Implications of global emission policy scenarios for domestic agriculture: a New Zealand case study
Agricultural GHG mitigation policies are important if ambitious climate change goals are to be achieved, and have the potential to significantly lower global mitigation costs [Reisinger, A., Havlik, P., Riahi, K., van Vliet, O., Obersteiner, M., & Herrero, M. (2013). Implications of alternative...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Climate policy 2017-11, Vol.17 (8), p.998-1013 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1013 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | 998 |
container_title | Climate policy |
container_volume | 17 |
creator | Dorner, Zack Kerr, Suzi |
description | Agricultural GHG mitigation policies are important if ambitious climate change goals are to be achieved, and have the potential to significantly lower global mitigation costs [Reisinger, A., Havlik, P., Riahi, K., van Vliet, O., Obersteiner, M., & Herrero, M. (2013). Implications of alternative metrics for global mitigation costs and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Climatic Change, 117, 677-690]. In the post-Paris world of 'nationally determined contributions' to mitigation, the prospects for agricultural mitigation policies may rest on whether they are in the national economic interest of large agricultural producers. New Zealand is a major exporter of livestock products; this article uses New Zealand as a case study to consider the policy implications of three global policy scenarios at the global, national and farm levels. Building on global modelling, a model dairy farm and a model sheep and beef farm are used to estimate the changes in profit when agricultural emissions are priced and mitigated globally or not, and priced domestically or not, in 2020. Related to these scenarios is the metric or GHG exchange rate. Most livestock emissions are non-CO
2
, with methane being particularly sensitive to the choice of metric. The results provide evidence that farm profitability is more sensitive to differing international policy scenarios than national economic welfare. The impact of the choice of metric is not as great as the impact of whether other countries mitigate agricultural emissions or not. Livestock farmers do best when agricultural emissions are not priced, as livestock commodity prices rise significantly due to competition for land from forestry. However, efficient farmers may still see a rise in profitability when agricultural emissions are fully priced worldwide.
Policy relevance
Exempting agricultural emissions from mitigation significantly increases the costs of limiting warming to 2 °C, placing the burden on other sectors. However, there may be a large impact on farmers if agricultural emissions are priced domestically when other countries are not doing the same. The impacts of global and national climate policies on farmers need to be better understood in order for climate policies to be politically sustainable. Transitional assistance that is not linked to emission levels could help, as long as the incentives to mitigate are maintained. In the long run, efficient farmers may benefit from climate policy; international efforts shou |
doi_str_mv | 10.1080/14693062.2016.1215285 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_14693062_2016_1215285</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1943054576</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-fe405898954b5976902f07ccfd421d0bf5adbe36e882813ef266e6a7c157ef9c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM9PwyAUx4nRxDn9E0xIPHcCLbT1pFn8sWTRi168kFcKCwstE9os_e9l2bx6gvA-3_ceH4RuKVlQUpF7Wog6J4ItGKFiQRnlrOJnaEZLzrKy4OV5uicmO0CX6CrGLUlkXeQzpFbdzlkFg_V9xN7gjfMNOKw7G2N6wzufyhOOSvcQrI_Y-IBb3-k4WIVhE6wa3TAG_YABv-s9_tbgoG-xgqhxHMZ2ukYXBlzUN6dzjr5enj-Xb9n643W1fFpnquBkyIwuCK_qquZFw-tS1IQZUipl2oLRljSGQ9voXOiqYhXNtWFCaAGlorzUplb5HN0d--6C_xnTgnLrx9CnkZKmzxKeVIhE8SOlgo8xaCN3wXYQJkmJPPiUfz7lwac8-Uy5x2PO9klBB3sfXCsHmJwPJkCvbJT5_y1-ARx6fSg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1943054576</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Implications of global emission policy scenarios for domestic agriculture: a New Zealand case study</title><source>Taylor & Francis Online</source><source>PAIS Index</source><creator>Dorner, Zack ; Kerr, Suzi</creator><creatorcontrib>Dorner, Zack ; Kerr, Suzi</creatorcontrib><description>Agricultural GHG mitigation policies are important if ambitious climate change goals are to be achieved, and have the potential to significantly lower global mitigation costs [Reisinger, A., Havlik, P., Riahi, K., van Vliet, O., Obersteiner, M., & Herrero, M. (2013). Implications of alternative metrics for global mitigation costs and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Climatic Change, 117, 677-690]. In the post-Paris world of 'nationally determined contributions' to mitigation, the prospects for agricultural mitigation policies may rest on whether they are in the national economic interest of large agricultural producers. New Zealand is a major exporter of livestock products; this article uses New Zealand as a case study to consider the policy implications of three global policy scenarios at the global, national and farm levels. Building on global modelling, a model dairy farm and a model sheep and beef farm are used to estimate the changes in profit when agricultural emissions are priced and mitigated globally or not, and priced domestically or not, in 2020. Related to these scenarios is the metric or GHG exchange rate. Most livestock emissions are non-CO
2
, with methane being particularly sensitive to the choice of metric. The results provide evidence that farm profitability is more sensitive to differing international policy scenarios than national economic welfare. The impact of the choice of metric is not as great as the impact of whether other countries mitigate agricultural emissions or not. Livestock farmers do best when agricultural emissions are not priced, as livestock commodity prices rise significantly due to competition for land from forestry. However, efficient farmers may still see a rise in profitability when agricultural emissions are fully priced worldwide.
