Search

Begin New Search
Proceed to Checkout

Search Results for All:
(Showing results 1 to 5 of 5)



An Empirical Analysis of Urban Form, Transport, and Global Warming

Fabio Grazi, Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, and Jos N. van Ommeren

Year: 2008
Volume: Volume 29
Number: Number 4
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol29-No4-5
View Abstract

Abstract:
Does urban form affect travel choices and thus CO2 emissions by individuals? If this is the case, then urban form and policies that influence it deserve serious attention in the context of long-term climate policy. To address this issue, we examine the impact of urban density on commuting behavior, and the consequences for CO2 emissions. The empirical investigation is based on an instrumental variable approach (IV), so as to take account of endogeneity of residence location. We decompose travel demand into components related to modal split and commuting distance by each mode.



Bio-Energy Use and Low Stabilization Scenarios

Detlef P. van Vuuren, Elie Bellevrat, Alban Kitous and Morna Isaac

Year: 2010
Volume: Volume 31
Number: Special Issue
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol31-NoSI-8
View Abstract

Abstract:
This paper explores the potential for bio-energy production, and the implications of different values for the attainability of low stabilization targets. The impact of scenarios of future land use, yield improvements for bio-energy and available land under different sustainability assumptions (protection of biodiversity, risks of water scarcity and land degradation) are explored. Typical values for sustainable potential of bio-energy production are around 50-150 EJ in 2050 and 200-400 EJ in 2100. Higher bio-energy potential requires a development path with high agricultural yields, dietary patterns with low meat consumption, a low population and/or accepting high conversion rates of natural areas. Scenario analysis using four different models shows that low stabilization levels may be achieved with a bio-energy potential of around 200 EJ p.a. In such scenarios, bio-energy is in most models mainly used outside the transport sector.



The Global Impacts of Biofuel Mandates

Thomas W. Hertel, Wallace E. Tyner and Dileep K. Birur

Year: 2010
Volume: Volume 31
Number: Number 1
DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol31-No1-4
View Abstract

Abstract:
The rise in world oil prices, coupled with heightened interest in the abatement of greenhouse gas emissions, led to a sharp increase in biofuels production around the world. Previous authors have devoted considerable attention to the impacts of these policies on a country-by-country basis. However, there are also strong interactions among these programs, as they compete in world markets for feedstocks and ultimately for a limited supply of global land. In this paper, we offer the first global assessment of biofuel programs � focusing particularly on the EU and US. We begin with an historical analysis of the period 2001-2006, which also permits us to validate the model. We then conduct an ex ante analysis of mandates in the year 2015. We find that if these mandates are indeed fulfilled the impact on global land use could be substantial, with potentially significant implications for greenhouse gas emissions.



Assessing the Interactions among U.S. Climate Policy, Biomass Energy, and Agricultural Trade

Marshall A. Wise, Haewon C. McJeon, Katherine V. Calvin, Leon E. Clarke, and Page Kyle

Year: 2014
Volume: Volume 35
Number: Special Issue
DOI: 10.5547/01956574.35.SI1.9
View Abstract

Abstract:
Energy from biomass is potentially an important contributor to U.S. climate change mitigation efforts. However, large-scale implementation of bioenergy competes with other uses of land, including agriculture and forest production and terrestrial carbon storage in non-commercial lands. And with trade, bioenergy could mean greater reliance on imported energy. Based on EMF-24 policy specifications, this paper explores these dimensions of bioenergy's role in U.S. climate policy and the relationship to alternative measures for ameliorating the trade and land use consequences. It shows how widespread use of biomass in the U.S. could lead to imports; and it highlights that the relative stringency of domestic and international carbon mitigation policy will heavily influence the amount of imports. It demonstrates that limiting biomass imports could alter the balance of trade in other agricultural products. Finally, it shows that increasing efforts to protect both U.S. and international forests could also affect the balance of trade in other agricultural products. Keywords: Biomass, Bioenergy, Land use, Climate mitigation, Agricultural trade



U.S. CO2 Mitigation in a Global Context: Welfare, Trade and Land Use

Ronald D. Sands, Katja Schumacher, and Hannah Forster

Year: 2014
Volume: Volume 35
Number: Special Issue
DOI: 10.5547/01956574.35.SI1.10
View Abstract

Abstract:
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. Keywords: Carbon dioxide, Climate policy, Carbon leakage, Land use, Bioenergy





Begin New Search
Proceed to Checkout

 

© 2022 International Association for Energy Economics | Privacy Policy | Return Policy