Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Minnesota Climate Forum | Informa Economics Study

2,231 views

Published on

  • Be the first to like this

Minnesota Climate Forum | Informa Economics Study

  1. 1. Potential Economic Opportunities for Agriculture of Climate and Energy Policy Minnesota Ag, Climate and Energy Forum June 28, 2010
  2. 2. AFT’s Mission <ul><li>Stop the loss of farmland and protect it for future generations </li></ul><ul><li>Help farmers and ranchers produce a cleaner environment </li></ul><ul><li>Maintain economically sustainable agriculture sector </li></ul>
  3. 3. Agriculture & Environment Initiative Helping farmers and ranchers to improve water quality and combat climate change while expanding their sources of revenue AFT’s New Campaign
  4. 4. AFT & NAWG Conduct Study to Understand Economic Impacts <ul><li>Study presented at the 2010 Commodity Classic, Anaheim, CA </li></ul>April 2010
  5. 5. Informa Study Conclusions <ul><li>Cap & trade has potential to provide significant long-term benefits, if properly structured </li></ul><ul><li>But there are policy designs that can be harmful </li></ul><ul><li>Production cost increases modest </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunity for farmers to gain more income from offsets, renewable energy </li></ul><ul><li>EPA regulation would be worse for farmers </li></ul>
  6. 6. Additional findings <ul><li>Land use shifts regional impacts; but marginal not prime land switches first </li></ul><ul><li>Not all farmers able to participate in offset markets </li></ul><ul><li>Not all about offsets; additional revenue via energy policies such Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) </li></ul>
  7. 7. Key Conclusion <ul><li>To benefit from policies, agriculture must be actively engaged in developing those policies, working with others and Members of Congress </li></ul>
  8. 8. Carbon Price Drives Costs for Farmers <ul><li>Carbon cap will decline </li></ul><ul><li>Carbon price increases </li></ul><ul><li>Energy price increases </li></ul><ul><li>The cost of fuel and fertilizer = increase in production costs </li></ul><ul><li>Significant allowances to fertilizer industry will help offset costs </li></ul><ul><li>until 2035 </li></ul>
  9. 9. Increasing fuel and fertilizer costs will raise cost of production only “moderately” % chg costs 1.2% 1.9% 1.2% 3.7% 4.1% 2.1% 7.8% 7.3% 3.3%
  10. 10. Carbon Markets Provide Revenue Opportunities for Agriculture <ul><li>Agriculture is not a capped sector </li></ul><ul><li>Agriculture, including livestock, has opportunities to sell offsets </li></ul><ul><li>No-till is potentially the most widely adopted carbon sequestration practice </li></ul><ul><li>Other activities can be implemented to “farm carbon” and increase farmer revenues </li></ul><ul><li>Most other industries do not have offset alternatives </li></ul>
  11. 11. Variety of activities can generate offsets
  12. 12. Adoption of No-Till Economically Sound
  13. 13. Additional Opportunities for Farmers thru Renewable Energy Production <ul><li>Target 20% of electricity by 2020 to be from renewable sources </li></ul><ul><li>EIA projects renewable sources to account for ~15% of electricity by 2020 without cap-and-trade </li></ul><ul><li>Biomass (e.g., crop biomass, energy crops, forest residues) expected to contribute the bulk </li></ul><ul><li>Implications by 2020: more biomass, more land in energy crops, more revenue for farmers </li></ul>
  14. 14. Land Use Shifts Affects Marginal Land <ul><li>Pastureland will shift to forests before cropland </li></ul><ul><li>Marginal acres may shift to forage </li></ul><ul><li>South has a competitive advantage in biomass </li></ul><ul><li>Even at higher carbon prices, prime cropland will not shift to forestry or perennials </li></ul>
  15. 15. Livestock Offset Revenue Opportunities <ul><li>Two General Practices to Sequester Carbon </li></ul><ul><li>1. Enteric Fermentation </li></ul><ul><li>2. Manure Management </li></ul><ul><li>Dairy - greatest opportunity </li></ul><ul><li>Poultry - few opportunities </li></ul><ul><li>Swine - some opportunities via manure management </li></ul><ul><li>Feedlots - some opportunities via enteric fermentation </li></ul>
  16. 16. Climate Bill Better Than EPA Regulation <ul><li>Cap-and-Trade is more efficient than direct EPA oversight </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>EPA Regulation = Higher production cost impacts </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>EPA Regulation would not provide revenue opportunities for agriculture </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>EPA Regulated case could include agricultural and livestock producers – C&T does not. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Production cost impacts could potentially be multiple times more than that of cap-and-trade </li></ul>
  17. 17. Policies that Matter to Agriculture <ul><li>Fertilizer allowances (and ensuring they are passed on to farmers) </li></ul><ul><li>Maximizing number of domestic offsets </li></ul><ul><li>USDA manages ag offset program </li></ul><ul><li>Specific list of approved ag offsets </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunity to add new offset practices </li></ul><ul><li>Involvement in methodologies and protocols to calculate impact on GHG </li></ul><ul><li>Treatment of early actors </li></ul>
  18. 18. Informa’s Bottom Line <ul><li>Gains are expected to exceed costs within agriculture sector as a whole, if policy structured correctly </li></ul><ul><li>Cost of production impacts are relatively small </li></ul><ul><li>Numerous potential revenue opportunities available to farmers </li></ul><ul><li>If structured properly, C&T could benefit a large number of farmers but not all </li></ul><ul><li>Cap-and-trade approach is significantly better than an EPA regulated system </li></ul>
  19. 19. <ul><li>For more information on studies and to sign up for our e-newsletters: </li></ul><ul><li>www.farmland.org </li></ul>Keep Up With the Debate

×