Advertisement

Lessons from the ILUC Phenomenon

  • Michael O’HareEmail author
  • Richard J. Plevin
Chapter
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 40)

Abstract

The impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change occurs both through direct life cycle emissions and direct land use change as well as through indirect land use change (ILUC). The latter, in particulars are uncertain and front-loaded: land conversion leads to a large initial discharge that is paid back through reduced direct carbon intensity relative to fossil fuels in the future. This chapter discusses approaches to make policy decisions about accounting for ILUC effects in the presence of uncertainty about the magnitude of the effect and the need to balance a precautionary desire to delay investment till the uncertainty is resolved with the cost of delaying a switch from fossil fuels to biofuels. Given the temporal variation in the trajectory of emissions, policymakers should consider using metrics other than the cumulative discharges to capture the impact of emissions on the climate and the time profile of that impact and costs of positive and negative errors in incorporating ILUC effects in policy implementation. It is also important to recognize the presence of other market-mediated effects such as the fuel rebound effect that can also offset some of the direct savings in carbon emissions from switching to biofuels.

Keywords

Biofuels Indirect land use change (ILUC) Uncertainty Life cycle assessment (LCA) Climate policy 

References

  1. Ackerman, F., and A. Nadal (eds.). 2004. The flawed foundations of general equilibrium: critical essays on economic theory. London; New York, Routledge: Routledge frontiers of political economy.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson-Teixeira, K.J., and E.H. Delucia. 2010. The greenhouse gas value of ecosystems. Global Change Biology 17 (1): 425–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bento, A.M., and R. Klotz 2014. Climate Policy Decisions Require Policy-based Lifecycle Analysis. Environmental Science & Technology.Google Scholar
  4. CARB (2009). Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Volume I, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons. Sacramento, CA, California Air Resources Board: 374.Google Scholar
  5. Chen, X., H. Huang, et al. 2014. Alternative Transportation Fuel Standards: Economic Effects and Climate Benefits. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, X., and M. Khanna. 2012. The Market-Mediated Effects of Low Carbon Fuel Policies. AgBioForum 15 (1): 1–17.Google Scholar
  7. Cherubini, F., G.P. Peters, et al. 2011. CO2 emissions from biomass combustion for bioenergy: atmospheric decay and contribution to global warming. GCB Bioenergy 3 (5): 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ciais, P., C. Sabine, et al. 2013. Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. In Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.K. Plattneret al., 1535 Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Crutzen, P.J., A.R. Mosier, et al. 2007. N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmospherique Chemical Physics Discussions 7 (4): 11191–11205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeCicco, J. 2012. Biofuels and carbon management. Climatic Change 111 (3–4): 627–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drabik, D., and H. de Gorter. 2011. Biofuel policies and carbon leakage. AgBioForum 14 (3): 104–110.Google Scholar
  12. Ekvall, T., and B.P. Weidema. 2004. System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 9 (3): 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Parliament 2009. Fuel Quality Directive 2009/30/EC. European Parliament, Official Journal of the European Union.Google Scholar
  14. Fargione, J., J. Hill, et al. 2008. Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt. Science 319 (5867): 1235–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fargione, J., R. J. Plevin and J. Hill 2010. The Ecological Impact of Biofuels. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 41: 351–77.Google Scholar
  16. Farrell, A.E., R.J. Plevin, et al. 2006. Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals. Science 311: 506–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fingerman, K.R., M.S. Torn, et al. 2010. Accounting for the water impacts of ethanol production. Environmental Research Letters 5 (1): 014020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finnveden, G.R., M.Z. Hauschild, et al. 2009. Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 91(1):1–21.Google Scholar
  19. Giampetro, M., and Kozo Mayumi. 2009. The Biofuel Delusion. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  20. Guo, J., C.J. Hepburn, et al. 2006. Discounting and the social cost of carbon: a closer look at uncertainty. Environmental Science & Policy 9 (3): 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hertel, T.W. 1997. Global trade analysis: modeling and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hertel, T.W., A. Golub, et al. 2010. Effects of US Maize Ethanol on Global Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Estimating Market-Mediated Responses. BioScience 60 (3): 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hochman, G., D. Rajagopal, et al. 2011. The Effect of Biofuels on the International Oil Market. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 33 (3): 402–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (2013). Technical update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis. Washington, DC, U.S. Government.Google Scholar
  25. Kendall, A., B. Chang, et al. 2009. Accounting for Time-Dependent Effects in Biofuel Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations. Environmental Science and Technology 43 (18): 7142–7147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Khanna, M., and C.L. Crago. 2012. Measuring Indirect Land Use Change with Biofuels: Implications for Policy. Annual Review of Resource Economics 4 (1): 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Khanna, M., C.L. Crago, et al. 2011. Can biofuels be a solution to climate change? The implications of land use change-related emissions for policy. Interface Focus 1 (2): 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kløverpris, J. and S. Mueller. 2012. Baseline time accounting: Considering global land use dynamics when estimating the climate impact of indirect land use change caused by biofuels. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 1–12.Google Scholar
  29. Laborde, D. and H. Valin 2011. Modelling Land Use Changes in a Global CGE: Assessing the EU biofuel mandates with the MIRAGE-BioF model. In 14th GTAP Conference, June, 16–18, 2011. Venice, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).Google Scholar
  30. Laborde, D., and H. Valin. 2012. Modeling land-use changes in a global CGE: assessing the EU biofuel mandates with the MIRAGE-BioF model. Climate Change Economics 03 (03): 1250017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Levasseur, A., P. Lesage, et al. 2010. Considering Time in LCA: Dynamic LCA and Its Application to Global Warming Impact Assessments. Environmental Science & Technology.Google Scholar
  32. Mattingly, G. 1989. The Armada. Norwalk, Conn. Easton Press.Google Scholar
  33. Melillo, J.M., J.M. Reilly, et al. 2009. Indirect Emissions from Biofuels: How Important? Science 326 (5958): 1397–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nordhaus, W. 2007. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. Journal of Economic Literature 45 (3): 686–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Hare, M., R.J. Plevin, et al. 2009. Proper accounting for time increases crop-based biofuels greenhouse gas deficit versus petroleum. Environmental Research Letters 4 (2): 024001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Plevin, R.J. 2009. Modeling corn ethanol and climate: A critical comparison of the BESS and GREET models. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13 (4): 495–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Plevin, R.J. 2010. Life Cycle Regulation of Transportation Fuels: Uncertainty and its Policy Implications. Ph.D., University of California—Berkeley.Google Scholar
  38. Plevin, R.J., J.F. Beckman, A. Golub, J. Witcover and M. O’Hare 2015. Carbon accounting and economic model uncertainty of emissions from biofuels-induced land use change. Environmental Science & Technology 49 (5): 2656−2664.Google Scholar
  39. Plevin, R.J., M.A. Delucchi, et al. 2013. Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate-Change Mitigation Benefits Misleads Policy Makers. Journal of Industrial Ecology 18 (1): 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Plevin, R.J., H.K. Gibbs, et al. 2014. Agro-ecological Zone Emission Factor (AEZ-EF) Model (v47). Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) Technical Paper No. 34. GTAP Technical Paper. West Lafayette, Indiana, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.Google Scholar
  41. Plevin, R.J., M. O’Hare, et al. 2010. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Biofuels: Indirect Land Use Change Are Uncertain but May Be Much Greater than Previously Estimated. Environmental Science and Technology 44 (21): 8015–8021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Raiffa, H., and R. Schlaifer. 2008. Introduction to Statistical Decision Theory. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rajagopal, D., and R.J. Plevin. 2013. Implications of market-mediated emissions and uncertainty for biofuel policies. Energy Policy 56: 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reay, D.S., E.A. Davidson, et al. 2012. Global agriculture and nitrous oxide emissions. Nature Climate Change 2 (6): 410–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schelling, T. 1995. Intergenerational Discounting. Energy Policy 23 (4–5): 395–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, et al. 2008. Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change. Science 319 (5867): 1238–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Searchinger, T., R. Edwards, D. Mulligan, R. Heimlich and R. Plevin 2015. Do biofuel policies seek to cut emissions by cutting food? Science 347 (6229): 1420−1422.Google Scholar
  48. Shine, K. 2009. The global warming potential—the need for an interdisciplinary retrial. Climatic Change 96 (4): 467–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smeets, E., A. Tabeau, S. van Berkum, J. Moorad, H. van Meijl and G. Woltjer 2014. The impact of the rebound effect of the use of first generation biofuels in the EU on greenhouse gas emissions: A critical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 38 (0): 393−403.Google Scholar
  50. Stern, N. 2006. Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. HM Treasury, Government Economic Service.Google Scholar
  51. Taheripour, F., D.K. Birur, et al. 2008. Introducing Liquid Biofuels into the GTAP Data Base. GTAP Research Memorandum. W. Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.Google Scholar
  52. Taheripour, F., T.W. Hertel, et al. 2013. The role of irrigation in determining the global land use impacts of biofuels. Energy, Sustainability and Society 3 (1): 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tol, R.S.J., T.K. Berntsen, et al. 2012. A unifying framework for metrics for aggregating the climate effect of different emissions. Environmental Research Letters 7 (4): 044006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. USEPA 2010. Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency: 1120.Google Scholar
  55. Wang, M.Q. 1999. GREET 1.5—Transportation Fuel-Cycle Model, Volume 1: Methodology, Development, Use, and Results. Center for Transportation Research, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  56. Warner, E., Y. Zhang, et al. 2013. Challenges in the estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from biofuel-induced global land-use change. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining. Google Scholar
  57. Witcover, J., S. Yeh, et al. 2013. Policy options to address global land use change from biofuels. Energy Policy 56: 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Goldman School of Public PolicyUniversity of California at BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Transportation StudiesUniversity of California at DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations