Spatial and Temporal Responses to an Emissions Trading Scheme Covering Agriculture and Forestry: Simulation Results from New Zealand
1
Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, PO Box 24390, Wellington 6142, New Zealand
2
GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt 5040, New Zealand
3
Ministry for Primary Industries, PO Box 2526, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2012, 3(4), 1133-1156; https://doi.org/10.3390/f3041133
Received: 3 August 2012 / Revised: 30 November 2012 / Accepted: 4 December 2012 / Published: 18 December 2012
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Role of Forests for Carbon Capture and Storage)
Abstract
We perform simulations using the integrated Land Use in Rural New Zealand (LURNZ) model to analyze the effect of various New Zealand emissions trading scheme (ETS) scenarios on land use, emissions and output in a temporally and spatially explicit manner. We compare the impact of afforestation to the impact of other land-use change on net greenhouse gas emissions and evaluate the importance of the forestry component of the ETS relative to the agricultural component. We find that the effect of including agriculture in the ETS is small relative to the effect of including forestry. We also examine the effect of land-use change on the time profile of net emissions from the forestry sector. Finally, we present projections of future agricultural output under various policy scenarios. View Full-TextKeywords:
land use; land-use change; LURNZ; greenhouse gas emissions; afforestation; forestry removals; New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme; integrated modeling; agricultural production
▼
Figures
Figure 1
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 3.0).
Share & Cite This Article
MDPI and ACS Style
Kerr, S.; Anastasiadis, S.; Olssen, A.; Power, W.; Timar, L.; Zhang, W. Spatial and Temporal Responses to an Emissions Trading Scheme Covering Agriculture and Forestry: Simulation Results from New Zealand. Forests 2012, 3, 1133-1156.