common reference scenarios: a synthesis of national-level economic and biophysical model results...
TRANSCRIPT
Common Reference Scenarios:A Synthesis of National-level Economic and Biophysical Model Results
Presented at Forestry and Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Modeling Forum Workshop
Shepherdstown, WVOctober 1, 2001
Presented by Brian C. Murray
P.O. Box 12194 · 3040 Cornwallis Road · Research Triangle Park, NC 27709Phone: 919-541-6468 · Fax: 919-541-6683 · [email protected] · www.rti.org
Objectives
Obtain national-level estimates of GHG mitigation in Forest and Agriculture sectors Baseline/Business-as-Usual (BAU) With Incentives
Demonstrate commonalities and differences across model types Biophysical v Economic Economic
Sectoral vs Multi-sector Static v Dynamic National vs Global
ModelsModel Type Sectors Geographic
CoverageFORCARB Birdsey, Heath et al
Biophsyical Forest US
IPCC Paustian et al
Biophsyical Agriculture US
Century Paustian et al
Biophsyical Agriculture US
USMP ERS House, Lewandrowski, Peters
Economic Agriculture US
USMP WRI Faeth and Greenhalgh
Economic Agriculture US
ASMGHG Schneider and McCarl
Economic Agriculture US
FASOM-GHG Adams, McCarl et al
Economic Forest andAgriculture
US private lands
Alavalapati and Wong Economic Multi-sector CGE w/emphasis on forestsector
World
Scenario Features
Prices: $ 0, $3-27 per ton, CO2
Activities: Forestry, Agriculture, Land Use Change (level of detail at discretion of modelers)
Time Horizon: 2000-2100
Output
GHGs: CO2, N2O, CH4 (all in CO2 equiv)
Land Use Change Commodity Market Effects Welfare Costs
Biophysical Models: Business-As-Usual Sequestration
FORCARB
BAU Forest C Sequestration: US (2010)
-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Forest management
Afforestation
Deforestation
Net forest CSequestration
MM tons/year CO2
FORCARB (2)
Forest C Sequestration by Component: MM Tons/Year CO2
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Total tree growth
Total tree cut
Soil
Forest floor
Understory
Products in Use
Products in landfill
Logging Residue
Total C sequestered
IPCC and Century: BAU Sequestration Rates for Agriculture
IPCC
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
MM to
ns CO
2/yea
r
Soil C fromCRP
Soil C fromLand-Use Change
Soil C fromReduced TillageIntensity
Century
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
MM to
ns/yr
CO2
Emissions/sinks:hay/pasture
Emissions/sinks:CRP
Emissions/sinks:annual crops - no-tilltillage
Emissions/sinks:annual crops -reduced tillage
Emissions/sinks:annual crops -conventional tillage
Economic Models
BAU Comparison for Cropland Carbon: Biophysical v Economic Models
BAU C Sequestration on Cropland
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
ASMGHG USMP/WRI Century IPCC
MM
to
ns
/ye
ar
CO
2
BAU Comparison for Forestland:Biophysical v Economic
BAU C Sequestration on Forestland FASOM-GHG is private land only
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
FORCARB FASOM-GHG
MM
to
ns
/ye
ar
CO
2
GHG Mitigation Supply Functions
Net Emissions from Agriculture with Incentives
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
$0 $3 $7 $14 $27
Price ($/ton CO2)
MM
to
ns/y
ear
CO
2
Total Ag soilmanagementsequestration
Ag soilmanagement -emissions
Embodiedenergy fromcropproduction -emissions
Totalemissionsacross allactivities
USMP/WRI
GHG Mitigation Supply Function for U.S. Agriculture: Net Emission Reductions Relative to BAU
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
MM tons/year CO2
Pri
ce
($
/to
n C
O2
)
Total Ag soilmanagementsequestration
Ag soilmanagement -emissions
Embodiedenergy fromcrop production- emissions
Total emissionsacross allactivities
USMP WRI (2)
GHG Mitigation Supply Function - Afforestation and Agriculture
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
$35.00
$40.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
MM tons/year, CO2
$/t
on
CO
2
Afforestation
Ag soil management
Otheractivities…(emissionsreductions)
Total across all activities
USMP/ERS
Net CO2 Emissions from U.S. Agriculture with Incentives
-800
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30
Price ($/ton CO2)
MM
to
ns
/ye
ar
CO
2
Soil Organic Matterof Cropland
Energy Crops
Afforestation
Fossil Fuel Use
All other CO2
Total CO2
ASMGHG
-800,000
-600,000
-400,000
-200,000
0
200,000
400,000
MM tons/year CO2 equivalent
$0 $3 $7 $14 $27
Price ($/ton CO2 equiv)
Net Emissions with Incentives: All GHG's
CO2
CH4
N2O
ALL GHG
ASMGHG (2)
GHG Mitigation Supply Function for Agriculture and Afforestation
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1,000
MM tons/year CO2
Pri
ce
($
/to
n C
O2
)
Ag Soil CManagement
Energy Crops
Afforestation
All other GHGmitigation
Total GHGMitigation
ASMGHG (3)
FASOM-GHGNet GHG Emissions from Forestry and Agriculture over Time with
Incentives
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Year
MM
to
ns
/ye
ar
CO
2 e
qu
iv
$0
$3
$7
$14
$27
FASOM-GHG (2)
Forest C Sequestration over Time BAU and with Incentives
-1,000
-500
