E-resources
Peer reviewed
-
O’Brien, Donal; Shalloo, Laurence; Crosson, Paul; Donnellan, Trevor; Farrelly, Niall; Finnan, John; Hanrahan, Kevin; Lalor, Stan; Lanigan, Gary; Thorne, Fiona; Schulte, Rogier
Environmental science & policy, 05/2014, Volume: 39Journal Article
•Improving productivity was the most effective strategy to reduce emissions and costs.•The accounting methods disagreed on the total abatement potential of mitigation measures.•Thus, it may be difficult to convince farmers to adopt certain abatement measures.•Domestic offsetting and consumption based accounting are options to overcome current methodological issues. Marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) analysis allows the evaluation of strategies to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions relative to some reference scenario and encompasses their costs or benefits. A popular approach to quantify the potential to abate national agricultural emissions is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidelines for national GHG inventories (IPCC-NI method). This methodology is the standard for assessing compliance with binding national GHG reduction targets and uses a sector based framework to attribute emissions. There is however an alternative to the IPCC-NI method, known as life cycle assessment (LCA), which is the preferred method to assess the GHG intensity of food production (kg of GHG/unit of food). The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of using the IPCC-NI and LCA methodologies when completing a MACC analysis of national agricultural GHG emissions. The MACC was applied to the Irish agricultural sector and mitigation measures were only constrained by the biophysical environment. The reference scenario chosen assumed that the 2020 growth targets set by the Irish agricultural industry would be achieved. The comparison of methodologies showed that only 1.1 Mt of the annual GHG abatement potential that can be achieved at zero or negative cost could be attributed to agricultural sector using the IPCC-NI method, which was only 44% of the zero or negative cost abatement potential attributed to the sector using the LCA method. The difference between methodologies was because the IPCC-NI method attributes the abatement from agricultural mitigation measures, partially or fully, to other sectors within a nation or to activity taking place in other countries. This suggests that it may be politically difficult to justify to farmers that mitigation measures should be adopted in agriculture, if the accounting process does not credit this mitigation to them. The disagreement between methodologies also indicates that unilateral national or regional policies to reduce agricultural GHG emissions based on the IPCC-NI method could lead to mitigation options that increase global emissions (carbon leakage). The limitations of the IPCC-NI method for assessing national agricultural GHG emissions could be overcome by reforming or expanding the accounting methodology to include domestic offsetting and to assess emissions associated with national consumption via LCA. This would overcome the problem of carbon leakage and credit (in part) agricultural practices that reduce emissions in other sectors or nations without emission caps.
![loading ... loading ...](themes/default/img/ajax-loading.gif)
Shelf entry
Permalink
- URL:
Impact factor
Access to the JCR database is permitted only to users from Slovenia. Your current IP address is not on the list of IP addresses with access permission, and authentication with the relevant AAI accout is required.
Year | Impact factor | Edition | Category | Classification | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
JCR | SNIP | JCR | SNIP | JCR | SNIP | JCR | SNIP |
Select the library membership card:
If the library membership card is not in the list,
add a new one.
DRS, in which the journal is indexed
Database name | Field | Year |
---|
Links to authors' personal bibliographies | Links to information on researchers in the SICRIS system |
---|
Source: Personal bibliographies
and: SICRIS
The material is available in full text. If you wish to order the material anyway, click the Continue button.