Loading…

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture: Avoiding trivial solutions to a global problem

► This research identifies problems delivering greenhouse gas emission reductions from UK agriculture. ► This is because a functional unit must be used to identify the worst GHG emitting farms. ► The Kyoto Protocol's auditing methodology fails to take account of all emissions related to farmer...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Land use policy 2012-10, Vol.29 (4), p.727-736
Main Authors: Franks, Jeremy R., Hadingham, Ben
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-96a34541fdf4748890e3b0545dfdd203056adfc422f6cb856cc2d61ceb978e923
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-96a34541fdf4748890e3b0545dfdd203056adfc422f6cb856cc2d61ceb978e923
container_end_page 736
container_issue 4
container_start_page 727
container_title Land use policy
container_volume 29
creator Franks, Jeremy R.
Hadingham, Ben
description ► This research identifies problems delivering greenhouse gas emission reductions from UK agriculture. ► This is because a functional unit must be used to identify the worst GHG emitting farms. ► The Kyoto Protocol's auditing methodology fails to take account of all emissions related to farmer business decisions. ► Agricultural sector marginal abatement cost curves indicate supply measures alone will be insufficient to reduce emissions. ► Carbon tax appears more suitable that cap-and-trade to change consumer's diets. Three steps are required to successfully and efficiently reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture: (i) identification of the most GHG polluting farms, (ii) determining appropriate mitigation options for these farms, and (iii) selection between these options on the basis of their cost effectiveness. Carbon footprints of a sample of farms together with an analysis of the Kyoto Protocol show the difficulties encountered at each step. These difficulties are caused by: (i) failure to agree which functional unit to use to measure GHG emissions and pollution swapping; (ii) weaknesses in the Kyoto Protocol's territorial/production based accounting methodology, and (iii) lack of cost-effectiveness data. One consequence is that farmers may adopt mitigation activities that reduce their farm's, the UK agriculture sector's and the UK's emissions whilst inadvertently increasing global emissions: a trivial solution because it fails to address GHG emissions as a global problem. These difficulties, together with estimated agriculture sector marginal abatement cost curves that suggests emission reduction from all cost effective mitigation activities will not deliver targeted GHG emission reductions, means policy focus must be on demand rather than supply-side measures: the benefits and disadvantages of cap and trade mechanisms and carbon taxes are briefly discussed within an agricultural context.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.11.009
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1808673992</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0264837711001360</els_id><sourcerecordid>1534832853</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-96a34541fdf4748890e3b0545dfdd203056adfc422f6cb856cc2d61ceb978e923</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkVuLFDEQhYO44Ljub9g8-tJj7p32bV28wYKgu88hnVTaDJnOmHQP-O_N7Ag-jlAQUnznFFUHIUzJlhKq3u22yc5-rXDIacsIpdtWhAwv0Ibqnneyl-Il2hCmRKd5379Cr2vdEULUQNkGjd_Bry7OE54KwPwzNyc82YphH2uNea44lLzHdirRrWlZC7zHd8cc_UmzlHiMNuGa07o8w0vGFk8pj617KHlMsH-DroJNFW7-vtfo6dPHx_sv3cO3z1_v7x46J3qxdIOyXEhBgw_tr_VAgI9ECumD94xwIpX1wQnGgnKjlso55hV1MA69hoHxa_T27Nvm_lqhLqat4CC1-0Bby1BNtOr58D-o5EJzpiW_jDJGBROUycsoaa5US60aqs-oK7nWAsEcStzb8rtB5pSr2Zl_uZpTrqZVy7VJb8_SYLM5xVLN048GSEIY7dmz-YczAe3axwjFVBdhduBjAbcYn-PlMX8AraS6kg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1034818586</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture: Avoiding trivial solutions to a global problem</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><source>PAIS Index</source><creator>Franks, Jeremy R. ; Hadingham, Ben</creator><creatorcontrib>Franks, Jeremy R. ; Hadingham, Ben</creatorcontrib><description>► This research identifies problems delivering greenhouse gas emission reductions from UK agriculture. ► This is because a functional unit must be used to identify the worst GHG emitting farms. ► The Kyoto Protocol's auditing methodology fails to take account of all emissions related to farmer business decisions. ► Agricultural sector marginal abatement cost curves indicate supply measures alone will be insufficient to reduce emissions. ► Carbon tax appears more suitable that cap-and-trade to change consumer's diets. Three steps are required to successfully and efficiently reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture: (i) identification of the most GHG polluting farms, (ii) determining appropriate mitigation options for these farms, and (iii) selection between these options on the basis of their cost effectiveness. Carbon footprints of a sample of farms together with an analysis of the Kyoto Protocol show the difficulties encountered at each step. These difficulties are caused by: (i) failure to agree which functional unit to use to measure GHG emissions and pollution swapping; (ii) weaknesses in the Kyoto Protocol's territorial/production based accounting methodology, and (iii) lack of cost-effectiveness data. One consequence is that farmers may adopt mitigation activities that reduce their farm's, the UK agriculture sector's and the UK's emissions whilst inadvertently increasing global emissions: a trivial solution because it fails to address GHG emissions as a global problem. These difficulties, together with estimated agriculture sector marginal abatement cost curves that suggests emission reduction from all cost effective mitigation activities will not deliver targeted GHG emission reductions, means policy focus must be on demand rather than supply-side measures: the benefits and disadvantages of cap and trade mechanisms and carbon taxes are briefly discussed within an agricultural context.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0264-8377</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-5754</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.11.009</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Abatement ; Accounting ; Agriculture ; Air pollution ; Benefits ; carbon footprint ; Carbon footprint: MACC ; carbon markets ; Cost ; Cost effectiveness ; Emissions trading ; Farmers ; Farms ; Fossil fuels ; Global warming ; greenhouse gas emissions ; Greenhouse gases ; issues and policy ; Land utilization ; marginal abatement cost curve ; Mitigation ; Pollution ; Production ; Taxation ; United Kingdom</subject><ispartof>Land use policy, 2012-10, Vol.29 (4), p.727-736</ispartof><rights>2011 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-96a34541fdf4748890e3b0545dfdd203056adfc422f6cb856cc2d61ceb978e923</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-96a34541fdf4748890e3b0545dfdd203056adfc422f6cb856cc2d61ceb978e923</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27842,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Franks, Jeremy R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hadingham, Ben</creatorcontrib><title>Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture: Avoiding trivial solutions to a global problem</title><title>Land use policy</title><description>► This research identifies problems delivering greenhouse gas emission reductions from UK agriculture. ► This is because a functional unit must be used to identify the worst GHG emitting farms. ► The Kyoto Protocol's auditing methodology fails to take account of all emissions related to farmer business decisions. ► Agricultural sector marginal abatement cost curves indicate supply measures alone will be insufficient to reduce emissions. ► Carbon tax appears more suitable that cap-and-trade to change consumer's diets. Three steps are required to successfully and efficiently reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture: (i) identification of the most GHG polluting farms, (ii) determining appropriate mitigation options for these farms, and (iii) selection between these options on the basis of their cost effectiveness. Carbon footprints of a sample of farms together with an analysis of the Kyoto Protocol show the difficulties encountered at each step. These difficulties are caused by: (i) failure to agree which functional unit to use to measure GHG emissions and pollution swapping; (ii) weaknesses in the Kyoto Protocol's territorial/production based accounting methodology, and (iii) lack of cost-effectiveness data. One consequence is that farmers may adopt mitigation activities that reduce their farm's, the UK agriculture sector's and the UK's emissions whilst inadvertently increasing global emissions: a trivial solution because it fails to address GHG emissions as a global problem. These difficulties, together with estimated agriculture sector marginal abatement cost curves that suggests emission reduction from all cost effective mitigation activities will not deliver targeted GHG emission reductions, means policy focus must be on demand rather than supply-side measures: the benefits and disadvantages of cap and trade mechanisms and carbon taxes are briefly discussed within an agricultural context.</description><subject>Abatement</subject><subject>Accounting</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Air pollution</subject><subject>Benefits</subject><subject>carbon footprint</subject><subject>Carbon footprint: MACC</subject><subject>carbon markets</subject><subject>Cost</subject><subject>Cost effectiveness</subject><subject>Emissions trading</subject><subject>Farmers</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Fossil fuels</subject><subject>Global warming</subject><subject>greenhouse gas emissions</subject><subject>Greenhouse gases</subject><subject>issues and policy</subject><subject>Land utilization</subject><subject>marginal abatement cost curve</subject><subject>Mitigation</subject><subject>Pollution</subject><subject>Production</subject><subject>Taxation</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><issn>0264-8377</issn><issn>1873-5754</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkVuLFDEQhYO44Ljub9g8-tJj7p32bV28wYKgu88hnVTaDJnOmHQP-O_N7Ag-jlAQUnznFFUHIUzJlhKq3u22yc5-rXDIacsIpdtWhAwv0Ibqnneyl-Il2hCmRKd5379Cr2vdEULUQNkGjd_Bry7OE54KwPwzNyc82YphH2uNea44lLzHdirRrWlZC7zHd8cc_UmzlHiMNuGa07o8w0vGFk8pj617KHlMsH-DroJNFW7-vtfo6dPHx_sv3cO3z1_v7x46J3qxdIOyXEhBgw_tr_VAgI9ECumD94xwIpX1wQnGgnKjlso55hV1MA69hoHxa_T27Nvm_lqhLqat4CC1-0Bby1BNtOr58D-o5EJzpiW_jDJGBROUycsoaa5US60aqs-oK7nWAsEcStzb8rtB5pSr2Zl_uZpTrqZVy7VJb8_SYLM5xVLN048GSEIY7dmz-YczAe3axwjFVBdhduBjAbcYn-PlMX8AraS6kg</recordid><startdate>20121001</startdate><enddate>20121001</enddate><creator>Franks, Jeremy R.</creator><creator>Hadingham, Ben</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TV</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20121001</creationdate><title>Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture: Avoiding trivial solutions to a global problem</title><author>Franks, Jeremy R. ; Hadingham, Ben</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-96a34541fdf4748890e3b0545dfdd203056adfc422f6cb856cc2d61ceb978e923</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Abatement</topic><topic>Accounting</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Air pollution</topic><topic>Benefits</topic><topic>carbon footprint</topic><topic>Carbon footprint: MACC</topic><topic>carbon markets</topic><topic>Cost</topic><topic>Cost effectiveness</topic><topic>Emissions trading</topic><topic>Farmers</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Fossil fuels</topic><topic>Global warming</topic><topic>greenhouse gas emissions</topic><topic>Greenhouse gases</topic><topic>issues and policy</topic><topic>Land utilization</topic><topic>marginal abatement cost curve</topic><topic>Mitigation</topic><topic>Pollution</topic><topic>Production</topic><topic>Taxation</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Franks, Jeremy R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hadingham, Ben</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Pollution Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Land use policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Franks, Jeremy R.</au><au>Hadingham, Ben</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture: Avoiding trivial solutions to a global problem</atitle><jtitle>Land use policy</jtitle><date>2012-10-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>727</spage><epage>736</epage><pages>727-736</pages><issn>0264-8377</issn><eissn>1873-5754</eissn><abstract>► This research identifies problems delivering greenhouse gas emission reductions from UK agriculture. ► This is because a functional unit must be used to identify the worst GHG emitting farms. ► The Kyoto Protocol's auditing methodology fails to take account of all emissions related to farmer business decisions. ► Agricultural sector marginal abatement cost curves indicate supply measures alone will be insufficient to reduce emissions. ► Carbon tax appears more suitable that cap-and-trade to change consumer's diets. Three steps are required to successfully and efficiently reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture: (i) identification of the most GHG polluting farms, (ii) determining appropriate mitigation options for these farms, and (iii) selection between these options on the basis of their cost effectiveness. Carbon footprints of a sample of farms together with an analysis of the Kyoto Protocol show the difficulties encountered at each step. These difficulties are caused by: (i) failure to agree which functional unit to use to measure GHG emissions and pollution swapping; (ii) weaknesses in the Kyoto Protocol's territorial/production based accounting methodology, and (iii) lack of cost-effectiveness data. One consequence is that farmers may adopt mitigation activities that reduce their farm's, the UK agriculture sector's and the UK's emissions whilst inadvertently increasing global emissions: a trivial solution because it fails to address GHG emissions as a global problem. These difficulties, together with estimated agriculture sector marginal abatement cost curves that suggests emission reduction from all cost effective mitigation activities will not deliver targeted GHG emission reductions, means policy focus must be on demand rather than supply-side measures: the benefits and disadvantages of cap and trade mechanisms and carbon taxes are briefly discussed within an agricultural context.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.11.009</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0264-8377
ispartof Land use policy, 2012-10, Vol.29 (4), p.727-736
issn 0264-8377
1873-5754
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1808673992
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection; PAIS Index
subjects Abatement
Accounting
Agriculture
Air pollution
Benefits
carbon footprint
Carbon footprint: MACC
carbon markets
Cost
Cost effectiveness
Emissions trading
Farmers
Farms
Fossil fuels
Global warming
greenhouse gas emissions
Greenhouse gases
issues and policy
Land utilization
marginal abatement cost curve
Mitigation
Pollution
Production
Taxation
United Kingdom
title Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture: Avoiding trivial solutions to a global problem
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T10%3A28%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reducing%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions%20from%20agriculture:%20Avoiding%20trivial%20solutions%20to%20a%20global%20problem&rft.jtitle=Land%20use%20policy&rft.au=Franks,%20Jeremy%20R.&rft.date=2012-10-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=727&rft.epage=736&rft.pages=727-736&rft.issn=0264-8377&rft.eissn=1873-5754&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.11.009&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1534832853%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-96a34541fdf4748890e3b0545dfdd203056adfc422f6cb856cc2d61ceb978e923%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1034818586&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true