Economic Potential for GHG Mitigation in the Agriculture Sector. Carol Jones, Jan Lewandrowski, Mark Peters and Robert House Economic Research Service with support from Marlen Eve, Keith Paustian, and Mark Sperow, Agricultural Research Service and NREL/CSU.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Carol Jones, Jan Lewandrowski,
Mark Peters and Robert House
Economic Research Service
with support from
Marlen Eve, Keith Paustian, and Mark Sperow,
Agricultural Research Service and NREL/CSU
Forestry and Agriculture GHG Modeling Forum,
Oct. 9-11, 2002
USMP Summary Schematic
All policies have 15-year contract period
Net Carbon SectorSequestration
S1 Reference Policy: Discounted payments on net seq.
Net Carbon Sequestration Sector
S2 Full vs. S2 Discounted sequestration payments
1) Switches from conservation to conventional - yield incentive w/no carbon debit increases emissions
2) Switches from conventional to conservation - carbon incentive increases sequestration
3) Omitted: tilling land now in conservation to establish future eligibility increases emissions
B) Idle land brought into crop production
Increases emissions, whether practice:
1) conservationtillage (in program) or
2) conventional tillage (not in program)