Search

We describe carbon dioxide mitigation scenarios specified by the Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF-24) "U.S. Technology Transitions under Alternative Climate Policies," using a global computable general equilibrium model that simulates world energy and agricultural systems through 2050. One set of scenarios covers variation across five major technology groups: end-use technology, carbon dioxide capture and storage, nuclear electricity generation, wind and solar power, and bioenergy. Other scenarios cover variation across policies. Policies such as a renewable portfolio standard for electricity generation or a clean electricity standard have the potential for significant emissions reductions, but at a greater cost than a cap-and-trade scenario with the same reduction in emissions. Cap-andtrade scenarios resulted in carbon dioxide leakage rates of 11 to 20 percent depending on the stringency of the targets. Oil-exporting regions without a mitigation policy may still have significant welfare losses when other world regions reduce emissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union (EU), the US and Australia have each adopted, or are considering, free allocations to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries (EITEIs) in order to minimize emissions leakage and industrial offshoring resulting from climate policy. Differences in the design of these schemes, including how a country defines eligible EITEIs, the scale of allocation and the method of distribution, all have the potential to affect the outcomes of the programmes. In crafting their EITEI allocation formulas, policymakers in each country must balance three important priorities - the economic efficiency of the cap and trade programme, an equitable distribution of the programme's allowances and the effectiveness of the allocations in addressing leakage and competitiveness concerns. These three priorities provide a useful framework for considering the tradeoffs inherent in designing allocation schemes for EITEIs. Through this lens, policy approaches taken by the EU, US and Australia are evaluated with respect to four important questions of allocation policy design: the definition of EITEIs, the costs to be covered, the methodology for distributing allowances and the duration of free allocation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Carbon tax on energy inputs reduces land allocated to crops in the United States. • U.S. carbon tax on energy inputs shifts some cropland to other countries. • Small carbon leakage from shifting agricultural production. • Increase in carbon emissions offset by overall emission reduction. There is increased interest in a carbon tax in the United States (U.S.) and policy makers, farmers, and other stakeholders need to understand the various economic and environmental aspects of such a policy on agriculture. A global agricultural simulation model assesses changes in production, commodity prices, and trade resulting from a U.S. carbon tax. In addition, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land-use change are quantified to evaluate the possible unintended consequence of increasing emissions in the rest of the world. Three U.S. carbon tax scenarios are evaluated ranging from $15–$144 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (t−1 CO 2 -e) and covering a 10-year projection period. The results show that the production cost for corn and soybeans increase by a maximum of 32.6% and 22.4%, respectively at a carbon tax of $144 t−1 CO 2 -e. The production cost increase is compensated in part by an increase in commodity prices. Hence, the decrease in net returns for corn, soybeans, and wheat is 11.4%, 8.7%, and 11.0%, respectively, in the scenario with the highest carbon price. U.S. exports decrease for major commodities such as corn (24.9%), sorghum (20.5%), and wheat (8.7%). Barley, soybeans, and sunflower see an increase in exports of 1.2–8.8%. These changes in trade patterns also result in a re-allocation of land-use in the rest of the world leading to a slight increase in global GHG emissions from land-use change representing 1.8% of total U.S. emissions in 2017. The increase in emissions is small compared to the overall projected reduction from the carbon tax. Policy makers need to be cognizant of leakage in terms of land-use change and that measures must be taken to avoid expansion into carbon rich native vegetation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]