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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Climate policy 2017-11, Vol.17 (8), p.998-1013
Hauptverfasser: Dorner, Zack, Kerr, Suzi
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 &amp; 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., &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Francis Group 2016</rights><rights>2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor &amp; 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., &amp; 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 &amp; Francis</general><general>Taylor &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution &amp; Environmental Quality</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; 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., &amp; 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 &amp; 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