| 1. |
- Eriksson, Mathilda, 1984-, et al.
(författare)
-
Pricing forest carbon : implications of asymmetry in climate policy
- 2016
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- In this paper, we use an integrated assessment model to examine the implications of not recognizing, and partially recognizing forest carbon in climate policy. Specifically, we investigate the impact of an asymmetric carbon policy that recognizes emissions from fossil fuels while ignoring emissions from forests. We additionally investigate the relative importance of not recognizing positive emissions from a reduction in the stock of forest biomass, or of not recognizing negative emissions from the growth of forest biomass. We show that asymmetric carbon policies lead to lower levels of welfare, as well as higher emissions and carbon prices. This occurs because the forest resource will be allocated inefficiently under these carbon policies. Broadly, we find that when the social planner does not account for neither positive or negative forest emissions, the planner will set bioenergy levels that are too high and afforestation and avoided deforestation levels that are too low. Our results further reveal that not recognizing forest emissions leads to larger welfare losses than not recognizing sequestration.
|
|
| 2. |
- Eriksson, Mathilda, et al.
(författare)
-
Pricing forest carbon : implications of asymmetry in climate policy
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Forest Economics. - : Elsevier. - 1104-6899 .- 1618-1530. ; 32, s. 84-93
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Using an integrated assessment model, we examine the implications of climate policies that do not fully recognize forest carbon. Specifically, we first investigate the impact of an asymmetric policy that recognizes carbon emissions from fossil fuels while fully ignoring forest carbon. Next, we investigate the relative importance of not recognizing emissions from a reduction in the stock of forest biomass compared to not recognizing sequestration from the growth of forest biomass. We show that asymmetric carbon policies lead to lower levels of welfare, as well as higher emissions and carbon prices. This occurs because the forest resource will be allocated inefficiently under these carbon policies. Broadly, we find that when the social planner does not account for emissions or sequestration from the forest, the planner will set bioenergy levels that are too high and afforestation and avoided deforestation levels that are too low. Our results further reveal that not recognizing forest emissions leads to larger welfare losses than not recognizing sequestration.
|
|
| 3. |
- Eriksson, Mathilda, 1984-
(författare)
-
The Role of the Forest in Climate Policy
- 2016
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- AbstractIn Paper [I], I develop the FOR-DICE model to analyze optimal global forest carbon management. The FOR-DICE is a simple framework for assessing the role of the boreal, tropical, and temperate forests as both a source of renewable energy and a resource to sequester and store carbon. I find that forests play an important role in reducing global emissions, especially under ambitious climate targets. At the global level, efforts should focus on increasing the stock of forest biomass rather than increasing the use of the forest for bioenergy production. The results also highlight the important role of reducing tropical deforestation to reduce climate change.In Paper [II], I develop the FRICE to investigate the role of two key efforts to increase the stock of forest biomass, namely, afforestation and avoided deforestation. FRICE is a multi-regional integrated assessment model that captures the dynamics of forest carbon sequestration in a transparent way and allows me to investigate the allocation of these actions across space and time. I find that global climate policy can benefit considerably from afforestation and avoided deforestation in tropical regions, and in particular in Africa. Avoided deforestation is particularly effective in the short run while afforestation provides the largest emissions reductions in the medium run. This paper also highlights the importance of not solely relying on avoided deforestation as its capacity to reduce emissions is more limited than afforestation, especially under more stringent temperature targets.In Paper [III], we investigate how uncertainties linked to the forest affect the optimal climate policy. We incorporate parameter uncertainty on the intrinsic growth rate and climate effects on the forest by using the state-contingent approach. Our results show that forest uncertainty matters. We find that the importance of including forest in climate policy increases when the forest is subject to uncertainty. This occurs because optimal forest response allows us to reduce the costs associated with uncertainty.In Paper [IV], we explore the implications of asymmetries in climate policy arising from not recognizing forest carbon emissions and sequestration in the decision-making process. We show that not fully including carbon values associated with the forest will have large effects on different forest controls and lead to an increase in emissions, higher carbon prices, and lower welfare. We further find, by investigating the relative importance of forest emissions compared to sequestration, that recognizing forest emissions from bioenergy and deforestation is especially important for climate policy.
|
|
