Farmers, Paper presented at the Expert Workshop on Carbon Sequestration, Sustainable Agriculture, and Poverty Alleviation held at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Geneva, Switzerland, August 31, 2000 (http://www.climate.montana.edu/).Google Scholar
  3. Antle, J. M. and Mooney, S.: 1999, Economics and Policy Design for Soil Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture, Research Discussion Paper No. 36, Trade Research Center, Montana State University, Bozeman, October (http://www.climate.montana.edu/).Google Scholar
  4. Bolin, B.: 1998, 'The Kyoto Negotiations on Climate Change: A Science Perspective', Science 279, 330–331.Google Scholar
  5. Canada: 1998, in UNFCCC, Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, Report FCCC/SBSTA/1998/Misc.6/Add1, Additional submissions by Parties, at http://fccc.de.Google Scholar
  6. Council of Economic Advisers, Executive Office of the President: 1998, The Kyoto Protocol and the President's Policies to Address Climate Change: Administration Economic Analysis, July.Google Scholar
  7. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy: 1998, Impacts of the Kyoto-Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets and Economic Activity, SR/OIAF/98-03, October.Google Scholar
  8. Epplin, F.M. and Al-Sakkaf, G. A.: 1995, 'Risk-Efficient Tillage Systems and Program Participation Strategies for Land Subject to Conservation Compliance', Rev. Agr. Econ. 17: 311–321.Google Scholar
  9. IPCC: 2000, Land Use, Land-use Change, and Forestry, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a Special Report of the IPCC, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
  10. Klemme, R. M.: 1985, 'A Stochastic Dominance Comparison of Reduced Tillage Systems in Corn and Soybean Production under Risk', Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 67: 550–557.Google Scholar
  11. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: 1998, 'Climate Change Secretariat', UNFCCC, http://www.cop3.de, March.Google Scholar
  12. Lal, R., Kimble, J. M., Follett, R. F., and Cole, C. V.: 1998, The Potential of U.S. Cropland to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect, Sleeping Bear Press, Inc., Chelsea MI, p. 128.Google Scholar
  13. Magleby, R., Sandretto, C. Crosswhite, W., and Osborn, C. T.: 1995, Soil Erosion and Conservation in the United States – An Overview, USDA, ERS, Agric. Info. Bull. No. 718.Google Scholar
  14. Manne, A. and Richels, R. G.: 1998, The Kyoto Protocol: A Cost-Effective Strategy for Meeting Environmental Objectives?, unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, July.Google Scholar
  15. Marland, G. and Schlamadinger, B.: 1997, 'Forests for Carbon Sequestration or Fossil Fuel Substitution A Sensitivity Analysis', Biomass Bioenergy 13, 389–397.Google Scholar
  16. McCarl, B. A.: 1998, Carbon Sequestration via Tree Planting on Agricultural Lands: An Economic Study of Costs and Policy Design Alternatives, Unpublished Report, Texas A&M University, College Station on the web page agrinet.tamu.edu/mccarl.Google Scholar
  17. McCarl, B. A. and Schneider, U.: 1999, 'Curbing Greenhouse Gases: Agriculture's Role', Choices, first quarter, 9–12.Google Scholar
  18. McCarl, B. A. and Schneider, U.: 2000a, 'Agriculture's Role in a Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation World: An Economic Perspective', Rev. Agr. Econ. 22, 134–159.Google Scholar
  19. McCarl, B. A. and Schneider, U.: 2000b, 'Economic Potential of Biomass for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions: Comparative Role in Agriculture', in Proceedings of conference on Sustainable Energy: New Challenges for Agriculture and Implications for Land Use, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  20. McCarl, B. A., Gowen, M., and Yeats, T.: 1997, An Impact Assessment of Climate Change Mitigation Policies and Carbon Permit Prices on the U.S. Agricultural Sector, Climate Change Policies and Programs Division, USEPA, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  21. Metting, F. B., Smith, J. L., and Amthor, J. S.: 2000, 'Science Needs and New Technology for Soil Carbon Sequestration', this volume.Google Scholar
  22. Pierzynski, G. M., Sims, J. T., and Vance, G. F.: 1994, Soils and Environmental Quality, Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Boca Raton FL.Google Scholar
  23. Post, W. M., Izaurralde, R. C., Mann, L. K., and Bliss, N.: 2000, 'Monitoring and Verifying Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration', this volume.Google Scholar
  24. Schneider, U.: 2000, Agricultural Sector Analysis on Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation in the United States, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
  25. Trimble, S. W. and Crosson, P.: 2000, 'U.S. Soil Erosion Rates – Myth and Reality', Science 289, 248–250.Google Scholar
  26. Tyner, W., Abdallah, M., Bottum, C., Doering, O., McCarl, B. A., Miller, W., Liljedahl, B., Peart R., Richey, C., Barber, S., and Lechtenberg, V.: 1979, The Potential of Producing Energy from Agriculture, Purdue School of Agriculture, Final Report to Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress.Google Scholar
  27. United Nations: 1992, Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations Environment Programme Information Unit for Conventions, http://www.unep.ch.Google Scholar
  28. Weyant, J. and Hill, J.: 1999, 'Introduction and Overview', Special Issue: The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi Model Evaluation: Energy Journal'.Google Scholar
  29. Wigley, T. M. L.: 1998, 'The Kyoto Protocol: CO2, CH4 and Climate Implications', Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 2285–2288.Google Scholar
  30. Williams, J. R., Llewelyn, R. V., and Barnaby, G. A: 1990, 'Risk Analysis of Tillage Alternatives with Government Programs', Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 72: 172–181.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregg Marland
    • 1
  • Bruce A. McCarl
    • 2
  • Uwe Schneider
    • 3
  1. 1.Oak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  2. 2.Texas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  3. 3.Iowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations