Environmental outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard.

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) specifies the use of biofuels in the United States and thereby guides nearly half of all global biofuel production, yet outcomes of this keystone climate and environmental regulation remain unclear. Here we combine econometric analyses, land use observations, and biophysical models to estimate the realized effects of the RFS in aggregate and down to the scale of individual agricultural fields across the United States. We find that the RFS increased corn prices by 30% and the prices of other crops by 20%, which, in turn, expanded US corn cultivation by 2.8 Mha (8.7%) and total cropland by 2.1 Mha (2.4%) in the years following policy enactment (2008 to 2016). These changes increased annual nationwide fertilizer use by 3 to 8%, increased water quality degradants by 3 to 5%, and caused enough domestic land use change emissions such that the carbon intensity of corn ethanol produced under the RFS is no less than gasoline and likely at least 24% higher. These tradeoffs must be weighed alongside the benefits of biofuels as decision-makers consider the future of renewable energy policies and the potential for fuels like corn ethanol to meet climate mitigation goals.

Predicting the spatial variation in cost-efficiency for agricultural greenhouse gas mitigation programs in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: Two major factors that determine the efficiency of programs designed to mitigate greenhouse gases by encouraging voluntary changes in U.S. agricultural land management are the effect of land use changes on producers' profitability and the net sequestration those changes create. In this work, we investigate how the interaction of these factors produces spatial heterogeneity in the cost-efficiency of voluntary programs incentivizing tillage reduction and cover-cropping practices. We map county-level predicted rates of adoption for each practice with the greenhouse gas mitigation or carbon sequestration benefits expected from their use. Then, we use these bivariate maps to describe how the cost efficiency of agricultural mitigation efforts is likely to vary spatially in the United States. RESULTS: Our results suggest the combination of high adoption rates and large reductions in net emissions make reduced tillage programs most cost efficient in the Chesapeake Bay watershed or the Upper Mississippi and Lower Missouri sub-basins of the Mississippi River. For programs aiming to reduce net emissions by incentivizing cover-cropping, we expect cost-efficiency to be greatest in the areas near the main stem of the Mississippi River within its Middle and Lower sections. CONCLUSIONS: Many voluntary agricultural conservation programs offer the same incentives across the United States. Yet spatial variation in profitability and efficacy of conservation practices suggest that these uniform approaches are not cost-effective. Spatial targeting of voluntary agricultural conservation programs has the potential to increase the cost-efficiency of these programs due to regional heterogeneity in the profitability and greenhouse gas mitigation benefits of agricultural land management practices across the continental United States. We illustrate how predicted rates of adoption and greenhouse gas sequestration might be used to target regions where efforts to incentivize cover-cropping and reductions in tillage are most likely to be cost -effective.

Decreased wheat production in the USA from climate change driven by yield losses rather than crop abandonment.

An increase in global average surface temperature over the 21st century will affect food production. There is still uncertainty if the source of the production losses caused by climate change could be driven either by lower yield or reduced area harvested. We use county-level production data on winter wheat coupled with fine-scale weather outcomes between 1981-2007 to examine the impact of climate change on winter wheat production in Kansas. We decompose the total impact of weather variables through both the yield and harvested acreage channels. We find that an insignificant portion-both in terms of magnitude and statistical significance-of the production losses are due to reduced harvested acres (i.e., crop abandonment). The proportion harvested only account for 14.88% and 21.71% of the total damages under RCPs 4.5 and 8.5 and neither effect is statistically significant. An implication of this result implies that studies that only examine climate impacts on harvested yields are not significantly underestimating the climate change impacts on production.