Marginal abatement cost curves for agricultural climate policy: State-of-the art, lessons learnt and future potential

Eory, Vera; Pellerin, Sylvain; Garcia, Gema Carmona; Lehtonen, Heikki; Līcīte, Ieva; Mattila, Hanna; Lund-Sørensen, Thøger; Muldowney, John; Popluga, Dina; Strandmark, Lisbeth; Schulte, Rogier P.O.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.252

Cited by 57 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It could also expand and disaggregate the total number of mitigation options initially included in the INDCs. More disaggregated options represent better the heterogeneity within the sector and support the translation of findings into practical farm advice (Eory et al, 2018). In this paper, we review the abatement options from Vietnam's NDC as well as other options using the marginal abatement cost (MAC) curve methodology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviewing Vietnam's Nationally Determined Contribution: A New Perspective Using the Marginal Cost of Abatement

Carbonari

Grosjean

Läderach

et al. 2019

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviewing Vietnam's Nationally Determined Contribution: A New Perspective Using the Marginal Cost of Abatement

Carbonari

Grosjean

Läderach

et al. 2019

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…MACCs have been used for GHG assessments in a variety of sectors, e.g. the cement industry (Worrell et al 2000), the transport sector (Peng et al 2018), and forestry and agriculture (Eory et al 2018a;Moran et al 2009). MACCs have also been used in other policy areas but only a few studies have applied them to water challenges (Addams et al 2009;Chukalla et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Water Scarcity Mitigation under Uncertainty

Sjöstrand

Lindhé

Söderqvist³

et al. 2019

Water Resour Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As water scarcity and drought become more common, planning to avoid their consequences becomes crucial. Measures to prevent the impact of new climate conditions are expected to be extensive, costly and associated with major uncertainties. It is therefore necessary that policymakers and practitioners in both the public and private sector can compare possible mitigation measures in order to make economically rational investment decisions. For this to be successful, decision-makers need relevant decision support. This paper presents a novel approach of constructing marginal abatement cost curves for comparing water scarcity mitigation measures while taking the underlying uncertainties into account. Uncertainties in input variables are represented by probability distributions and calculations are performed using Monte Carlo simulations. This approach is applied on the island of Gotland, one of the most water-stressed parts of Sweden, to provide the first marginal abatement cost curve in Europe for water scarcity mitigation in which municipal, agricultural, industrial and household measures are compared. The results show that the agricultural measure of on-farm storage has the greatest potential to increase water availability on the island. Among municipal measures, increased groundwater extraction and desalination offer the greatest potential, although desalination is almost 25 times more costly per cubic meter. The most cost-effective measure is linked to hot water savings in the hotel industry. The approach presented provides a quantitative visualization of the financial trade-offs and uncertainties implied by different mitigation measures. It provides critical economic insights for all parties concerned and is thus an important basis for decision-making.

show abstract

“…We use existing MACC data to estimate the uncertainty of the cost-effective total abatement potential and the cost-effectiveness and abatement of individual mitigation options for UK agriculture (Moran et al, 2011). By doing so, we demonstrate a solution for a shortcoming which affects numerous agricultural MACCs around the world (Eory et al, 2018) and hinders agrienvironmental decision-making.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing Uncertainty in Efficient Mitigation of Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Eory¹,

Topp²,

Butler³

et al. 2018

J Agricultural Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The agricultural sector, as an important source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, is under pressure to reduce its contribution to climate change. Decisions on financing and regulating agricultural GHG mitigation are often informed by costeffectiveness analysis of the potential GHG reduction in the sector. A commonly used tool for such analysis is the bottom-up marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) which assesses mitigation options and calculates their cumulative costeffective mitigation potential. MACCs are largely deterministic, typically not reflecting uncertainties in underlying input variables. We analyse the uncertainty of GHG mitigation estimates in a bottom-up MACC for agriculture, for those uncertainties capable of quantitative assessment. Our analysis identifies the sources and types of uncertainties in the cost-effectiveness analysis and estimates the statistical uncertainty of the results by propagating uncertainty through the MACC via Monte Carlo analysis. For the case of Scottish agriculture, the uncertainty of the cost-effective abatement potential from agricultural land, as expressed by the coefficient of variation, was between 9.6% and 107.3% across scenarios. This means that the probability of the actual abatement being less than half of the estimated abatement ranged from <1% (in the scenario with lowest uncertainty) to 32% (in the scenario with highest uncertainty). The main contributors to uncertainty are the adoption rate and abatement rate. While most mitigation options appear to be 'win-win' under some scenarios, many have a high probability of switching between being cost-ineffective and cost-effective.

show abstract

Marginal abatement cost curves for agricultural climate policy: State-of-the art, lessons learnt and future potential

Cited by 57 publications

References 38 publications

Reviewing Vietnam's Nationally Determined Contribution: A New Perspective Using the Marginal Cost of Abatement

Reviewing Vietnam's Nationally Determined Contribution: A New Perspective Using the Marginal Cost of Abatement

Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Water Scarcity Mitigation under Uncertainty

Addressing Uncertainty in Efficient Mitigation of Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About