scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers in "Choices. The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resources Issues in 2008"


Posted Content
TL;DR: The use of crop residues like corn stover, wood chips and high yielding herbaceous energy crops such as perennial grasses is being explored to mitigate this competition for land and achieve higher quantities of biofuel per acre of land than being achieved by corn-grain based ethanol as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: iofuels are being extensively promoted for their poten-tial to contribute to energy security, stable energy prices, and climate change mitigation in the United States A key constraint to our ability to expand biofuel production to significantly reduce dependence on fossil fuels is likely to be the limited amount of agricultural land available to pro-duce food, feed and energy crops The use of crop residues like corn stover, wood chips and high yielding herbaceous energy crops such as perennial grasses is being explored to mitigate this competition for land and achieve higher quantities of biofuel per acre of land than being achieved by corn–grain based ethanol Among herbaceous energy crops, miscanthus and switchgrass have been identified as promising crops because they have higher yields than other perennial grasses, provide high nutrient use efficiency and require growing conditions and equipment similar to those for corn, which makes them compatible with conventional crop cultivation (Heaton et al, 2004) They also have sev-eral positive environmental attributesTo be economically viable, energy crops must compete successfully both as crops and as fuels Biofuels produced from these energy crops (referred to as cellulosic biofuels) need to compete with fossil fuels and corn–based ethanol Owners of cropland will produce cellulosic feedstocks only if they can receive an economic return that is equivalent to or preferably higher than the returns from the most profit-able conventional crops, particularly if energy crop produc-tion is exposed to more price risks The foregone returns from these conventional crops are the opportunity cost of using cropland for producing energy crops Geographical variations in the costs of producing these crops and in the opportunity costs of land are likely to make the economic viability of cellulosic biofuels differ across locationsEnergy crops and the cellulosic biofuels produced from them offer the potential for various environmental benefits compared to the row crops they may displace and com-pared to grain–based ethanol These include reduced soil erosion and chemical run-off, extended habitat for wildlife, stabilization of soil along streams and wetlands, sequestra-tion of more carbon in the soil than row crops grown using conservation tillage, and lower input requirements for en-ergy, water and agrochemicals per unit of biofuel produced (McLaughlin and Walsh, 1998; Semere and Slater, 2007) These environmental benefits tend to differ across different energy crops, due to differences in their energy input re-quirements, ability to sequester carbon in the soil, canopy cover and palatability of leaves for insects There have been some concerns that miscanthus, as an introduced species, might be an invasive plant However, most varieties used for biofuel production (like

48 citations


Posted ContentDOI
TL;DR: Choices is a publication of the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association as mentioned in this paper and is available for subscription through http://www.choicesmagazine.org/subscriptions.html.
Abstract: ©1999–2008 CHOICES. All rights reserved. Articles may be reproduced or electronically distributed as long as attribution to Choices and the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association is maintained. Choices subscriptions are free and can be obtained through http://www.choicesmagazine.org. AAEA Agricultural & Applied Economics Association A publication of the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association

46 citations


Posted Content
TL;DR: Smith et al. as mentioned in this paper focus on responses in the domain of technologies, economics, and subsequent impacts of agricultural mitigation covering mitigation strategies, mitigation potential, and possible externalities, and draw heavily on their experience and their role in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on agriculture and mitigation.
Abstract: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be reduced or atmospheric GHGs sequestered to help reduce the future extent of climate change. Options to do this through agriculture have received increasing attention during the last decade. Some see agriculture as a potential low-cost provider of emission reductions in the near future with additional environmental and income distributional cobenefits. Others express concerns about agricultural mitigation efforts because of possible emission leakage and other environmental drawbacks. This article will not and cannot cover what is known about the whole gamut of the topic. Instead, it draws heavily on our experience and our role in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on agriculture and mitigation (Smith et al. 2007). We focus on responses in the domain of technologies, economics, and subsequent impacts of agricultural mitigation covering mitigation strategies, mitigation potential, and possible externalities.

