Climatic Change

, Volume 80, Issue 1–2, pp 109–126 | Cite as

Competitiveness of terrestrial greenhouse gas offsets: are they a bridge to the future?



Activities to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by biological soil or forest carbon sequestration predominantly utilize currently known, readily implementable technologies. Many other greenhouse gas emission reduction options require future technological development or must wait for turnover of capital stock. Carbon sequestration options in soils and forests, while ready to go now, generally have a finite life, allowing use until other strategies are developed. This paper reports on an investigation of the competitiveness of biological carbon sequestration from a dynamic and multiple strategy viewpoint. Key factors affecting the competitiveness of terrestrial mitigation options are land availability and cost effectiveness relative to other options including CO2 capture and storage, energy efficiency improvements, fuel switching, and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emission reductions. The analysis results show that, at lower CO2 prices and in the near term, soil carbon and other agricultural/forestry options can be important bridges to the future, initially providing a substantial portion of attainable reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions, but with a limited role in later years. At higher CO2 prices, afforestation and biofuels are more dominant among terrestrial options to offset greenhouse gas emissions. But in the longer run, allowing for capital stock turnover, options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the energy system and biofuels provide an increasing share of potential reductions in total US greenhouse gas emissions.


Mitigation Option Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Soil Carbon Sequestration Integrate Gasification Combine Cycle Marginal Abatement Cost Curve 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams DM, Alig RJ, Callaway JM et al (1996) The forest and agricultural sector optimization model (FASOM): Model description. USDA Forest Service Report PNW-RP-495Google Scholar
  2. Adams DM, Alig RJ, McCarl BA et al (2005) FASOMGHG conceptual structure, and specification: documentation. Texas A&M University, (
  3. Antle JM, Capalbo SM, Mooney S et al (2002) A comparative examination of the efficiency of sequestering carbon in U.S. agricultural soils. Am J Altern Agric 17(3):109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birdsey RA (1996) Carbon storage for major forest types and regions in the conterminous United States. In: Sampson RN, Hair D (eds) Forests and global change, vol 2: forest management opportunities for mitigating carbon emissions chapter 1. American Forests, Washington, District of ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  5. Birdsey RA, Lewis GM (2003) Carbon in United States forests and wood products, 1987–1997: State-by-state estimates. General Technical Report NE-310, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeast Research Station, Newton Square, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  6. David J, Herzog H (2000) The cost of carbon capture. Proceedings of the fifth international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  7. DeAngelo B, de la Chesnaye FC, Beach RH et al (2006) Methane and nitrous oxide mitigation in agriculture. Energy Journal special issue on Multigas Mitigation and Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  8. Delhotal K, de la Chesnaye FC, Gardiner A et al (2006) Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from waste, energy and industry. Energy Journal special issue on Multigas Mitigation and Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  9. Edmonds JA, Pitcher HM, Sands RD (2004) Second generation model 2004: an overview. PNNL-14916, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington (
  10. Fawcett AA, Sands RD (2005) The second generation model: model description and theory. PNNL-15432, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington (
  11. Fawcett AA, Sands RD (2006) Non-CO2 greenhouse gases in the second generation model. Energy Journal special issue on Multigas Mitigation and Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  12. Hotelling H (1931) The economics of exhaustible resources. J Polit Econ 39(2):137–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2002) Good practice guidance and uncertainty management in national greenhouse gas inventories, available on line at
  14. Lal R, Kimble JM, Follett RF et al (1998) The potential of U.S. cropland to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Sleeping Bear Press Inc, Chelsea, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee HC (2002) The dynamic role for carbon sequestration by the U.S. agricultural and forest sectors in greenhouse gas emission mitigation. PhD Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee HC, McCarl BA, Gillig D et al (2005) U.S. agriculture and forestry based greenhouse gas emission mitigation: an economic exploration of time dependent effects. In: Brouwer F, McCarl BA (eds) Rural lands, agriculture and climate beyond 2015: usage and management responses. KluwerGoogle Scholar
  17. Lecocq F, Chomitz KM (2001) Optimal use of carbon sequestration in a global climate change strategy: is there a wooden bridge to a clean energy future? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2635Google Scholar
  18. Marland G, McCarl BA, Schneider UA (2001) Soil carbon: policy and economics. Clim Change 51(1):101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCarl BA, Schneider UA (2000) Agriculture’s role in a greenhouse gas emission mitigation world: an economic perspective. Rev Agric Econ 22(1):134–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCarl BA, Schneider UA (2001) The cost of GHG mitigation in U. S. agriculture and forestry. Sci 294:2481–2482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ottinger D, Godwin D, Harnisch J (2006) Estimating future emissions and potential reductions of HFCs, PFCs and SF6. Energy Journal special issue on Multigas Mitigation and Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  22. Parton WJ (1996) The CENTURY model. In: Powlson DS, Smith P, Smith JU (eds) Evaluation of soil organic matter models using existing long-term datasets. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York pp 283–293Google Scholar
  23. Sands RD (2004) Dynamics of carbon abatement in the second generation model. Energy Econ 26(4):721–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sands RD, Fawcett AA (2005) The second generation model: data, parameters, and implementation. PNNL-15431, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington (
  25. Skog KE, Pingoud K, Smith JE (2004) A method countries can use to estimate changes in carbon stored in harvested wood products and the uncertainty of such estimates. Environ Manage 33 Supplement 1:S65–S73Google Scholar
  26. Smith JE, Heath LS, Jenkins JC (2003) Forest volume-to-biomass models and estimates of mass for live and standing dead trees of U.S. forests. USDA Forest Services, Newton Square, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith JE, Heath LS, Jenkins JC (2004) How to estimate forest carbon for large areas from inventory data. J For 102(5):25–31Google Scholar
  28. United Nations (1992) United Nations framework convention on climate change. New York. Retrieved from
  29. US Energy Information Administration (2002) Annual energy outlook. DOE/EIA-0383(2002), Washington, District of ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  30. US Environmental Protection Agency (2003) Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2001, Annex O. EPA 430-R-03-004, Washington, District of ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  31. West TO, Post WM (2002) Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation: a global data analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:1930–1946CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Agricultural EconomicsTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations