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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Land use policy 2012-10, Vol.29 (4), p.727-736 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
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 |