40 citations


Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the sum of individual actions may result in the disruption of the flow of valuable ecosystem services thereby making all individuals collectively worse o". Even in cases where eco system services provide localized benefits, if individuals are not aware of the consequences of their actions they may still take actions that unknowingly damage ecosystem services on which their long-term welfare depends.
Abstract: The natural world generates a range of valuable goods and services that support human well‐being. !ese goods and services, collectively called ecosystem services, are typically provided free of charge and often have characteristics of public goods. Like other public goods, ecosystem services will not be provided optimally by aggregating the decisions of individuals motivated by self‐interest. For example, an individual farmer gains the benefits of increased yields from the application of nitrogen fertilizer but often bears an insignificant portion of the costs from additional release of nitrous oxide, which is a powerful greenhouse gas, increased air pollution from emissions of nitrogen oxides and ammonia, and increased water pollution from release of nitrates into ground or surface water. In such cases, the sum of individual actions may result in the disruption of the flow of valuable ecosystem services thereby making all individuals collectively worse o". Even in cases where eco system services provide localized benefits, if individuals are not aware of the consequences of their actions they may still take actions that unknowingly damage ecosystem services on which their long‐term welfare depends. !e presence of both incentive problems and informa

39 citations


Posted ContentDOI
TL;DR: The authors summarized some of the key findings from the research on agricultural impacts of climate change, based on the recent IPCC Assessment Reports published in 2001 and 2007, and other recent work such as the recent U.S. assessment published in 2002 and the Council for Science and Technology report in 2004.
Abstract: Agriculture is arguably the most important sector of the economy that is highly dependent on climate. A large body of scientific data and models have been developed to predict the impacts of the contemporary and future climate. Since the first IPCC Assessment Report was published in 1990, substantial efforts have been directed toward understanding climate change impacts on agricultural systems. The resulting advances in our understanding of climate impacts have come from the collection of better data, the development of new methods and models, and the observation of actual changes in climate and its impacts. Such knowledge is critical as we contemplate the design of technologies and policies to mitigate climate change and facilitate adaptation to the changes that now appear inevitable in the next several decades and beyond. This article briefly summarizes some of the key findings from the research on agricultural impacts of climate change, based on the recent IPCC Assessment Reports published in 2001 and 2007, and other recent work such as the recent U.S. assessment published in 2002 and the Council for Science and Technology report in 2004. In the remainder of this article, I discuss the substantial uncertainties that remain about actual and potential impacts of climate change on agriculture and its economic consequences. The paper concludes with some observations about linkages from impacts to policy.

35 citations


Posted ContentDOI
TL;DR: For example, the total area of cropland, pastureland and rangeland decreased by 76 million acres in the lower 48 states from 1982 to 2003, while the to tal area of developed land increased by 36 million acres or 48%.
Abstract: �Major land–use changes have occurred in the United States during the past 25 years. The total area of cropland, pastureland and rangeland decreased by 76 million acres in the lower 48 states from 1982 to 2003, while the to tal area of developed land increased by 36 million acres or 48%. What are the potential economic, social, and envi ronmental impacts of land use changes? How does land use change affect agriculture and rural communities? What are the important economic and environmental implications for commodity production and trade, water and soil con servation, open space preservation, and other policy issues? This article addresses some of these issues and their policy implications. Socioeconomic Impacts

34 citations


Posted Content
TL;DR: For many years, food price inflation was about the same as the general rate of inflation, and farm commodity market developments rarely drew the attention of those not directly involved in agriculture and the food industry as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: For many years, the price of food was a nonstory. Food price inflation was about the same as the general rate of inflation, and farm commodity market developments rarely drew the attention of those not directly involved in agriculture and the food industry. That has changed. Rising commodity prices and high food price inflation here and abroad have put agricultural commodity markets in the spotlight. The media are full of stories about the causes and impacts of the commodity boom. In this context, it may be hard to imagine that there is an angle to the story that has not already been covered repeatedly. However, some very simple economics may help us to understand some of the reasons for the increase in prices and to speculate about what might happen in the future.

