Search

© 2015 The Author(s) Jurisdictions throughout the world are contemplating greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation strategies that will enable meeting long-term GHG targets. Many jurisdictions are now focusing on the 2020–2050 timeframe. We conduct an inter-model comparison of nine California statewide energy models with GHG mitigation scenarios to 2050 to better understand common insights across models, ranges of intermediate GHG targets (i.e., for 2030), necessary technology deployment rates, and future modeling needs for the state. The models are diverse in their representation of the California economy: across scenarios with deep reductions in GHGs, annual statewide GHG emissions are 8–46 % lower than 1990 levels by 2030 and 59–84 % lower by 2050 (not including the Wind-Water-Solar model); the largest cumulative reductions occur in scenarios that favor early mitigation; non-hydroelectric renewables account for 30–58 % of electricity generated for the state in 2030 and 30–89 % by 2050 (not including the Wind-Water-Solar model) ; the transportation sector is decarbonized using a mix of energy efficiency gains and alternative-fueled vehicles; and bioenergy is directed almost exclusively towards the transportation sector, accounting for a maximum of 40 % of transportation energy by 2050. Models suggest that without new policies, emissions from non-energy sectors and from high-global-warming-potential gases may alone exceed California’s 2050 GHG goal. Finally, future modeling efforts should focus on the: economic impacts and logistical feasibility of given scenarios, interactive effects between two or more climate policies, role of uncertainty in the state’s long-term energy planning, and identification of pathways that achieve the dual goals of criteria pollutant and GHG emission reduction.

Investigating Impacts of Fuel Costs on Retail Prices for Local and Non-local Milk ProductsFaculty Profile: Katrina Jessoe (Clark)The Problem of Over-Shooting Supplies of a Tree CropSmallholder Livestock Production and the Global Disease Risk

Investigating Impacts of Fuel Costs on Retail Prices for Local and Non-local Milk Products.The Problem of Over-Shooting Supplies of a Tree Crop.Smallholder Livestock Production and the Global Disease Risk

Agricultural Biotechnology Can Help Mitigate Climate ChangeToward Sustainable Use of Nitrogen Fertilizers in ChinaA Look at California’s Organic Agriculture Production

Biofuels have been criticized for raising food prices and reducing food production. While biofuels have rightly been blamed for contributing to reduced food security at a time of record-high food prices in 2008, they have not been credited with reducing the cost of gasoline, also at a time of record-high prices. We discuss the food-versus-biofuel trade-off associated with biofuel production and model the effects of biofuel production in markets for key crops and gasoline, showing that food consumers lose from biofuels but gasoline consumers enjoy substantial benefits. We also suggest ways to address the food-versus-biofuel debate.

The biofuel industry has received billions of dollars in support from governments around the world, as political leaders respond to new environmental and energy-security imperatives. However, a growing body of research highlights nontrivial costs associated with biofuel production, including environmental destruction and diminished food security, and questions the magnitude of perceived benefits. We discuss the ability of biofuels to accomplish climate change, rural development and energy-security objectives, and consider possible impacts on food production and environmental conservation. We also review methods for judging biofuels, consider how well they contribute to policy objectives, and compare policies that support biofuels.

The Role of Regional Trade Agreements in Trade LiberalizationHow Do the Recent Farm Price Fluctuations Affect Consumer Prices?ARE Faculty Profile: C.-Y. Cynthia LinImpact of Quality Characteristics on Demand for Chicken in Viet Nam

Global climate change poses significant risks to the California economy. Recognizing and responding to these threats, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order #S-3-05 (Schwarzenegger 2005) which called for a 30 percent reduction below business-as-usual of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In September 2006, the California legislature passed and Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law the historic Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), which mandates a first-in-the-nation limit on emissions that cause global warming. In June 2006, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a “Draft Scoping Plan” – the policy roadmap to meet the emissions reduction target of 169 Million Metric Tons of Carbon (MMTCO2) equivalent by 2020 to stabilize at 427 MMTCO2 overall. The CARB board will take up final adoption of this plan in December 2008.During the months leading up to this decision, a financial crisis of global proportions is unfolding. The state, nation and world are caught in serial market failures sparked by the collapse of the housing credit market, and there is much speculation about the impact of declining capital gains revenue on the state budget.Against this backdrop, Energy Efficiency, Innovation, and Job Creation in California analyses the economic impact of CARB’s past and future policies to reduce fossil fuel generated energy demand. California’s achievements in energy efficiency over the last generation are well known, but evidence about their deeper economic implications remains weak. This study examines the economy-wide employment effects of the state’s landmark efficiency policies over the last thirty-five years, and forecasts the economic effects of significantly more aggressive policies proposed to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

What Hope for Climate Multilateralism?Faculty Profile: David Roland-HolstThe Use of Environmental Life-Cycle Analysis for Evaluating BiofuelsEnhancing Producer Returns:United Potato Growers of America

Payments for Environmental Services: Who Gains and Who Loses?Greener Pastures for Globalization: How European Farmers Can Help Save the Planet as Well as the Doha Round.Market Power in the Northwest D'Anjou Pear Industry: Implications for California Agriculture.Faculty Profile: Travis J. Lybbert

The New Farm Bill: Implications for California Agriculture.The Intersections of Energy and Agriculture: Implications of Rising Demand for Biofuels and the Search for the Next Generation.Farm Labor Shortages: How Real, What Response?

How Vulnerable is California Agriculture to Higher Energy Prices?Determinants of California Farmland Values and Potential Impacts of Climate Change.After Methyl Bromide: The Economics of Strawberry Production with Alternative Fumigants.

Co-editors’ Introduction: Special Issue: China’s Agricultural Boom, with Implications for California.Genetically Modified Rice in China: Effects on Farmers–in China and California.China’s Strawberry Industry: An Emerging Competitor for California?New Horizons for Rural Reform in China: Resources, Property Rights and Consumerism.

Trade Horizons for California.Not So Cool? Economic Implications of Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling.ARE Faculty Profile: Alix Peterson ZwaneDo Farms Provide More than Food? Public Perspectives in California.