|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
121266
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The use of biofuels can increase land competition, leading to global land use change (LUC). LUC poses risks such as increased greenhouse gas emissions and food prices. The magnitude of the risk is uncertain, but could be significant. Given these uncertainties and risks, we suggest that policymakers pursue a mix of the following three strategies: (1) promote feedstocks that rely less on land; (2) reduce LUC risk for land-using feedstocks; and (3) stimulate investments that increase land productivity and environmental protection. To realize these three strategies, we recommend that policymakers distinguish among feedstocks based on LUC risk; explore certifying production that avoids land competition; and adopt policy mechanisms that encourage investments in LUC-prone areas. We favor including feedstock-specific LUC emissions estimates in policies despite relatively large scientific uncertainty. While misleadingly precise, point estimates can be selected from science-based ranges to directly link LUC policy to emissions and provide strong transparent signals to biofuel investors. LUC emissions estimates can be updated regularly (~3-5 years) to reflect improvements in scientific understanding, and global changes in policy and economic environments. With or without LUC emissions point estimates, additional policies, some outside the biofuel sector, will be needed to pursue the three strategies above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
150045
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) is a market-based policy that specifies declining standards for the average lifecycle fuel carbon intensity (AFCI) of transportation fuels sold in a region. This paper: (i) compares transportation fuel carbon policies in terms of their economic efficiency, fuel price impacts, greenhouse gas emission reductions, and incentives for innovation; (ii) discusses key regulatory design features of LCFS policies; and (iii) provides an update on the implementation status of LCFS policies in California, the European Union, British Columbia, and Oregon. The economics literature finds that an intensity standard implicitly taxes emissions and subsidizes output. The output subsidy results in an intensity standard being inferior to a carbon tax in a first-best world, although the inefficiency can be corrected with a properly designed consumption tax (or mitigated by a properly designed carbon tax or cap-and-trade program). In California, from 2011 to 2015 the share of alternative fuels in the regulated transportation fuels pool increased by 30%, and the reported AFCI of all alternative fuels declined 21%. LCFS credit prices have varied considerably, rising to above $100/credit in the first half of 2016. LCFS programs in other jurisdictions share many features with California's, but have distinct provisions as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
150402
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper examines three technology routes for lowering the carbon intensity of biofuels: (1) a leapfrog route that focuses on major technological breakthroughs in lignocellulosic pathways at new, stand-alone biorefineries; (2) an incremental route in which improvements are made to existing U.S. corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel biorefineries; and (3) a transitional route in which biotechnology firms gain experience growing, handling, or chemically converting lignocellulosic biomass in a lower-risk fashion than leapfrog biorefineries by leveraging existing capital stock. We find the incremental route is likely to involve the largest production volumes and greenhouse gas benefits until at least the mid-2020s, but transitional and leapfrog biofuels together have far greater long-term potential. We estimate that the Renewable Fuel Standard, California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and federal tax credits provided an incentive of roughly $1.5–2.5 per gallon of leapfrog biofuel between 2012 and 2015, but that regulatory elements in these policies mostly incentivize lower-risk incremental investments. Adjustments in policy may be necessary to bring a greater focus on transitional technologies that provide targeted learning and cost reduction opportunities for leapfrog biofuels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|