Greenhouse gas abatement costs are heterogeneous between Australian grain farms

被引:5
|
作者
Dumbrell, Nikki P. [1 ,5 ]
Kragt, Marit E. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Meier, Elizabeth A. [4 ]
Biggs, Jody S. [4 ]
Thorburn, Peter J. [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Western Australia, Sch Agr & Resource Econ, M089-35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, Australia
[2] Univ Western Australia, Ctr Environm Econ & Policy, M089-35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, Australia
[3] Univ Western Australia, Inst Agr, M089-35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, Australia
[4] CSIRO Agr & Food, Queensland Biosci Precinct, 306 Carmody Rd, St Lucia, Qld, Australia
[5] Univ Adelaide, Ctr Global Food & Resources, 10 Pulteney St, Adelaide, SA, Australia
关键词
Bio-economic modeling; Climate change policies; Emissions reduction; Farm economic modeling; Greenhouse gas mitigation; APSIM; CARBON SEQUESTRATION RATES; PRODUCTION SYSTEMS; MITIGATION; EMISSIONS; APSIM; AGRICULTURE; SIMULATION; WATER;
D O I
10.1007/s13593-017-0438-6
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
Globally, agriculture is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. The environment (e.g., soils and climate) and management influence agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and the potential to reduce emissions. For agriculture to contribute to greenhouse gas abatement in the long term, it is important to identify low-cost mitigation actions that farmers can adopt. It is hypothesized that greenhouse gas abatement potential and the associated costs will differ substantially between environments in Australia. Seven alternative management scenarios were identified as both suitable for adoption across different grain growing environments in Australia and potentially able to provide greenhouse gas abatement. The Agricultural Production Systems Simulator was used to simulate these alternative management scenarios over a 25-year period and analyze the potential for Australian grain farmers, across contrasting environments, to increase soil organic carbon stocks and/or reduce nitrous oxide emissions. This analysis was paired with a whole-farm economic analysis to determine the implications of the different greenhouse gas abatement scenarios on farm profitability. Results from case studies in Australia's three main grain growing regions demonstrate that significant heterogeneity exists in the biophysical potential and costs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across locations. The maximum predicted abatement potential for the case study sites varied from 0.34 to 2.03 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per hectare per year. In most simulations, greenhouse gas abatement came at a cost to farmers ranging from 0.11 Australian dollars (AUD) to more than 300 AUD per metric ton of abated carbon dioxide equivalent. This is the first study to explore the costs of mitigation including multiple greenhouse gases and grain farming case studies across Australia. These findings can inform the future development of effective climate change mitigation policies, which frequently use national default values in their design.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Greenhouse gas abatement costs are heterogeneous between Australian grain farms
    Nikki P. Dumbrell
    Marit E. Kragt
    Elizabeth A. Meier
    Jody S. Biggs
    Peter J. Thorburn
    [J]. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2017, 37
  • [2] Greenhouse gas abatement on southern Australian grains farms: Biophysical potential and financial impacts
    Meier, Elizabeth A.
    Thorburn, Peter J.
    Kragt, Marit E.
    Dumbrell, Nikki P.
    Biggs, Jody S.
    Hoyle, Frances C.
    van Rees, Harm
    [J]. AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS, 2017, 155 : 147 - 157
  • [3] Benefits, Costs, and Cooperation in Greenhouse Gas Abatement
    Bertrand Hamaide
    John J. Boland
    [J]. Climatic Change, 2000, 47 : 239 - 258
  • [4] Benefits, costs, and cooperation in greenhouse gas abatement
    Hamaide, B
    Boland, JJ
    [J]. CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2000, 47 (03) : 239 - 258
  • [5] Can management practices provide greenhouse gas abatement in grain farms in New South Wales, Australia?
    Palmer, Jeda
    Thorburn, Peter J.
    Meier, Elizabeth A.
    Biggs, Jody S.
    Whelan, Brett
    Singh, Kanika
    Eyre, David N.
    [J]. CROP & PASTURE SCIENCE, 2017, 68 (04): : 390 - 400
  • [6] Greenhouse Gas Abatement in Norwegian Agriculture: Costs or Benefits?
    Blandford, David
    Gaasland, Ivar
    Vardal, Erling
    [J]. EUROCHOICES, 2015, 14 (02) : 34 - 40
  • [7] Discounting and the economic costs of altruism in greenhouse gas abatement
    Stephan, G
    Muller-Furstenberger, G
    [J]. KYKLOS, 1998, 51 (03) : 321 - 338
  • [8] Measuring greenhouse gas abatement costs in Upper Austria
    Schwarz, Markus
    Goers, Sebastian
    Schmidthaler, Michael
    Tichler, Robert
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGIES AND MANAGEMENT, 2013, 5 (03) : 246 - 266
  • [9] Impact of the choice of emission metric on greenhouse gas abatement and costs
    van den Berg, Maarten
    Hof, Andries F.
    van Vliet, Jasper
    van Vuuren, Detlef P.
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2015, 10 (02):
  • [10] Greenhouse gas abatement strategies and costs in French dairy production
    Mosnier, Claire
    Britz, Wolfgang
    Julliere, Thomas
    De Cara, Stephane
    Jayet, Pierre-Alain
    Havlik, Petr
    Frank, Stefan
    Mosnier, Aline
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2019, 236