Addressing Uncertainty in Efficient Mitigation of Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Cairistiona F. E. Topp
Search for more papers by this authorAdam Butler
Search for more papers by this authorDominic Moran
Vera Eory and Cairistiona Topp are in the Research Division, SRUC, Edinburgh, UK. E-mail: [email protected] for correspondence. Dominic Moran is with The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh. Adam Butler is with Biomathematics & Statistics Scotland, Edinburgh, UK. This paper was funded by the Rural & Environment Science & Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government.Search for more papers by this authorCairistiona F. E. Topp
Search for more papers by this authorAdam Butler
Search for more papers by this authorDominic Moran
Vera Eory and Cairistiona Topp are in the Research Division, SRUC, Edinburgh, UK. E-mail: [email protected] for correspondence. Dominic Moran is with The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh. Adam Butler is with Biomathematics & Statistics Scotland, Edinburgh, UK. This paper was funded by the Rural & Environment Science & Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government.Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
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 cost-effectiveness 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 cost-effective 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.
Supporting Information
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| jage12269-sup-0001-SupInfo.docxWord document, 146.3 KB |
Figure S1. Schematic structure of the MACC calculations Table S1. Activity values (ha) Table S2. Applicability values Table S3. Maximum additional uptake values in 2022 Table S4. GHG abatement rate values (kg N2O ha-1 year-1) Table S5. GWP of N2O (kg N2O kg CO2 -1) Table S6. Interaction factors Table S7. Net present cost values (£2008 ha-1 year-1) Table S8. Discount rate Table S9. Lowest and highest CV of the cost-effective GHG abatement for different simulations and average CV of relevant simulations Table S10. Comparison of the relative assumed level of the input group uncertainty to the relative contribution to output uncertainty of the input group uncertainty. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
References
- Akiyama, H., Yan, X. and Yagi, K. ‘Evaluation of effectiveness of enhanced-efficiency fertilizers as mitigation options for N2O and NO emissions from agricultural soils: Meta-analysis’, Global Change Biology, Vol. 16, (2010) pp. 1837–1846.
- Baker, E., Chon, H. and Keisler, J. ‘Advanced solar R&D: Combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy’, Energy Economics, Vol. 31(Supplement 1), (2009a) pp. S37–S49.
- Baker, E., Chon, H. and Keisler, J. ‘Carbon capture and storage: Combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy’, Climatic Change, Vol. 96, (2009b) pp. 379–408.
- Berger, T. and Troost, C. ‘Agent-based modelling of climate adaptation and mitigation options in agriculture’, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 65, (2014) pp. 323–348.
- Buckingham, S., Anthony, S., Bellamy, P. H., Cardenas, L. M., Higgins, S., McGeough, K. and Topp, C. F. E. ‘Review and analysis of global agricultural N2O emissions relevant to the UK’, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 487, (2014) pp. 164–172.
- DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change). Carbon Valuation in UK Policy Appraisal: A Revised Approach (London: DECC, 2009).
- Eory, V., MacLeod, M., Topp, C. F. E., Rees, R. M., Webb, J., McVittie, A., Wall, E., Brothwick, F., Watson, C., Waterhouse, A., Wiltshire, J., Bell, H., Moran, D. and Dewhurst, R. J. Review And Update of the UK Agriculture MACC to Assess the Abatement Potential for the 5th Carbon Budget Period and to 2050 (London: Committee on Climate Change, 2015).
- Eory, V., Pellerin, S., Carmona Garcia, G., Lehtonen, H., Licite, I., Mattila, H., Lund-Sørensen, T., Muldowney, J., Popluga, D., Strandmark, L. and Schulte, R. ‘Marginal abatement cost curves for agricultural climate policy: State-of-the art, lessons learnt and future potential’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 182, (2018) pp. 705–716.
- Gibbons, J. M., Ramsden, S. J. and Blake, A. ‘Modelling uncertainty in greenhouse gas emissions from UK agriculture at the farm level’, Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 112, (2006) pp. 347–355.
- Glenk, K. and Colombo, S. ‘Designing policies to mitigate the agricultural contribution to climate change: An assessment of soil based carbon sequestration and its ancillary effects’, Climatic Change, Vol. 105, (2011) pp. 43–66.
- Golub, A., Narita, D. and Schmidt, M. G. W. ‘Uncertainty in integrated assessment models of climate change: Alternative analytical approaches’, Environmental Modeling & Assessment, Vol. 19, (2014) pp. 99–109.
- Hallegatte, S., Shah, A., Brown, C., Lempert, R. and Gill, S. Investment Decision Making under Deep Uncertainty — Application to Climate Change, Report No. WPS6193 (Washington, DC: The World Bank Sustainable Development Network, 2012).
- Heijungs, R. ‘Identification of key issues for further investigation in improving the reliability of life-cycle assessments’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 4, (1996) pp. 159–166.
10.1016/S0959-6526(96)00042-X Google Scholar
- IPCC. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2013).
- IPCC. Climate change 2014: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2014).
- Kann, A. and Weyant, J. ‘Approaches for performing uncertainty analysis in large-scale energy/economic policy models’, Environmental Modeling & Assessment, Vol. 5, (2000) pp. 29–46.
- Kesicki, F. and Ekins, P. ‘Marginal abatement cost curves: A call for caution’, Climate Policy, Vol. 12, (2012) pp. 219–236.
- Kesicki, F. and Strachan, N. ‘Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves: Confronting theory and practice’, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 14, (2011) pp. 1195–1204.
