Economics of additionality for environmental services from agriculture

We present a model of additionality for offsets sold from agriculture to industrial sector sources regulated by cap-and-trade. We consider a potential policy where agricultural sources would not be covered by cap-and-trade requirements but would be eligible to receive offsets whenever their emissions fall below a policy-specified baseline, and would not be penalized for emissions above their baseline. Major results are: (1) The optimal baseline should be set above the average counterfactual emissions of participating farms, an unexpected result that has been missing from the literature. (2) The optimal trading ratio should be greater than one (a ton of offsets counts for less than a ton of covered emissions) even under emissions certainty. Previous research has justified such trading ratios by emissions uncertainty. (3) Emissions uncertainty does not justify a change in the baseline if the accompanying emissions model is unbiased. (4) An optimal combination of policies is to subsidize offsets and tighten the baseline relative to the no-subsidy case.     

The additionality problem with offsets: Optimal contracts for carbon sequestration in forests

Carbon offsets are a frequently discussed tool for reducing the costs of an emissions reduction policy. However, offsets have a basic problem stemming from asymmetric information. Sellers of offsets have private information about their opportunity costs, leading to concerns about whether offsets are additional. Non-additional offsets can undermine a cap-and-trade program or, if the government purchases them directly, result in enormous government expenditures. We analyze contracts for carbon sequestration in forests that mitigate the asymmetric information problem. Landowners are offered a menu of two-part contracts that induces them to reveal their type. Under this scheme, the government is able to identify ex post how much additional forest each landowner contributes and minimize ex ante its expenditures on carbon sequestration. To explore the performance of the contracting scheme, we conduct a national-scale simulation using an econometric model of land-use change. The results indicate that for an increase in forest area of 61 million acres, government expenditures are $5.3 billion lower under the contracting approach compared to a uniform subsidy offered to all landowners. This compares to an increase in private opportunity costs of just $110 million dollars under the contracts. Thus, the contracting scheme is preferable from society's perspective.