It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The land sector is anticipated to play an important role in achieving U.S. GHG emissions targets by reducing emissions and increasing sequestration from the atmosphere. This study assesses how much different levels of investment could stimulate land-based mitigation activities in the U.S. By applying a dynamic economic model of the land use sectors, with representation of 26 forestry and agricultural mitigation strategies across 11 U.S. regions, the study shows that annual investments of $2.4 billion could deliver abatement of around 80 MtCO2e annually. Under an optimal allocation of investments, the forestry sector and the Corn Belt are projected to receive the largest share of funds. Restricting land-based activities eligible for funds significantly reduces overall potential mitigation. For instance, if $24 billion investments are allocated only to agricultural activities, mitigation declines by 48% to 54 MtCO2e/yr over the next ten years. Finally, the level of abatement from each policy depends on the timing of implementation as the lowest cost mitigation actions are generally taken by the policy implemented first.
There are continuing questions on how much investments in land-based mitigation activities could deliver in terms of abatement. This study shows that annual investments of $2.4billion in the U.S. land could deliver abatement of around 80 MtCO2e/yr.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Wade, Christopher M. 1 ; Cai, Yongxia 1 ; Ohrel, Sara B. 2
; Baker, Justin 3 ; Creason, Jared 2 ; Ragnauth, Shaun 2
; Latta, Gregory 4 ; McCarl, Bruce A. 5 1 Center for Applied Economics and Strategy, RTI International, Durham, USA (GRID:grid.62562.35) (ISNI:0000 0001 0030 1493)
2 N.W, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, USA (GRID:grid.418698.a) (ISNI:0000 0001 2146 2763)
3 Campus Box 8109, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, NC State University, Raleigh, USA (GRID:grid.462661.1) (ISNI:0000 0004 0542 7070)
4 875 Perimeter Drive MS 1139, Department of Natural Resources and Society, University of Idaho, Moscow, USA (GRID:grid.266456.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 2284 9900)
5 TAMU 2124, Texas A&M, Agricultural Economics, University 600 John Kimbrough Blvd, College Station, USA (GRID:grid.264756.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 4687 2082)