27 citations


Posted Content
TL;DR: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that climate change has occurred and is going to continue, driven by both past and future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Abstract: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that climate change has occurred and is going to continue, driven by both past and future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Mankind’s emissions have grown by 70% from 1970 to 2004, and they are projected to increase by an additional 25% to 90% by 2030. GHG emissions have global and long-run atmospheric effects lasting decades to centuries, depending on the specific gas. The net climate forcing of GHGs has grown from preindustrial (circa 1850) levels of about 275 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent to about 375 ppm today, and projected socioeconomic practices and growth could result in levels of 600 to 1550 ppm by 2100 (IPCC WGIII, 2007). Based on this data, the IPCC projects global average temperature increases of 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius by 2090-2099 compared to 1980-1999 levels (IPCC WGI, 2007), with increases in CO2 concentrations the main driver, but other substances contributing as well. Changing climate implies localized changes in temperatures, precipitation, extreme weather, and the potential for extreme events that could affect agriculture globally. U.S.farmers, for example, could experience longer growing seasons, increased frequency of heavy rainfall, reduced snowpack with consequences for water supplies, enhanced crop growth due to elevated atmospheric CO2, and increased frequency of droughts, pests, and crop and livestock heat stress. As found in the U.S.National assessment (Reilly et al., 2003), the net effect could be increased production that benefits consumers while putting downward pressure on farm incomes in the near-term as prices fall. However, larger changes in climate could result in negative effects and different distributional outcomes (for elaboration, see the papers in this issue by North; Antle; and Adams and Peck). There are three broad approaches for managing climate change— • Avoiding it, via mitigation of GHG emissions, i.e., reducing net GHG emissions, including increasing carbon sequestration (as discussed in the companion paper by Schneider and Kumar). • Adapting to it, by learning to produce under a changed climate. • Geoengineering that reduces warming by, for example, placing shields in space to reduce incoming solar radiation. Geoengineering approaches are extreme technological options that are typically presented in the context of preventing eminent catastrophic climate change impacts. This paper discusses issues involved with GHG mitigation and climate change adaptation (see Keith, 2005, for a discussion of geoengineering).

27 citations


Posted ContentDOI
TL;DR: The authors provides an overview of the projected physical and economic effects of climate change on water resources in North America, with a focus on water shortages, and a brief discussion of potential means to mitigate adverse consequences.
Abstract: Climate change will affect water resources through its impact on the quantity, variability, timing, form, and intensity of precipitation. This paper provides an overview of the projected physical and economic effects of climate change on water resources in North America (with a focus on water shortages), and a brief discussion of potential means to mitigate adverse consequences. More detailed information on this complex topic may be found in Adams and Peck (forthcoming) and in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4).

26 citations


Posted Content
TL;DR: In this article, the authors attempt to explain what is happening to feed costs, including the likely consequences of the recent ethanol boom on these costs and how the different sectors of livestock and poultry are adjusting to higher costs.
Abstract: Agriculture in the United States is undergoing a significant change. Grain, oilseed, and land prices have increased significantly, creating a subsequent increase in the income and wealth of many rural Americans—unless you are in animal agriculture. Feed is the largest single cost item for livestock and poultry production, accounting for 60%– 70% of the total cost in most years. Although energy, labor, and other inputs have increased, feed costs have increased anywhere from 40%–60% (depending on the species) in the last two years. As price takers in competitive markets, animal producers cannot simply pass their higher costs on to consumers. To date, rising costs have largely been absorbed by livestock and poultry producers, often with significant financial loss. However, higher costs of production will ultimately have to be reflected in higher prices for meat, milk, and eggs at retail counters in the United States and elsewhere. This adjustment process is complex, lengthy, painful, and not without unintended consequences. In this article we attempt to explain what is happening to feed costs, including the likely consequences of the recent ethanol boom on these costs and how the different sectors—beef, dairy, pork, and poultry—are adjusting to higher costs. Importantly, speed of adjustment will vary significantly as industries with shorter production cycles, such as poultry, are able to respond in a matter of months whereas adjustments in industries with longer production cycles, such as beef, can take a period of several years. (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

