Indirect Land Use Change Debate: What Did We Learn?

Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton R, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa JF, et al. Factoring greenhouse gas emissions from land use change into biofuel calculations. Science. 2008;29:1238–40.

Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science. 2008;319(5867):1235.

Khanna M, Chen X. Economic, energy security, and greenhouse gas effects of biofuels: implications for policy. Am J Agric Econ. 2013;95(5):1325–31.

Khatiwada D, Seabra J, Silveira S, Walter A. Accounting greenhouse gas emissions in the life cycle of Brazilian sugarcane bioethanol: methodological references in European and American regulations. Energ Policy. 2012;47:384–97.

Khanna M, Zilberman D. Modeling the land-use and greenhouse-gas implications of biofuels. Clim Chang Econ. 2012;3(3):1250016.

Zilberman D, Barrows G, Hochman G, Rajagopal D. On the indirect effect of biofuel. Am J Agric Econ. 2013;95(5):1332–7.

Drabik D, de Gorter H. Biofuel policies and carbon leakage. Ag Bio Forum. 2011;14(3):104–10.

Rajagopal D, Plevin RJ. Implications of market-mediated emissions and uncertainty for biofuel policies. Energ Policy. 2013;56:75–82.

Laborde D. Assessing the Land Use Change Consequences of European Biofuel Policies, 2011; Technical Report, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Laborde D, Valin H. Modeling land-use changes in a global CGE: assessing the EU biofuel mandates with the MIRAGE-BioF model. Clim Chang Econ. 2012;3(3):39. 1250017. The study uses a global CGE model to analyze ILUC and GHG emissions from EU biofuels policy.

Golub AA, Hertel TW. Modeling land-use change impacts of biofuels in the GTAP-BIO framework. Clim Chang Econ. 2012;3(3):1250015.

Beach RH, Zhang YW, McCarl BA. Modeling bioenergy, land use, and GHG emissions with FASOMGHG: model overview and analysis of storage cost implications. Clim Chang Econ. 2012;3(3):34. 1250012. The study uses a US model to analyze implications of cellulosic feedstock storage costs and introduction of carbon prices.

Mosnier A, Havlik P, Valin H, Baker J, Murray B, Feng S, et al. Alternative U.S. biofuel mandates and global GHG emissions: the role of land use change, crop management and yield growth. Energ Policy. 2013;57:602–14. The study uses GLOBIOM, a global PE model, to analyze ILUC and GHG emissions from US RFS2.

Sarica K, Tyner WE. Analysis of US renewable fuels policies using a modified MARKAL model. Renew Energy. 2013;50:701–9.

Chen X, Huang H, Khanna M. Land-use and greenhouse gas implications of biofuels: role of technology and policy. Clim Chang Econ. 2012;3(3):25. 1250013. The study uses a US model to analyze the implications of cellulosic biofuels producers tax credit and domestic carbon tax.

Huang H, Khanna M, Onal H, Chen X. Stacking low carbon policies on the renewable fuels standard: economic and greenhouse gas implications. Energ Policy. 2013;56:5–15.

Witcover J, Yeh S, Sperling D. Policy options to address global land use change from biofuels. Energ Policy. 2013;56:63–74.

Kauffman NS, Hayes DJ. The trade-off between bioenergy and emissions with land constraints. Energ Policy. 2013;54:300–10. The study uses a US corn and switchgrass model to highlight the role of unit of measurement for GHG emissions for correct policy design.

O'Hare M, Plevin RJ, Martin J, Hopson E, Jones AD, Kendall A. Proper accounting for time increases crop-based biofuels' greenhouse gas deficit versus petroleum. Environ Resour Lett. 2009;4:024001.

de Gorter H, Tsur Y. Cost–benefit tests for GHG emissions from biofuel production. Eur Rev Agric Econ. 2010;37(2):133–45.