Policy relevance
Exempting agricultural emissions from mitigation significantly increases the costs of limiting warming to 2 °C, placing the burden on other sectors. However, there may be a large impact on farmers if agricultural emissions are priced domestically when other countries are not doing the same. The impacts of global and national climate policies on farmers need to be better understood in order for climate policies to be politically sustainable. Transitional assistance that is not linked to emission levels could help, as long as the incentives to mitigate are maintained. In the long run, efficient farmers may benefit from climate policy; international efforts should focus on mitigation options and effective domestic policy development, rather than on metrics.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1469-3062</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1752-7457</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2016.1215285</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Taylor & Francis</publisher><subject>Agricultural economics ; agricultural emissions ; Agricultural policy ; Agriculture ; Agronomy ; Ambition ; Beef ; Biological competition ; Carbon dioxide ; Case studies ; Climate ; Climate change ; Climate policy ; Commodity prices ; Competition ; Costs ; Dairy farming ; Dairy farms ; Development policy ; economic impact ; Economic welfare ; Economics ; Emission analysis ; Emissions ; Environmental policy ; Farmers ; Farms ; Foreign exchange rates ; Foreign policy ; Forestry ; Greenhouse effect ; Greenhouse gases ; Impact analysis ; Incentives ; International policies ; International policy ; Land ; Livestock ; Livestock industry ; methane ; metrics ; Mitigation ; Mitigation costs ; Modelling ; nitrous oxide ; Policy making ; Pricing ; Pricing policies ; Profitability ; Prospects ; Sheep</subject><ispartof>Climate policy, 2017-11, Vol.17 (8), p.998-1013</ispartof><rights>2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2016</rights><rights>2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-fe405898954b5976902f07ccfd421d0bf5adbe36e882813ef266e6a7c157ef9c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-fe405898954b5976902f07ccfd421d0bf5adbe36e882813ef266e6a7c157ef9c3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4216-6714</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14693062.2016.1215285$$EPDF$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2016.1215285$$EHTML$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27843,27901,27902,59620,60409</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dorner, Zack</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kerr, Suzi</creatorcontrib><title>Implications of global emission policy scenarios for domestic agriculture: a New Zealand case study</title><title>Climate policy</title><description>Agricultural GHG mitigation policies are important if ambitious climate change goals are to be achieved, and have the potential to significantly lower global mitigation costs [Reisinger, A., Havlik, P., Riahi, K., van Vliet, O., Obersteiner, M., & Herrero, M. (2013). Implications of alternative metrics for global mitigation costs and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Climatic Change, 117, 677-690]. In the post-Paris world of 'nationally determined contributions' to mitigation, the prospects for agricultural mitigation policies may rest on whether they are in the national economic interest of large agricultural producers. New Zealand is a major exporter of livestock products; this article uses New Zealand as a case study to consider the policy implications of three global policy scenarios at the global, national and farm levels. Building on global modelling, a model dairy farm and a model sheep and beef farm are used to estimate the changes in profit when agricultural emissions are priced and mitigated globally or not, and priced domestically or not, in 2020. Related to these scenarios is the metric or GHG exchange rate. Most livestock emissions are non-CO
2
, with methane being particularly sensitive to the choice of metric. The results provide evidence that farm profitability is more sensitive to differing international policy scenarios than national economic welfare. The impact of the choice of metric is not as great as the impact of whether other countries mitigate agricultural emissions or not. Livestock farmers do best when agricultural emissions are not priced, as livestock commodity prices rise significantly due to competition for land from forestry. However, efficient farmers may still see a rise in profitability when agricultural emissions are fully priced worldwide.