23 citations


Posted ContentDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors focus on the nature and consequences of recent convergence problems in CBOT (now CME Group, Inc.) corn, soybean and wheat futures contracts and briefly comment on proposals for changing the contracts to address the problems that have surfaced recently.
Abstract: Futures markets play a key role in price discovery and risk transfer in many agricultural markets. Concerns have been raised about the performance of Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) grain futures contracts in a number of recent forums, most prominently at the Agricultural Forum hosted by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on April 22nd, 2008. Market participants have expressed concern that futures prices have been artificially inflated since the Fall of 2006, contributing to weak and erratic basis levels and a lack of convergence of cash and futures prices during delivery. In this article, we focus on the nature and consequences of recent convergence problems in CBOT (now CME Group, Inc.) corn, soybean and wheat futures contracts. We also briefly comment on proposals for changing the contracts to address the problems that have surfaced recently. Convergence problems at delivery locations are not necessarily identical to nondelivery basis performance issues, which are not addressed in this article. Basis in some nondelivery markets may be influenced by lack of convergence, but that is not uniformly the case. Corn basis at interior processing markets, for example, is less influenced by the Illinois River basis (delivery location) than cash markets close to the River. Basis at nondelivery locations is influenced by transportation costs, storage and ownership costs, supply of and demand for storage in the local market and merchandising risk (margin risk). All of these factors have likely contributed to weaker basis at many nondelivery markets.

Posted ContentDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss how scientists perceive people and nature to interact and how these changes will likely transform how we perceive farming and how they are reshaping the research agenda for agricultural and environmental economists.
Abstract: How scientists perceive people and nature to interact is changing. These changes will likely transform how we perceive farming. Along the way, they are reshaping the research agenda for agricultural and environmental economists. In short order, farmers will be faced with dramatically different management opportunities. Farming began as a means to produce food more reliably than hunting and gathering. Over time, the scope of farming expanded to fiber and fuel crops. The historic focus on producing goods has led most farmers to view themselves as “producers.” While this role will not change, new roles are becoming available as providers of more diverse ecosystem services than food, fiber and fuel.

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors proposed a revenue assurance program for the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, where farmers are offered the choice of the following program options: marketing loan and counter-cyclical payments even when revenue is above average because high yields more than offset low prices.
Abstract: Farm support programs based on price have been an integral part of farm policy since the 1930s. However, two concerns have emerged with existing price–based programs. One is that the current marketing loan and counter–cyclical programs provide little protection when yields are low. Widespread reduction in yields raises prices and reduces or eliminates payments from these two programs while localized reduction in yields reduce marketing loan payments for affected individual farms because marketing loan payments are based on production. The second concern is that farmers can receive marketing loan and counter–cyclical payments even when revenue is above average because high yields more than offset low prices. After decades of debate, a revenue assurance program finally became a reality in the new Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008. Specifically, farmers are offered the choice of the following program options:

Posted ContentDOI
TL;DR: For example, the authors reported that grain buyers in the US Midwest and the Corn Belt states have started to restrict their offerings of cash forward contracts in March 2008 instead of offering them beyond the current crop year.
Abstract: Grain producers have historically made much less use of futures and forward contract markets than grain merchandisers and other middlemen in the grain marketing channel. When grain prices are close to government support levels, producers are well protected from price decreases and they have little need to manage risk through forward pricing. Also, producers must make many long–term investments in land and machinery, which coupled with yield risk, has made forward pricing somewhat less effective in protecting producers against the risks they face. However, as grain prices rise government supports have also become less effective in protecting producers against price decreases. Moreover, increased use of crop insurance allows producers to be able to pay nonperformance penalties associated with cash forward contracts in the event of a crop failure. Thus, producer demand for forward contracts has skyrocketed in recent years. Most producers prefer forward contracts to futures contracts because they then avoid basis risk as well as the cash required for margin calls. Producers who forward contract receive a few cents less per bushel than they would by hedging (Brorsen, Coombs and Anderson, 1995; Shi, Irwin, Good and Hagedorn, 2004). Elevators have been willing to offer this service because it assures them a supply of grain. At the same time when farmers have a greater demand for cash forward contracts, grain merchants and elevator operators now have limited capacity to offer these contracts. The extra costs associated with margin accounts and extra working capital have been reflected in lower forward basis bids for corn, soybeans, and wheat in many Midwest and Corn Belt states. In Oklahoma, for example, elevators lowered their wheat forward basis bids about 30 cents/bushel rather than discontinue offering forward contracts. Many grain buyers began to restrict their offerings of cash forward contracts in March 2008 instead. Some elevators simply quit offering forward contracts. In other instances, buyers quit offering cash forward contracts beyond the current crop year. Some buyers are only offering cash forward contracts for grain to be delivered within 60 days.

Posted ContentDOI
TL;DR: Rangelands are expansive, unimproved lands located in arid or semi-arid regions, spanning a variety of landscapes including savannahs, high and low altitude deserts, mountain meadows, and tundra.
Abstract: Rangelands are expansive, unimproved lands located in arid or semi–arid regions, spanning a variety of landscapes including savannahs, high and low altitude deserts, mountain meadows, and tundra. Rangelands are generally unsuitable for crop production due to aridity, topography, and extreme temperatures. Rangelands support varying mixtures of native and nonnative grasses, grass–like plants, forbs, or shrubs which provide forage for free–ranging native and domestic animals (Stoddart, Smith and Box, 1975). There are more than 760 million acres of rangelands in the United States, including Alaska, comprising 33% of the nation’s total land base (USDA–USFS, 1989a). While exact determinations are unavailable, it is estimated that more than 50% of U.S. rangelands are privately owned, 43% are owned by the federal government, with the remainder owned by state and local governments (National Research Council, 1994). Approximately 262 million acres of U.S. rangelands are controlled by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and leased to private individuals for the purpose of land– extensive livestock grazing (CAST, 1996). Many more acres of rangelands in the 11 western states1 are controlled by state or local government agencies and leased for livestock grazing, with all these states having a high degree of intermingled public and private ownership of rangelands. Arid and semi–arid rangelands in the western United States are characterized by low and variable precipitation, high evaporative demand, nutrient poor soils, high spatial and temporal variability in plant production, and low net primary production (Havstad et al., 2007). These rangelands are often subject to desertification or invasion by shrubs and other woody plants as a result of drought, low resilience, and past management practices. Increased woody

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this article, the implications of European Union (EU) biofuel policies based on a general equilibrium framework with endogenous land supply were assessed, and it was shown that without policy intervention to stimulate the use of biofuel crops, the targets set by the EU Biofuels Directive will not meet.
Abstract: This article assesses the implications of European Union (EU) biofuel policies based on a general equilibrium framework with endogenous land supply. The results show that, without policy intervention to stimulate the use of biofuel crops, the targets set by the EU Biofuels Directive will not be met. European biofuel policies boosting demand for biofuel crops have a strong impact on agriculture globally and within Europe, leading to an increase in land use. On the other hand, the long–term declining trend in real agricultural prices may slow down or even reverse.

Posted ContentDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors consider the market effects and possible offsetting effects of production stimulated elsewhere, and consider the GHGs emitted when raising feedstocks, transporting them to a plant and transforming them into bioenergy.
Abstract: Agriculture may help mitigate climate change risks is by helping reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. One way of doing this is by providing substitute products that can replace fossil fuel intensive products or production processes. Production of biofeedstocks for bioenergy achieves this, where the biofeedstocks are traditional products, crop residues, wastes or processing byproducts. The forms of bioenergy include electrical power or liquid transportation fuels e.g. ethanol or biodiesel. Employing agricultural products in such a way generally involves recycling of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, because plant growth absorbs CO2 while combustion releases it. This is likely to mean that emission permits would not be needed for the CO2 emissions that arose when generating biofeedstock fired electricity or consuming liquid biofuels. GHG permit prices could raise the market value of agricultural commodities as long as bioenergy use does not require acquisition or use of potentially costly/valuable emissions permits. Consequently, biofeedstocks may be a way that both: (a) energy firms can cost effectively reduce GHG liabilities and (b) agricultural producers gain agricultural income. But, before wholeheartedly embracing bioenergy as a GHG reducing force, one must fully consider the GHGs emitted when raising feedstocks, transporting them to a plant and transforming them into bioenergy. One must also consider the market effects and possible offsetting effects of production stimulated elsewhere. Two issues arise when taking on such a viewpoint • What are the GHG offsets obtained when using particular forms of bioenergy and what does this mean for comparative economics of feedstocks? • When bioenergy production reduces traditional commodity production does the market reaction of other producers reduce net GHG effects? This paper briefly discusses these issues and is largely drawn from a longer version of the paper by McCarl (2008).

Posted ContentDOI
TL;DR: The road from the idea's origin to today's reality has taken many twists and turns and the publication of an interim final rule in July, the program's official launch in September and, finally, the January 12 release and January 15 publication of a final rule as mentioned in this paper in no way guarantee an absence of twist and turns in the future.
Abstract: Mandatory country of origin labeling (MCOOL) of pork and other meat products has now enjoyed a long and controversial life in spite of its only being legally in force since Sept. 30, 2008. The road from the idea’s origin to today’s reality has taken many twists and turns and the publication of an interim final rule in July, the program’s official launch in September and, finally, the January 12 release and January 15 publication of a final rule in no way guarantee an absence of twists and turns in the future. There are still many more acts to this long–running drama.

Posted ContentDOI
TL;DR: Using auctions to assess preferences, this paper found that the median consumer places no premium on fair trade foods produced under more stringent labor and environmental standards This indicates that current trade policies may be preferable to US consumers.
Abstract: Policymakers are considering including stricter standards in international trade agreements Using auctions to assess preferences, we find that the median consumer places no premium on fair trade foods produced under more stringent labor and environmental standards This indicates that current trade policies may be preferable to US consumers (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item)

Posted Content
TL;DR: The controversy over COOL within the beef industry can be broadly grouped into three areas of contention: 1) the specific language and implications for implementation of the COOL law; 2) the motivation for the law; and 3) the question of costs and benefits to the industry as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The central notion of COOL, to provide consumers with information about the source of beef products, seems simple enough and not likely to generate much inherent opposition. However, the issues involved in development of the COOL law and the implementation in the beef industry have proven to be the source of significant contention. Much of the support for the inclusion of COOL in the 2002 Farm Bill came from elements of the beef industry but the provisions were immediately resisted vigorously by other industry sectors and have continued to be a lightning rod for policy disputes that have often pitted producer against producer (Kay, 2003, 2003). The controversy over COOL within the beef industry can be broadly grouped into three areas of contention: 1) the specific language and implications for implementation of the COOL law; 2) the motivation for the law; and 3) the question of costs and benefits to the industry.

Posted ContentDOI
TL;DR: The concept of agricultural multifunctionality, the idea that farms can have multiple outputs, not just commodities, and thus can contribute to several societal objectives simultaneously, was introduced by as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Over the past decade two themes have emerged as organizing principles in natural resources policy One, ecosystem management, builds a framework for landscape–level decision making (Christensen et al 1996) The other, ecosystem services, opens a new dimension for thinking about what we hope to achieve through ecosystem management (Daily 1997; Costanza et al 1997) The convergence of these two themes has become a driving force behind the concept of agricultural multifunctionality, the idea that farms can have multiple outputs—not just commodities—and thus can contribute to several societal objectives simultaneously (Jordan et al 2007; OECD 2001) Agriculture has been engaged in ecosystem management since long before the term came into the natural resources policy lexicon Farms alter and then manage ecological processes and functions on small and large scales In so doing, farms reconfigure ecological attributes to maximize what are known as provisioning services—the food, fiber, energy, and other commodities supplied by nature (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) 2005) Farms manage these provisioning services to optimize on–site farm production, often at the expense of off–site environmental conditions Farms are associated, for example, with soil erosion, nutrient and pesticide runoff, and groundwater depletion (Ruhl 2000; Vitousek, Mooney, Lubchenco and Melillo 1997)

Posted ContentDOI
TL;DR: There is a growing awareness that farmland provides a host of nonmarket services, or amenities as discussed by the authors, beyond commodity production revenues, accruing to all types of residents in rural, suburban, and urban areas.
Abstract: There is a growing awareness that farmland provides a host of nonmarket services, or amenities. Amenities are external benefits of farmland, i.e., beyond commodity production revenues, accruing to all types of residents (or “amenity consumers”) in rural, suburban, and urban areas. Farmland amenities may include aesthetically pleasing views, habitat provision, groundwater recharge, and a lack of development (Irwin, Nickerson and Libby 2003). Although not necessarily amenities, farmland also provides closely related environmental benefits such as flood control and carbon sequestration (Legg 2007). The term “multifunctionality” reflects all of these services from active farmland: commodities, amenities, and other environmental services.

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors bring perspective to the role in mitigating climate change of carbon sequestration through land use and forestry projects, which are commonly grouped under the abbreviation LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry).
Abstract: The 1997 Kyoto Protocol includes, as a strategy for mitigating climate change, the option of removing CO2 from the atmosphere through biological carbon sequestration. This includes activities such as tree planting and land disturbance reduction that are commonly grouped under the abbreviation LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry). Perhaps surprisingly, in the decade since 1997, such schemes have not been widely or appropriately utilized. However, LULUCF activities should only be included in a climate mitigation strategy under very restrictive circumstances. The objective in this paper is to bring perspective to the role in mitigating climate change of carbon sequestration through land use and forestry projects. While there is no doubt that growing plants and trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in biomass or soils, this does not translate into unmitigated support for LULUCF as a source of carbon credits. There are many problems with LULUCF-generated offset credits, including: • Measurement, monitoring and verification are difficult and costly; • Carbon is not stored indefinitely (terrestrial carbon sinks are ephemeral); • The time path of carbon uptake and future release is not easy to estimate or evaluate; • Many projects cannot be considered ‘additional’ and would likely be implemented in the absence of climate concerns; and • Indirect carbon and other greenhouse gas effects (leakages) are generally ignored. As a result, it is extremely difficult to demonstrate that terrestrial projects truly generate the carbon credits that are claimed.

Posted ContentDOI
TL;DR: In the final version of the 2008 Farm Bill approved by Congress over the president's veto, the USDA is directed to establish a framework to measure environmental service benefits from conservation and land management activities as well as to focus on carbon markets for producers.
Abstract: In the 31 years since Walter E. Westman (1977) published “How much are nature’s services worth?” there has been extensive research into the nature of ecosystem services, the ways in which past and existing public policies influence the viability of ecosystem services, the valuation of such services (see NRC 2005), and the challenges of developing markets in which ecosystem services are traded (see Forest Trends 2008). While the scientific literature reporting this research is also extensive and found in the journals of a number of fields, ecological and economic, the informed discussion about ecosystem services by the lay public and policymakers is just beginning. Notwithstanding these early discussions, in its proposal for the 2007 Farm Bill, the Bush Administration included a program for a “market–based approach to conservation” structured around environmental benefits (i.e., ecosystem services) produced by rural landscapes (USDA 2007). In the final version of the 2008 Farm Bill approved by Congress over the president’s veto, the USDA is directed “to establish a framework to measure environmental service benefits from conservation and land management activities” as well as to focus on carbon markets for producers (U.S. Senate 2008); both are references to ecosystem services and rural lands.

Posted ContentDOI
TL;DR: The mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) labeling as discussed by the authors requires specified food retailers to inform their customers of the countries of origin of covered commodities, and the requirements were to apply to the retail sale of a covered commodity by that date.
Abstract: Simply put, mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) requires specified food retailers to inform their customers of the country of origin of covered commodities. The Federal requirements for mandatory COOL stem from the 2002 Farm Bill, which amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to add COOL provisions. Among other requirements, the 2002 Farm Bill directed USDA to issue guidelines for voluntary COOL by Sept. 30, 2002. During the time that they were available, no retailers adopted the voluntary guidelines to provide COOL information to their customers. Regulations to implement mandatory COOL were to be promulgated by Sept. 30, 2004, and the requirements were to apply to the retail sale of a covered commodity by that date.

Posted ContentDOI
TL;DR: Choices is a publication of the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association as mentioned in this paper and is available for subscription through http://www.choicesmagazine.org/subscriptions.html.
Abstract: ©1999–2008 CHOICES. All rights reserved. Articles may be reproduced or electronically distributed as long as attribution to Choices and the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association is maintained. Choices subscriptions are free and can be obtained through http://www.choicesmagazine.org. AAEA Agricultural & Applied Economics Association A publication of the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association

Posted Content
TL;DR: The COOL provisions for fresh fruits and vegetables were included in the Farm Secu-rity and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (hereafter referred to as the 2002 Farm Bill) and would have required retailers to inform consumers of the country of origin for covered products.
Abstract: ountry–of–origin labeling (COOL) provisions for fresh fruits and vegetables were included in the Farm Secu-rity and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (hereafter referred to as the 2002 Farm Bill) and would have required retailers to inform consumers of the country of origin for covered products in Oct 2003 That law included fruits and veg-etables as well as beef, pork and lamb, fish, and peanuts Covered commodities were to be exclusively produced and processed in the United States to be deemed of US origin The USDA issued voluntary guidelines for COOL on Oc-tober 11, 2002 as a step in the progression toward the man-datory program prescribed by the 2002 Farm Bill After a great deal of debate over the costs and benefits of mandato-ry COOL, the FY 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act delayed implementation of COOL until Sept 30, 2006 for all covered commodities except wild and farm–raised fish and shellfish It was delayed again in 2006 for another two years with passage of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Ap-propriations Act of 2006The fruit and vegetable industry is an important com-ponent of the US agricultural industry with cash farm receipts estimated at $405 billion in 2008 for vegetables, fruits and nuts This represents 225% of all US cash farm receipts for crops Fruits and vegetables are grown through-out the United States with the largest acreages found in California and Florida More than half the volume of all fresh fruits and vegetables reaches the consumers via super-markets and other retail establishments Although per cap-ita consumption of fruits and vegetables has increased sig-nificantly over the last two decades, the average American still does not eat the 5—10 servings per day recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention It is expected that consumption of fruits and vegetables will continue to growBecause of the seasonality of domestic produce supplies, and a seeming preference for fresh produce among many households, imports are an important source of supply for many fruits and vegetables Mexico, Canada, China and Costa Rica are the leading sources of imported fruits and vegetables The major vegetable imports are fresh tomatoes, melons, onions and sweet peppers Imports of fresh veg-etables totaled more than $63 billion in 2005 The major fruit imports are bananas, grapes, pineapples, berries and fresh citrus Imports of fresh fruits totaled more than $78 billion in 2005 Because of the important role of imports, which do not directly compete with domestic supplies dur-ing some seasons, there are some unique aspects to COOL for this industry Specifically, concerns about produce trade initiated some of the first state–based country of origin programs in the United States, and current debates on the US program focus on some of the same economic issues

Posted ContentDOI
TL;DR: The role of deforestation in future climate policy has become a prominent policy issue as mentioned in this paper, and several current legislative proposals explicitly consider importation of international carbon credits, some of which could arise from reductions in deforestation.
Abstract: Deforestation remains one of the largest sources of global CO2 emissions, constituting around 17% of total emissions (Figure 1; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007a). When forests are converted to agriculture, most of the carbon in biomass is emitted into the atmosphere either through active burning, or through decay. Deforestation is rather common today in tropical regions (Brazil, Africa, Southeast Asia) and results mainly from expansion of agricultural land, including the development of feedstocks for bioenergy. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007b), reductions in deforestation could have important near-term greenhouse gas impacts and they could reduce the overall costs of avoiding climate change. The role of deforestation in future climate policy has become a prominent policy issue. At the recent Bali international climate change meetings, countries (including the United States) agreed to keep the question of deforestation on the table during the debate about future policy after the Kyoto Protocol. This article discusses and examines arguments in favor and against the use of credits from reductions in deforestation in climate policy. While reductions in deforestation are an area of intense negotiation in international policy, they could easily become an area of concern domestically if the U.S. moves toward stronger climate policy. Several current legislative proposals explicitly consider importation of international carbon credits, some of which could arise from reductions in deforestation.

Posted ContentDOI
TL;DR: Choices is a publication of the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association as mentioned in this paper and is available for subscription through http://www.choicesmagazine.org/subscriptions.html.
Abstract: ©1999–2008 CHOICES. All rights reserved. Articles may be reproduced or electronically distributed as long as attribution to Choices and the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association is maintained. Choices subscriptions are free and can be obtained through http://www.choicesmagazine.org. AAEA Agricultural & Applied Economics Association A publication of the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, a summary of the Global Climate Models (GCMs) and scenarios for the next half-century is presented. But the authors do not discuss the impact of these models on agriculture.
Abstract: Agriculture will be influenced by future climate changes. In order to see these influences and examine their implications one must obtain a climate change projection. Climate change projections can be obtained from Global Climate Models (GCMs) run under scenarios that are forced by the drivers of the climate system. This paper will give a very brief summary of the GCMs and scenarios then present projections for the next half-century.