- Knaggard, A. ‘What do policy-makers do with scientific uncertainty? The incremental character of Swedish climate change policy-making’, Policy Studies, Vol. 35, (2013) pp. 22–39.
- Kunreuther, H., Gupta, S., Bosetti, V., Cooke, R., Dutt, V., Ha-Duong, M., Held, H., Llanes-Regueiro, J., Patt, A., Shittu, E. and Weber, E. ‘ Integrated risk and uncertainty assessment of climate change response policies’, in: O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, J. C. Minx, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, S. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlomer, C. von Stechow and T. Zwickel (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2014).
- Lempert, R. and Schlesinger, M. ‘Robust strategies for abating climate change’, Climatic Change, Vol. 45, (2000) pp. 387–401.
- MacLeod, M., Moran, D., McVittie, A., Rees, R., Jones, G., Harris, D., Antony, S., Wall, E., Eory, V., Barnes, A., Topp, C.F., Ball, B., Hoad, S. and Eory, L. Review and Update of UK Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Agriculture (London: Committee on Climate Change, 2010).
- Meyer-Aurich, A., Schattauer, A., Hellebrand, H. J., Klauss, H., Plochl, M. and Berg, W. ‘Impact of uncertainties on greenhouse gas mitigation potential of biogas production from agricultural resources’, Renewable Energy, Vol. 37, (2012) pp. 277–284.
- Milne, A. E., Glendining, M. J., Bellamy, P., Misselbrook, T., Gilhespy, S., Rivas Casado, M., Hulin, A., van Oijen, M. and Whitmore, A. P. ‘Analysis of uncertainties in the estimates of nitrous oxide and methane emissions in the UK's greenhouse gas inventory for agriculture’, Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 82, (2014) pp. 94–105.
- Milne, A. E., Glendining, M. J., Lark, R. M., Perryman, S. A. M., Gordon, T. and Whitmore, A. P. ‘Communicating the uncertainty in estimated greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture’, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 160, (2015) pp. 139–153.
- Moran, D., MacLeod, M., Wall, E., Eory, V., Pajot, G., Matthews, R., McVittie, A., Barnes, A., Rees, R., Moxey, A., Williams, A. and Smith, P. UK Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for the Agriculture and Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry Sectors out to 2022, With Qualitative Analysis of Options to 2050, Report No. RMP4950, (London: Committee on Climate Change, 2008).
- Moran, D., MacLeod, M., Wall, E., Eory, V., McVittie, A., Barnes, A., Rees, R. M., Topp, C. F. E., Pajot, G., Matthews, R., Smith, P. and Moxey, A. ‘Developing carbon budgets for UK agriculture, land-use, land-use change and forestry out to 2022’, Climatic Change, Vol. 105, (2011) pp. 529–553.
- Myhre, G., Shindell, D., Breon, F.-M., Collins, W., Fuglestvedt, J., Huang, J., Koch, D., Lamarque, J. F., Lee, D., Mendoza, B., Nakajima, T., Robock, A., Stephens, G., Takemura, T. and Zhang, H. ‘ Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing’, in: T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P. M. Midgley (eds.), Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2013, pp. 659–740).
- Olander, L., Wollenberg, E., Tubiello, F. and Herold, M. ‘Advancing agricultural greenhouse gas quantification’, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 8, (2013) p. 011002.
- Peterson, S. ‘Uncertainty and economic analysis of climate change: A survey of approaches and findings’, Environmental Modeling & Assessment, Vol. 11, (2006) pp. 1–17.
- Pierer, M., Amon, B. and Winiwarter, W. ‘Adapting feeding methods for less nitrogen pollution from pig and dairy cattle farming: Abatement costs and uncertainties’, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, Vol. 104, (2016) pp. 201–220.
- Price, R., Thornton, S. and Nelson, S. The Social Cost of Carbon and the Shadow Price of Carbon: What They Are, and How To Use Them in Economic Appraisal in the UK (London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2007).
- Qiao, C., Liu, L., Hu, S., Compton, J. E., Greaver, T. L. and Li, Q. ‘How inhibiting nitrification affects nitrogen cycle and reduces environmental impacts of anthropogenic nitrogen input’, Global Change Biology, Vol. 21, (2015) pp. 1249–1257.
- Salisbury, E., Thistlethwait, G., Young, K., Cardenas, L. and Thomson, A. Greenhouse Gas Inventories for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: 1990–2013, Report No. ED59802/2012/CD8542/GT. (Aether, Ricardo-AEA, 2015).
- Scottish Government. Low Carbon Scotland: Meeting the Emissions Reduction Targets 2010–2022 Technical Appendix - The Report on Proposals and Policies. (Edinburgh: Scottish Government, 2011).
- Scottish Government. Low Carbon Scotland: Meeting the emissions reduction targets 2013–2027 - The Second Report on Proposals and Policies. (Edinburgh: Scottish Government, 2013)
- Smith, L. A. and Stern, N. ‘Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A-Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 369, (2011) pp. 4818–4841.
- Veneman, J. B., Saetnan, E. R., Clare, A. J. and Newbold, C. J. ‘MitiGate; an online meta-analysis database for quantification of mitigation strategies for enteric methane emissions’, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 572, (2016) pp. 1166–1174.
- Zehetmeier, M., Hoffmann, H., Sauer, J., Hofmann, G., Dorfner, G. and O'Brien, D. ‘A dominance analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, beef output and land use of German dairy farms’, Agricultural Systems, Vol. 129, (2014) pp. 55–67.




