| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
109385
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
By expanding energy biomass production on marginal lands that are not currently used for crops, food prices increase and indirect climate change effects can be mitigated. Studies of the availability of marginal lands for dedicated bioenergy crops have focused on biophysical land traits, ignoring the human role in decisions to convert marginal land to bioenergy crops. Recent history offers insights about farmer willingness to put non-crop land into crop production. The 2006-09 leap in field crop prices and the attendant 64% gain in typical profitability led to only a 2% increase in crop planted area, mostly in the prairie states. At this rate, a doubling of expected profitability from biomass crops would expand cropland supply by only 3.2%. Yet targets for cellulosic ethanol production in the US Energy Independence and Security Act imply boosting US planted area by 10% or more with perennial biomass crops. Given landowner reluctance to expand crop area with familiar crops in the short run, large scale expansion of the area in dedicated bioenergy crops will likely be difficult and costly to achieve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
119820
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A transparent and conceptual partial equilibrium model of global land use is used to explore long-term effects of large-scale introduction of bioenergy, under different policy cases. The transparency of the model, and the consideration of clear-cut policies, provides a clear picture of how main mechanisms of land-use competition work, and how they influence the food and bioenergy systems. The model is subjected to a detailed characterization, in which parameters critical to the results and conclusions are detected and their impacts depicted. A large-scale introduction of bioenergy would raise food prices in all cases/scenarios investigated, and relative price increases of extensively produced crops would be at least twice as high as compared to intensively produced crops. Banning production of bioenergy from the most productive land (limiting production to "marginal land") would reduce this price impact. However, we show that bioenergy is unlikely to ever be produced on any commercial scale only on land of low productivity. The economic incentives would be strong for owners of more productive land to grow bioenergy anyway and out-compete the more costly production on low yielding land. Large-scale deforestation would become attractive in response to increased bioenergy demand, especially for extensive production systems such as grazing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|