Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:51:29.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Macroeconomic impacts of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Paul J. Thomassin
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, McGill University, 21,111 Lakeshore Road, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada, H9X 3V9 (Thomassin@Macdonald.McGill.ca).
Get access

Abstract

Canada's commitment under the Kyoto Protocol is to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 6% of its 1990 levels. Each industrial sector is investigating alternative technologies, production and management practices that can decrease their GHG emissions. The macroeconomic impacts of four mitigation strategies to reduce GHG emissions from Canada's agriculture sectors were measured using an input-output model. The size of the GHG reduction from each mitigation strategy depended on whether agricultural soils were included as a carbon (C) sink. Including agricultural soils as a C sink impacts on the absolute amount of GHG emissions that must be reduced and the relative importance of the various mitigation strategies. This will be a key factor in policy development. Only one strategy, improving forage quality by 15%, had positive macroeconomic impacts in all situations. It was projected that this strategy would increase industrial output by $106.97 M (M = million; all $ Canadian), gross domestic product at factor cost (GDP) by $45.51 M and employment by 689 jobs. This strategy decreased GHG emissions by 0.07% below the ‘business as usual’ (BAU) situation when sinks were included. Increasing the adoption of zero-till farming had a positive macroeconomic impact only when the industrial sector effects were included. However, when household and industrial-sector impacts were combined, the results were decreases in industrial output of $286.90 M, GDP of $55.98 M and employment by 769 jobs. The mitigation strategy decreased GHG emissions by 3.06% below the BAU situation when sinks were included in the estimate. Improved soil nutrient management through more efficient use of N fertilizer had a negative net impact on the economy. This mitigation strategy had a direct impact on the agriculture and the fertilizer sectors, resulting in net decreases in industrial output of $70.76 M, GDP of $43.38 M and employment of 518 jobs. It was estimated that this mitigation strategy would decrease GHG emissions by 1.37% below the BAU situation. The last mitigation strategy was a permanent plant cover program. This generated the largest negative impact on the economy. It was projected to decrease industrial output by $1192.63 M, GDP by $392.17 M and employment by 6155 jobs. The strategy decreased GHG emissions by 1.73% below the BAU situation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.AAFC. 1999a. Medium Term Policy Baseline. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
2.AAFC. 1999b. Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Canada (CEEMA Version 1): Report 1 Model description. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
3.AAFC. 1999c. Canadian Economic and Emissions Model for Canada (CEEMA Version 1): Report 2 Preliminary results of selected scenarios. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
4.AAFC. 1999d. Results of the Canadian Economic Emissions Model for Agriculture Analysis. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
5.AAFCCT. 2000. Options Report: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian agriculture. Agriculture and Agri-Food Climate Change Table. National Climate Change Secretariat, Ottawa. Web site http://www.nccp.ca/html/tables/pdf/options/agri-finalop_eng.pdf (verified 08 2001).Google Scholar
6.Cloutier, L. M., and Thomassin, P.J.. 1994. Homogeneous versus nonhomogeneous households in the Canadian input-output model. Econ. Syst. Res. 6(4):397414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.ESG International. 1999. Soil management strategies for mitigating GHG emissions: Phase 1 Results. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
8.Junkins, B., Kulshreshtha, S.N., MacGregor, R.J., Gill, R., Dauncey, C., Desjardins, R.J., Boehm, M.M., Thomassin, P.J., Weersink, A., Parton, K., and Cleary, J.. 2000. Analysis of strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian agriculture. Technical Report to the Agriculture and Agri-Food Table. Draft Report. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
9.Miller, R. E., and Blair, P.D.. 1985. Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
10.Neitzert, F., Olsen, K., and Collas, P.. 1999. Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 1997 Emissions and Removals with Trends. Environment Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
11.Poole, E. 1995. A concise description of Statistics Canada's input-output models. Can. J. Regional Sci. 18(2):255270.Google Scholar
12.Thomassin, P., and Andison, A.. 1987. Agriculture Canada's input-output model Part 1: Disaggregation of the agriculture sector. Agriculture Canada Working Paper 6/87. Agriculture Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
13.Thomassin, P. J., and Baker, L.. 2000. Assessing the macroeconomic impacts of a fuel ethanol plant on the Canadian economy. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 48:6786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Thomassin, P. J., Henning, J.C., and Baker, L.. 1992. Macroeconomic impacts of an agro-ethanol industry in Canada. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 40:295310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Thomsen Corporation. 1999. Technical Report Study No. 3: Soil nutrient management. Stage 2: Technical Background and detailed scenario development of selected nutrient management options, and literature review of options with future potential. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
16.UNFCCC. 1997. Kyoto Protocol. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York. Web site http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf (verified 08 2001).Google Scholar