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Decade
MM
to
ns
CO
2 $0
$7
$27
FASOM-GHG (3)GHG Mitigation Supply from Forestry and Agriculture
All GHGs, All Activities2020
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000MM tons/year CO2 equiv
Pri
ce
($
/to
n C
O2
)
CarbonSequestered inCropped Soil
Carbon in Forests
Carbon saved byBiomass forElectricity
CH4 from EntericFermentation
All other sources
Total GHGMitigation
Aggregate Supply Function Comparison
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
MM tons/year CO2
Pri
ce
($
/to
n C
O2
) USMP / ERS
USMP / WRI
ASMGHG
FASOM-GHG(2020)
CGE/Forest Sector: Alavalapati and Wong
Change in Steady State Forest Product Carbon with Incentives
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
MM tons CO2
Pri
ce (
$/t
on
CO
2)
Land Use Change Estimates
Land Use : USMP/WRI
Crop Land Area with Incentives
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
$0 $3 $7 $14 $27
Price ($/ton CO2)
MM
Acre
s
Land Use: USMP/ERS
Agriculture to Forestry Land Movement with Incentives
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
$35.00
$40.00
0 20 40 60 80
MM Acres
Pri
ce (
$/t
on
CO
2)
Cropland to Forest
Pasture/range toForest
Total Ag Land toForest
Land Use: ASM-GHGAgricultural Land Area with Incentives
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
$0 $3 $7 $14 $27
MM
A
cre
s
Cropland
Pastureland
Energycrop land
Afforestation with Incentives
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30
Price ($/ton CO2)
MM
Ac
re
s
Land Use: FASOM-GHGCropland Tillage with Incentives: Deviations from BAU
-60.0%
-40.0%
-20.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
$0 $3 $7 $14 $27
Price ($/ton CO2)
Perc
en
tag
e c
han
ge f
rom
BA
U
Zero Tillage Cropland
Conservation Tillage
Conventional Tillage
Land Use: FASOM-GHG (2)
Net Forestation (Afforestation - Deforestation) with Incentives: 2000-2010
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
MM Acres
Pri
ce (
$/t
on
CO
2)
Land Use: Model Comparison
Afforestation with Incentives
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
MM Acres
CO
2 P
rice (
$/t
on
)
USMP/ERS
ASMGHG
FASOM-GHG
Commodity Prices
Commodity Prices: USMP/WRI
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30
CO2 price
Inde
x (B
AU
= 1
00)
Corn
wheat
soybean
beef for slaughter
hogs for slaughter
Commodity Prices: ASMGHG
Agriculture Price Indices
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30
CO2 price ($/ton)
Pri
ce
In
de
x (
BA
U =
10
0)
Crop
Livestock
Commodity Prices: FASOM-GHG
Commodity Price Indices: 2010
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30
CO2 Price ($/ton)
Pri
ce
In
de
x (
BA
U =
10
0)
" CropProductPrices"
" AnimalProductPrices"
" ProducerPrice Indexfor Timber"
Timber Prices over Time: FASOM-GHG
Timber Price Indices
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Pri
ce I
nd
ex (
BA
U =
100)
$0
$3
$7
$14
$27
Observation
Expanding the Scope of CO2 related activities covered has a greater impact on Ag sector mitigation than expanding non-C02 GHGs covered
Observation (2)
Modeling Forestry-Ag feedback is critical, especially in estimates of Land Use Change
Overestimate afforestation if we ignore rent-enhancing Ag management responses to CO2 prices
Underestimate afforestation if we ignore rent-enhancing forest management responses to CO2 prices (especially at low prices)
Observation (3)
More temporal dynamics are needed
Forestry - absolutely essential
Saturation and Permanence issues in both sectors
Ability to assess policies aimed at specific future time periods (re: 2008-2012)
Where are the Opportunities ?
Opportunity Feature
Tillage Management Economic at low prices, but tops out at about 200 MMtons
Afforestation Adoption steadily rises with price, benefits deferredIntensified Forestmanagement
Large opportunity in first few decades
Biofuels Potential effects are enormous, but only at highest prices
Breakout Groups
Breakout Group Activities
Meet when opportunities arise
Use Questions/Issues raised in handout as a guide to discussions Right theme ? Assess current models/results Future modeling directions Study group topics
Report back to the Plenary on Day 3
Breakout Groups
Group 1 Group 2
Reilly John Horowitz John
Andrasko Ken Alavalapati JanakiBanfield Ed de la Chesnaye FranciscoBirdsey Richard Desjardins RayBoehm Marie Henderson JimFeng Hongli Izaurralde CesarFranco Guido Joyce LindaHickman Cliff Kurkalova LubaHouse Bob Lempriere TonyHunt Ray Lewandrowski JanKling Cathy MacGregor BobKruger Dina Parks PeterMcConkey Brian Pizer BillyPlantinga Andrew Sands RonShapouri Hosein Wirth TomSkog KenSohngen Brent
Breakout Groups
Group 3 Group 4
Paustian Keith Alig Ralph
Abt Bob Amacher GregBurnieaux Jean-Marc Darwin RoyCapalbo Susan Greenhalgh SuzieChivukula Krishna Hardie IanChomitz Ken Heath LindaJawson Mike Hohenstein BillJones Carol Hrubovcak JimJunkins Bruce Johnson DonLubowski Ruben Kulshrestha S.N.McNulty Steve McCarl BrucePeters Mark Mooney SianSathaye Jayant Mosier ArvinSchneider Uwe Murray Brian
Sedjo Roger