Developing carbon budgets for UK agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry out to 2022

Dominic Moran; Michael MacLeod; Eileen Wall; Vera Eory; Alistair McVittie; Andrew Barnes; Bob Rees; Cairistiona F. E. Topp; Guillaume Pajot; Robin Matthews; Pete Smith; Andrew Moxey

doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9898-2

Developing carbon budgets for UK agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry out to 2022

Dominic Moran^*, Michael MacLeod, Eileen Wall, Vera Eory, Alistair McVittie, Andrew Barnes, Bob Rees, Cairistiona F. E. Topp, Guillaume Pajot, Robin Matthews, Pete Smith, Andrew Moxey

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract / Description of output

This paper derives a notional future carbon budget for UK agriculture, land use, land use change and forestry sectors (ALULUCF). The budget is based on a bottom-up marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) derived for a range of mitigation measures for specified adoption scenarios for the years 2012, 2017 and 2022. The results indicate that in 2022 around 6.36 MtCO(2)e could be abated at negative or zero cost. Furthermore, in the same year, over 17% of agricultural GHG emissions (7.85 MtCO(2)e) could be abated at a cost of less than the 2022 Shadow Price of Carbon (A 34 pound (tCO(2)e) (-aEuro parts per thousand 1)). The development of robust MACCs faces a range of methodological hurdles that complicate cost-effectiveness appraisal in ALULUCF relative to other sectors. Nevertheless, the current analysis provides an initial route map of efficient measures for mitigation in UK agriculture.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	529-553
Number of pages	25
Journal	Climatic Change
Volume	105
Issue number	3-4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9898-2
Publication status	Published - Apr 2011

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

GREENHOUSE-GAS MITIGATION

Access to Document

10.1007/s10584-010-9898-2

Cite this

@article{9fc385b9de1740b7a0b8731084132e08,

title = "Developing carbon budgets for UK agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry out to 2022",

abstract = "This paper derives a notional future carbon budget for UK agriculture, land use, land use change and forestry sectors (ALULUCF). The budget is based on a bottom-up marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) derived for a range of mitigation measures for specified adoption scenarios for the years 2012, 2017 and 2022. The results indicate that in 2022 around 6.36 MtCO(2)e could be abated at negative or zero cost. Furthermore, in the same year, over 17% of agricultural GHG emissions (7.85 MtCO(2)e) could be abated at a cost of less than the 2022 Shadow Price of Carbon (A 34 pound (tCO(2)e) (-aEuro parts per thousand 1)). The development of robust MACCs faces a range of methodological hurdles that complicate cost-effectiveness appraisal in ALULUCF relative to other sectors. Nevertheless, the current analysis provides an initial route map of efficient measures for mitigation in UK agriculture.",

keywords = "GREENHOUSE-GAS MITIGATION",

author = "Dominic Moran and Michael MacLeod and Eileen Wall and Vera Eory and Alistair McVittie and Andrew Barnes and Bob Rees and Topp, {Cairistiona F. E.} and Guillaume Pajot and Robin Matthews and Pete Smith and Andrew Moxey",

year = "2011",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1007/s10584-010-9898-2",

language = "English",

volume = "105",

pages = "529--553",

journal = "Climatic Change",

issn = "0165-0009",

publisher = "Springer",

number = "3-4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Developing carbon budgets for UK agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry out to 2022

AU - Moran, Dominic

AU - MacLeod, Michael

AU - Wall, Eileen

AU - Eory, Vera

AU - McVittie, Alistair

AU - Barnes, Andrew

AU - Rees, Bob

AU - Topp, Cairistiona F. E.

AU - Pajot, Guillaume

AU - Matthews, Robin

AU - Smith, Pete

AU - Moxey, Andrew

PY - 2011/4

Y1 - 2011/4

N2 - This paper derives a notional future carbon budget for UK agriculture, land use, land use change and forestry sectors (ALULUCF). The budget is based on a bottom-up marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) derived for a range of mitigation measures for specified adoption scenarios for the years 2012, 2017 and 2022. The results indicate that in 2022 around 6.36 MtCO(2)e could be abated at negative or zero cost. Furthermore, in the same year, over 17% of agricultural GHG emissions (7.85 MtCO(2)e) could be abated at a cost of less than the 2022 Shadow Price of Carbon (A 34 pound (tCO(2)e) (-aEuro parts per thousand 1)). The development of robust MACCs faces a range of methodological hurdles that complicate cost-effectiveness appraisal in ALULUCF relative to other sectors. Nevertheless, the current analysis provides an initial route map of efficient measures for mitigation in UK agriculture.

AB - This paper derives a notional future carbon budget for UK agriculture, land use, land use change and forestry sectors (ALULUCF). The budget is based on a bottom-up marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) derived for a range of mitigation measures for specified adoption scenarios for the years 2012, 2017 and 2022. The results indicate that in 2022 around 6.36 MtCO(2)e could be abated at negative or zero cost. Furthermore, in the same year, over 17% of agricultural GHG emissions (7.85 MtCO(2)e) could be abated at a cost of less than the 2022 Shadow Price of Carbon (A 34 pound (tCO(2)e) (-aEuro parts per thousand 1)). The development of robust MACCs faces a range of methodological hurdles that complicate cost-effectiveness appraisal in ALULUCF relative to other sectors. Nevertheless, the current analysis provides an initial route map of efficient measures for mitigation in UK agriculture.

KW - GREENHOUSE-GAS MITIGATION

U2 - 10.1007/s10584-010-9898-2

DO - 10.1007/s10584-010-9898-2

M3 - Article

SN - 0165-0009

VL - 105

SP - 529

EP - 553

JO - Climatic Change

JF - Climatic Change

IS - 3-4

ER -

Developing carbon budgets for UK agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry out to 2022

Abstract / Description of output

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this