Policy relevance
Exempting agricultural emissions from mitigation significantly increases the costs of limiting warming to 2 °C, placing the burden on other sectors. However, there may be a large impact on farmers if agricultural emissions are priced domestically when other countries are not doing the same. The impacts of global and national climate policies on farmers need to be better understood in order for climate policies to be politically sustainable. Transitional assistance that is not linked to emission levels could help, as long as the incentives to mitigate are maintained. In the long run, efficient farmers may benefit from climate policy; international efforts should focus on mitigation options and effective domestic policy development, rather than on metrics.</description><subject>Agricultural economics</subject><subject>agricultural emissions</subject><subject>Agricultural policy</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Agronomy</subject><subject>Ambition</subject><subject>Beef</subject><subject>Biological competition</subject><subject>Carbon dioxide</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Climate</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>Climate policy</subject><subject>Commodity prices</subject><subject>Competition</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Dairy farming</subject><subject>Dairy farms</subject><subject>Development policy</subject><subject>economic impact</subject><subject>Economic welfare</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Emission analysis</subject><subject>Emissions</subject><subject>Environmental policy</subject><subject>Farmers</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Foreign exchange rates</subject><subject>Foreign policy</subject><subject>Forestry</subject><subject>Greenhouse effect</subject><subject>Greenhouse gases</subject><subject>Impact analysis</subject><subject>Incentives</subject><subject>International policies</subject><subject>International policy</subject><subject>Land</subject><subject>Livestock</subject><subject>Livestock industry</subject><subject>methane</subject><subject>metrics</subject><subject>Mitigation</subject><subject>Mitigation costs</subject><subject>Modelling</subject><subject>nitrous oxide</subject><subject>Policy making</subject><subject>Pricing</subject><subject>Pricing policies</subject><subject>Profitability</subject><subject>Prospects</subject><subject>Sheep</subject><issn>1469-3062</issn><issn>1752-7457</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM9PwyAUx4nRxDn9E0xIPHcCLbT1pFn8sWTRi168kFcKCwstE9os_e9l2bx6gvA-3_ceH4RuKVlQUpF7Wog6J4ItGKFiQRnlrOJnaEZLzrKy4OV5uicmO0CX6CrGLUlkXeQzpFbdzlkFg_V9xN7gjfMNOKw7G2N6wzufyhOOSvcQrI_Y-IBb3-k4WIVhE6wa3TAG_YABv-s9_tbgoG-xgqhxHMZ2ukYXBlzUN6dzjr5enj-Xb9n643W1fFpnquBkyIwuCK_qquZFw-tS1IQZUipl2oLRljSGQ9voXOiqYhXNtWFCaAGlorzUplb5HN0d--6C_xnTgnLrx9CnkZKmzxKeVIhE8SOlgo8xaCN3wXYQJkmJPPiUfz7lwac8-Uy5x2PO9klBB3sfXCsHmJwPJkCvbJT5_y1-ARx6fSg</recordid><startdate>20171117</startdate><enddate>20171117</enddate><creator>Dorner, Zack</creator><creator>Kerr, Suzi</creator><general>Taylor & Francis</general><general>Taylor & Francis Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4216-6714</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20171117</creationdate><title>Implications of global emission policy scenarios for domestic agriculture: a New Zealand case study</title><author>Dorner, Zack ; Kerr, Suzi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-fe405898954b5976902f07ccfd421d0bf5adbe36e882813ef266e6a7c157ef9c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Agricultural economics</topic><topic>agricultural emissions</topic><topic>Agricultural policy</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Agronomy</topic><topic>Ambition</topic><topic>Beef</topic><topic>Biological competition</topic><topic>Carbon dioxide</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Climate</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>Climate policy</topic><topic>Commodity prices</topic><topic>Competition</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Dairy farming</topic><topic>Dairy farms</topic><topic>Development policy</topic><topic>economic impact</topic><topic>Economic welfare</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Emission analysis</topic><topic>Emissions</topic><topic>Environmental policy</topic><topic>Farmers</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Foreign exchange rates</topic><topic>Foreign policy</topic><topic>Forestry</topic><topic>Greenhouse effect</topic><topic>Greenhouse gases</topic><topic>Impact analysis</topic><topic>Incentives</topic><topic>International policies</topic><topic>International policy</topic><topic>Land</topic><topic>Livestock</topic><topic>Livestock industry</topic><topic>methane</topic><topic>metrics</topic><topic>Mitigation</topic><topic>Mitigation costs</topic><topic>Modelling</topic><topic>nitrous oxide</topic><topic>Policy making</topic><topic>Pricing</topic><topic>Pricing policies</topic><topic>Profitability</topic><topic>Prospects</topic><topic>Sheep</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dorner, Zack</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kerr, Suzi</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Climate policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dorner, Zack</au><au>Kerr, Suzi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Implications of global emission policy scenarios for domestic agriculture: a New Zealand case study</atitle><jtitle>Climate policy</jtitle><date>2017-11-17</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>998</spage><epage>1013</epage><pages>998-1013</pages><issn>1469-3062</issn><eissn>1752-7457</eissn><abstract>Agricultural GHG mitigation policies are important if ambitious climate change goals are to be achieved, and have the potential to significantly lower global mitigation costs [Reisinger, A., Havlik, P., Riahi, K., van Vliet, O., Obersteiner, M., & Herrero, M. (2013). Implications of alternative metrics for global mitigation costs and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Climatic Change, 117, 677-690]. In the post-Paris world of 'nationally determined contributions' to mitigation, the prospects for agricultural mitigation policies may rest on whether they are in the national economic interest of large agricultural producers. New Zealand is a major exporter of livestock products; this article uses New Zealand as a case study to consider the policy implications of three global policy scenarios at the global, national and farm levels. Building on global modelling, a model dairy farm and a model sheep and beef farm are used to estimate the changes in profit when agricultural emissions are priced and mitigated globally or not, and priced domestically or not, in 2020. Related to these scenarios is the metric or GHG exchange rate. Most livestock emissions are non-CO
2
, with methane being particularly sensitive to the choice of metric. The results provide evidence that farm profitability is more sensitive to differing international policy scenarios than national economic welfare. The impact of the choice of metric is not as great as the impact of whether other countries mitigate agricultural emissions or not. Livestock farmers do best when agricultural emissions are not priced, as livestock commodity prices rise significantly due to competition for land from forestry. However, efficient farmers may still see a rise in profitability when agricultural emissions are fully priced worldwide.
Policy relevance
Exempting agricultural emissions from mitigation significantly increases the costs of limiting warming to 2 °C, placing the burden on other sectors. However, there may be a large impact on farmers if agricultural emissions are priced domestically when other countries are not doing the same. The impacts of global and national climate policies on farmers need to be better understood in order for climate policies to be politically sustainable. Transitional assistance that is not linked to emission levels could help, as long as the incentives to mitigate are maintained. In the long run, efficient farmers may benefit from climate policy; international efforts should focus on mitigation options and effective domestic policy development, rather than on metrics.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Taylor & Francis</pub><doi>10.1080/14693062.2016.1215285</doi><tpages>16</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4216-6714</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1469-3062 |
ispartof | Climate policy, 2017-11, Vol.17 (8), p.998-1013 |
issn | 1469-3062 1752-7457 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_14693062_2016_1215285 |
source | Taylor & Francis Online; PAIS Index |
subjects | Agricultural economics agricultural emissions Agricultural policy Agriculture Agronomy Ambition Beef Biological competition Carbon dioxide Case studies Climate Climate change Climate policy Commodity prices Competition Costs Dairy farming Dairy farms Development policy economic impact Economic welfare Economics Emission analysis Emissions Environmental policy Farmers Farms Foreign exchange rates Foreign policy Forestry Greenhouse effect Greenhouse gases Impact analysis Incentives International policies International policy Land Livestock Livestock industry methane metrics Mitigation Mitigation costs Modelling nitrous oxide Policy making Pricing Pricing policies Profitability Prospects Sheep |
title | Implications of global emission policy scenarios for domestic agriculture: a New Zealand case study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T15%3A47%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Implications%20of%20global%20emission%20policy%20scenarios%20for%20domestic%20agriculture:%20a%20New%20Zealand%20case%20study&rft.jtitle=Climate%20policy&rft.au=Dorner,%20Zack&rft.date=2017-11-17&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=998&rft.epage=1013&rft.pages=998-1013&rft.issn=1469-3062&rft.eissn=1752-7457&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/14693062.2016.1215285&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1943054576%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1943054576&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |