• Energy Research
• 11. Sustainability close
• 9. Industry and infrastructure close
• US close
• Research Papers in Economics close

This article examines land-use, market and welfare implications of lignocellulosic bioethanol production in Hawaii to satisfy 10% and 20% of the State's gasoline demand in line with the State's ethanol blending mandate and Alternative Fuels Standard (AFS). A static computable general equilibrium (CGE) model is used to evaluate four alternative support mechanisms for bioethanol. Namely: (i) a federal blending tax credit, (ii) a long-term purchase contract, (iii) a state production subsidy financed by a lump-sum tax and (iv) a state production subsidy financed by an ad valorem gasoline tax. We find that because Hawaii-produced bioethanol is relatively costly, all scenarios are welfare reducing for Hawaii residents: estimated between -0.14% and -0.32%. Unsurprisingly, Hawaii.s economy and its residents fair best under the federal blending tax credit scenario, with a positive impact to gross state product of $49 million. Otherwise, impacts to gross state product are negative (up to -$63 million). We additionally find that Hawaii-based bioethanol is not likely to offer substantial greenhouse gas emissions savings in comparison to imported biofuel, and as such the policy cost per tonne of emissions displaced ranges between $130 to $2,100/tonne of CO2e. The policies serve to increase the value of agricultural lands, where we estimate that the value of pasture land could increase as much as 150% in the 20% AFS scenario.

This article examines land-use, market and welfare implications of lignocellulosic bioethanol production in Hawaii to satisfy 10% and 20% of the State's gasoline demand in line with the State's ethanol blending mandate and Alternative Fuels Standard (AFS). A static computable general equilibrium (CGE) model is used to evaluate four alternative support mechanisms for bioethanol. Namely: (i) a federal blending tax credit, (ii) a long-term purchase contract, (iii) a state production subsidy financed by a lump-sum tax and (iv) a state production subsidy financed by an ad valorem gasoline tax. We find that because Hawaii-produced bioethanol is relatively costly, all scenarios are welfare reducing for Hawaii residents: estimated between -0.14% and -0.32%. Unsurprisingly, Hawaii.s economy and its residents fair best under the federal blending tax credit scenario, with a positive impact to gross state product of $49 million. Otherwise, impacts to gross state product are negative (up to -$63 million). We additionally find that Hawaii-based bioethanol is not likely to offer substantial greenhouse gas emissions savings in comparison to imported biofuel, and as such the policy cost per tonne of emissions displaced ranges between $130 to $2,100/tonne of CO2e. The policies serve to increase the value of agricultural lands, where we estimate that the value of pasture land could increase as much as 150% in the 20% AFS scenario.

Activities involving land use, land-use change,forestry, and agriculture (LUCF) can help reducegreenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphereby increasing biotic carbon storage, by decreasing GHGemissions, and by producing biomass as a substitutefor fossil fuels. Potential activities includereducing rates of deforestation, increasing landdevoted to forest plantations, regenerating secondaryforest, agroforestry, improving the management offorests and agricultural areas; and producing energycrops.Policymakers debating the inclusion of a variety ofLUCF activities in the Clean Development Mechanism(CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol need to consider themagnitude of the carbon contribution these activitiescould make. Existing estimates of the cumulative GHGoffset potential of LUCF activities often take aglobal or regional approach. In contrast, land-usedecisions are usually made at the local level anddepend on many factors including productive capacityof the land, financial considerations of thelandowner, and environmental concerns. Estimates ofGHG offset potential made at a local, or at mostcountry, level that incorporate these factors may belower, as well as more useful for policy analyses,than global or large regional estimates. Whilecountry-level estimates exist for forestry activities,similar estimates utilizing local information need tobe generated for agricultural activities and biofuels,as well as for the cumulative potential of all LUCFactivities in a particular location.

Activities involving land use, land-use change,forestry, and agriculture (LUCF) can help reducegreenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphereby increasing biotic carbon storage, by decreasing GHGemissions, and by producing biomass as a substitutefor fossil fuels. Potential activities includereducing rates of deforestation, increasing landdevoted to forest plantations, regenerating secondaryforest, agroforestry, improving the management offorests and agricultural areas; and producing energycrops.Policymakers debating the inclusion of a variety ofLUCF activities in the Clean Development Mechanism(CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol need to consider themagnitude of the carbon contribution these activitiescould make. Existing estimates of the cumulative GHGoffset potential of LUCF activities often take aglobal or regional approach. In contrast, land-usedecisions are usually made at the local level anddepend on many factors including productive capacityof the land, financial considerations of thelandowner, and environmental concerns. Estimates ofGHG offset potential made at a local, or at mostcountry, level that incorporate these factors may belower, as well as more useful for policy analyses,than global or large regional estimates. Whilecountry-level estimates exist for forestry activities,similar estimates utilizing local information need tobe generated for agricultural activities and biofuels,as well as for the cumulative potential of all LUCFactivities in a particular location.

Conventional wisdom suggests that energy efficiency (EE) policies are beneficial because they induce investments that pay for themselves and lead to emissions reductions. However, this belief is primarily based on projections from engineering models. This paper reports on the results of an experimental evaluation of the nation’s largest residential EE program conducted on a sample of more than 30,000 households. The findings suggest that the upfront investment costs are about twice the actual energy savings. Further, the model-projected savings are roughly 2.5 times the actual savings. While this might be attributed to the “rebound” effect – when demand for energy end uses increases as a result of greater efficiency – the paper fails to find evidence of significantly higher indoor temperatures at weatherized homes. Even when accounting for the broader societal benefits of energy efficiency investments, the costs still substantially outweigh the benefits; the average rate of return is approximately -9.5% annually.

Conventional wisdom suggests that energy efficiency (EE) policies are beneficial because they induce investments that pay for themselves and lead to emissions reductions. However, this belief is primarily based on projections from engineering models. This paper reports on the results of an experimental evaluation of the nation’s largest residential EE program conducted on a sample of more than 30,000 households. The findings suggest that the upfront investment costs are about twice the actual energy savings. Further, the model-projected savings are roughly 2.5 times the actual savings. While this might be attributed to the “rebound” effect – when demand for energy end uses increases as a result of greater efficiency – the paper fails to find evidence of significantly higher indoor temperatures at weatherized homes. Even when accounting for the broader societal benefits of energy efficiency investments, the costs still substantially outweigh the benefits; the average rate of return is approximately -9.5% annually.

In the United States, today’s ranches are engaging in small-scale nature-based endeavors to diversify their income base. But the geographic boundary of the land they own creates a relatively small area within which to operate, and fragmented ownership diminishes the ability of any single landowner to produce nature-based income. Collective action among nearby landowners can produce a set of resources from which all members of the group can profit. Such action can enhance the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of grasslands and the populations that use them. This article shows that common-interest communities can be used to provide and allocate wildlife and other resources on ranchlands, enabling individual landowners to generate more income from selling nature-based experiences to customers. Common-interest communities are familiar in urban settings but they have not yet been used in this setting. Thus, the article proposes a new approach to ranchland management based upon a familiar set of largely private legal arrangements. More broadly, the article illustrates the relevance of private law and private property to sustainable development by explaining how property owners can use private law to engage in environmentally beneficial and economically profitable enterprises on the vast privately owned landscape of the U.S. Great Plains.

In the United States, today’s ranches are engaging in small-scale nature-based endeavors to diversify their income base. But the geographic boundary of the land they own creates a relatively small area within which to operate, and fragmented ownership diminishes the ability of any single landowner to produce nature-based income. Collective action among nearby landowners can produce a set of resources from which all members of the group can profit. Such action can enhance the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of grasslands and the populations that use them. This article shows that common-interest communities can be used to provide and allocate wildlife and other resources on ranchlands, enabling individual landowners to generate more income from selling nature-based experiences to customers. Common-interest communities are familiar in urban settings but they have not yet been used in this setting. Thus, the article proposes a new approach to ranchland management based upon a familiar set of largely private legal arrangements. More broadly, the article illustrates the relevance of private law and private property to sustainable development by explaining how property owners can use private law to engage in environmentally beneficial and economically profitable enterprises on the vast privately owned landscape of the U.S. Great Plains.