Cattle ranching intensification in Brazil can reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by sparing land from deforestation
Cattle ranching intensification in Brazil can reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by sparing land from deforestation
复制标题
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.1307163111
复制
发表时间：
2014-05-20
影响因子：
11.1
通讯作者：
Obersteiner, Michael
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cohn, Avery S.;Mosnier, Aline;Obersteiner, Michael
本研究探讨了巴西鼓励养牛集约化的政策是否可以通过保护土地免受森林砍伐来减少全球温室气体（GHG）排放。我们使用的全球土地利用的经济模型，调查，从2010年到2030年，全球农业成果，土地利用变化，温室气体减排产生的两个潜在的巴西政策：从传统的牧场牛税和半集约化牧场牛的补贴。我们发现，在这两种政策下，巴西可以实现相当大的节约森林和温室气体减排，符合其国家政策目标。省下的土地，特别是在税收下省下的土地，远远低于生产力提高的比例。然而，税收，尽管促使较少采用半集约化牧场，提供略高于森林节约和温室气体减排比补贴。这一差异的原因是，在补贴下，森林砍伐增加，牛肉消费增加，而在税收下，森林砍伐减少，牛肉消费减少。直接限制森林砍伐的补充政策可能有助于限制这些影响。通过税收或补贴来减少温室气体似乎并不昂贵，但随着时间的推移，税收将变得比补贴便宜。对巴西和其他寻求平衡农业发展和森林保护的新兴经济体来说，这些政策的收入中性组合可以成为可持续发展战略的一个要素。
This study examines whether policies to encourage cattle ranching intensification in Brazil can abate global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by sparing land from deforestation. We use an economic model of global land use to investigate, from 2010 to 2030, the global agricultural outcomes, land use changes, and GHG abatement resulting from two potential Brazilian policies: a tax on cattle from conventional pasture and a subsidy for cattle from semi-intensive pasture. We find that under either policy, Brazil could achieve considerable sparing of forests and abatement of GHGs, in line with its national policy targets. The land spared, particularly under the tax, is far less than proportional to the productivity increased. However, the tax, despite prompting less adoption of semi-intensive ranching, delivers slightly more forest sparing and GHG abatement than the subsidy. This difference is explained by increased deforestation associated with increased beef consumption under the subsidy and reduced deforestation associated with reduced beef consumption under the tax. Complementary policies to directly limit deforestation could help limit these effects. GHG abatement from either the tax or subsidy appears inexpensive but, over time, the tax would become cheaper than the subsidy. A revenue-neutral combination of the policies could be an element of a sustainable development strategy for Brazil and other emerging economies seeking to balance agricultural development and forest protection.