Addressing Uncertainty in Efficient Mitigation of Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The agricultural sector, as an important source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, is under pressure to reduce its contribution to climate change. Decisions on financing and regulating agricultural GHG mitigation are often informed by cost‐effectiveness analysis of the potential GHG reduction in the sector. A commonly used tool for such analysis is the bottom‐up marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) which assesses mitigation options and calculates their cumulative cost‐effective mitigation potential. MACCs are largely deterministic, typically not reflecting uncertainties in underlying input variables. We analyse the uncertainty of GHG mitigation estimates in a bottom‐up MACC for agriculture, for those uncertainties capable of quantitative assessment. Our analysis identifies the sources and types of uncertainties in the cost‐effectiveness analysis and estimates the statistical uncertainty of the results by propagating uncertainty through the MACC via Monte Carlo analysis. For the case of Scottish agriculture, the uncertainty of the cost‐effective abatement potential from agricultural land, as expressed by the coefficient of variation, was between 9.6% and 107.3% across scenarios. This means that the probability of the actual abatement being less than half of the estimated abatement ranged from <1% (in the scenario with lowest uncertainty) to 32% (in the scenario with highest uncertainty). The main contributors to uncertainty are the adoption rate and abatement rate. While most mitigation options appear to be ‘win–win’ under some scenarios, many have a high probability of switching between being cost‐ineffective and cost‐effective.     

Marginal abatement costs of greenhouse gas emissions: broadacre farming in the Great Southern Region of Western Australia

Broadacre agriculture is a major emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG). To improve efficiency of climate change policies, we need to know the marginal abatement costs of agricultural GHG. This article combines calculations of on‐farm GHG emissions with an input‐based distance function approach to estimate the marginal abatement costs for a broadacre farming system in the Great Southern Region of Western Australia. The results show that, in the study region, the average marginal abatement cost for the 1998–2005 periods was $29.3 per tonne CO₂‐e. Farms with higher crop output shares were found to have higher marginal abatement costs. Overall, our results indicate that broadacre agriculture is among the lowest cost sources of GHG mitigation.     

Recent weather fluctuations and agricultural yields: implications for climate change

We summarize recent statistical analyses that link agricultural yields to weather fluctuations. Similar to other sectors, high temperatures play a crucial role in predicting outcomes. Climate change is predicted to significantly increase high temperatures and thereby reduce yields. How good are such models at predicting future outcomes? We show that a statistical model estimated using historic US data on corn and soybean yields from 1950 to 2011 is very capable of predicting aggregate US yields for the years 2012–2015, where 2012 was much hotter than normal and is expected to become the new normal under climate change. We conclude by discussing recent studies on the implication of predicted yield declines with a special focus on adaptation and commodity prices.     

Payments for environmental services to promote “climate‐smart agriculture”? Potential and challenges

Payments for environmental services (PES) have gained wide popularity as approaches to promote environmentally friendly land use or agricultural production practices. Yet academics have also voiced concerns against seeing PES as a panacea. This article discusses whether PES is an appropriate and promising approach to promote so‐called “climate‐smart agriculture” (CSA) practices, which we define as agricultural production practices that contribute to CO₂ emission reductions and/or removals and provide benefits to farmers via increased productivity and profits and reduced vulnerability to climate change. PES appears most promising for the promotion of CSA practices in small‐scale farming contexts with low incomes. Effective design, however, requires solid estimates of cost and benefit flows from CSA adoption over time, accounting for differences in socioeconomic and ecological conditions, and addressing the risk of leakage. Funding for such PES will likely have to come from public sources, and seems most promising where synergies with other objectives such as agricultural development, food security, and climate adaptation or other environmental services exist. The potential of alternative approaches for CSA support such as taxation with rebates for CSA practices, CSA‐related investment support such as microcredits, and hybrid approaches such as conditional microcredit should be further investigated.     

Warming temperatures will likely induce higher premium rates and government outlays for the U.S. crop insurance program

Likely climate change impacts include damages to agricultural production resulting from increased exposure to extreme heat. Considerable uncertainty remains regarding impacts on crop insurance programs. We utilize a panel of U.S. corn yield data to predict the effect of warming temperatures on the mean and variance of yields, as well as crop insurance premium rates and producer subsidies. While we focus on corn, we demonstrate that the subsidy impacts are likely to carry over to other major program crops. We find that warming decreases mean yields and increases yield risk on average, which results in higher premium rates. Under a 1°C warming scenario, we find that premium rates at the 90% coverage level will increase by 39% on average; however, there is considerable statistical uncertainty around this average as the 95% confidence interval spans from 22% to 61%. We also find evidence of extensive cross‐sectional differences as the county‐level rate impacts range from a 10% reduction to a 63% increase. Results indicate that exposure to extreme heat and changes in the coefficient of variation are large drivers of the impacts. Under the 1°C warming scenario, we find that annual subsidy payments for the crop insurance program could increase by as much as $1.5 billion, representing a 22% increase relative to current levels. This estimate increases to 3.7 billion (57%) under a 2°C warming scenario. Our results correspond to a very specific counterfactual: the marginal effect of warming temperatures under current technology, production, and crop insurance enrollments. These impacts are shown to be smaller than the forecasted impacts under a commonly used end‐of‐century general circulation model for even the most optimistic CO₂ emissions projection.     

The economic impacts of technology and climate change: New evidence from U.S. corn yields

Over the past century, U.S. farmers have been offered a steady stream of new agricultural technologies, and more recently, experienced climate change. Because these two events have been occurring simultaneously, identifying their separate effects is difficult, and misimputation is easy. This article explicitly examines the economics of technical change and the interaction between weather and technology as revealed in a half century of panel data on U.S. Midwest rainfed state‐average corn yields. Observed yields reflect two components: yield potential and damage to the potential caused by weather and pests. Yield potential is modeled as a stochastic production frontier where nitrogen fertilization, public corn research, and introduction and adoption of biotech corn seeds impact yield potential and excess heat impacts nitrogen productivity. The yield‐damage/damage‐control function permits biotech corn plants to abate adverse effects of weather and pest events. Results include the following: nitrogen use, public corn research, and biotech seed‐corn adoption increase yield potential; soil moisture stress reduces yield potential, and excess heat severely reduces nitrogen productivity. Biotech corn plants abate yield damage caused by soil moisture stress but not excess heat.