Premium
Transport carbon costs do not negate the benefits of agricultural carbon mitigation options
Author(s) -
Smith P.,
Smith T.J.F.
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
ecology letters
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.852
H-Index - 265
eISSN - 1461-0248
pISSN - 1461-023X
DOI - 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2000.00176.x
Subject(s) - agriculture , yield (engineering) , natural resource economics , carbon fibers , cost–benefit analysis , carbon accounting , carbon credit , business , carbon sequestration , environmental science , greenhouse gas , economics , ecology , carbon dioxide , materials science , composite number , metallurgy , composite material , biology
It has been suggested that some agricultural carbon (C) mitigation options will yield no net C benefit under full carbon accounting (i.e. when costs are included alongside benefits). The largest likely C cost of implementing many options is the fuel cost associated with transporting resources from the place where they are produced to the place where they are used. In this article, we show that fuel C costs of transporting resources are much lower than the C benefits of agricultural mitigation options. These findings suggest that the agricultural C mitigation options examined here will yield a net C benefit, even under full carbon accounting.