Policy strategies and challenges for climate change mitigation in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector / Ben Henderson, Stefan Frank, Petr Havlik, Hugo Valin

Frank, Stefan [VerfasserIn] ; Havlik, Petr [VerfasserIn] ; Valin, Hugo [VerfasserIn]

Englisch

Paris : OECD Publishing, 2021

1 Online-Ressource (circa 45 Seiten) : Illustrationen

DOI: 10.1787/47b3493b-en

*GHG emission tax ; abatement subsidy ; Paris Agreement ; Agriculture and Food

Amtsdruckschrift / Government document

Journal of Economic Literature: C61

Journal of Economic Literature: F18

Journal of Economic Literature: Q18

Journal of Economic Literature: Q11

Journal of Economic Literature: Q56

Journal of Economic Literature: Q58

Journal of Economic Literature: Q54

This study uses GLOBIOM the most detailed global economic model of agriculture, land use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to assess the effectiveness of different policies in cutting net emissions from the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector, with a view to helping limit long-term global temperature increases to 1.5°C and 2°C. Trade-offs between emission reductions and impacts on food producers, consumers and government budgets are also evaluated for each policy package. A full complement of policy options is deployed globally across AFOLU, comprising emission taxes for emitting AFOLU activities and subsidies rewarding carbon sequestration. Using a carbon price consistent with the 2°C target (1.5°C target), this is projected to mitigate 8 GtCO2 eq/yr (12 GtCO2 eq/yr) in 2050, representing 89% (129%) reduction in net AFOLU emissions, and 12% (21%) of total anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nearly two-thirds of the net emission reductions are from the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) component of AFOLU, mostly from reduced deforestation. A global carbon tax on AFOLU is found to be twice as effective in lowering emissions as an equivalently priced emission abatement subsidy because the latter keeps high emitting producers in business. However, a tax has trade-offs in terms of lower agricultural production and food consumption, which a subsidy avoids. A shift to lower emission diets by consumers has a much smaller impact on reducing agricultural emissions than any of the policy packages involving taxes on emissions.

Vervielfältigungen (z.B. Kopien, Downloads) sind nur von einzelnen Kapiteln oder Seiten und nur zum eigenen wissenschaftlichen Gebrauch erlaubt. Die Weitergabe an Dritte sowie systematisches Downloaden sind untersagt.