Publications by Brian Murray
view all publications >
The Net Global Effects of Alternative U.S. Biofuel Mandates: Fossil Fuel Displacement, Indirect Land Use Change, and the Role of Agricultural Productivity Growth
January 2012 - by Aline Mosnier, Petr Havlík, Hugo Valin, Justin S. Baker, Brian C. Murray, Siyi Feng, Michael Obersteiner, Bruce A. McCarl, Steven K. Rose, and Uwe A. Schneider
One of the declared objectives of U.S. biofuel policy is the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuel combustion, but many studies have questioned whether such a reduction would actually occur and, if so, how large it would be. This report describes the global market, land use, GHG emissions, and nitrogen use impacts of the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) and several alternative biofuel policy designs, which differ in terms of mandate magnitude and feedstock composition, over the 2010–2030 period.
Climate Change Mitigation and Agriculture
December 2011 - by Eva 'Lini' Wollenberg, Marja-Liisa Tapio-Bistrom, Maryanne Grieg-Gran, Alison Nihart
A new book features two chapters on reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions penned by researchers at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions—Brian Murray and Lydia Olander. The 456-page book reviews the state of agricultural climate mitigation globally and focuses on the design and implementation of activities to reduce emissions and increase carbon storage.
Financing Options for Blue Carbon: Opportunities and Lessons from the REDD+ Experience
November 2011 - by David Gordon, Brian C. Murray, Linwood Pendleton, and Britta Victor
When development pressures transform mangroves, seagrass, and coastal wetlands, carbon stored in their biomass and soil is released to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. One way to counter these pressures and thereby conserve the carbon stored in these habitats (referred to as “blue carbon”) is to provide payments for the environmental services they provide. This paper analyzes current and potential options for carbon mitigation payments as a source of blue carbon finance. With other work that has focused on the payments needed to secure blue carbon, this paper can help stakeholders assess funding gaps and direct scarce resources to those activities that will provide the greatest blue carbon benefits.
Assessing Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Opportunities and Implementation Strategies for Agricultural Land Management in the United States
October 2011 - by Lydia P. Olander, Alison J. Eagle, Justin S. Baker, Karen Haugen-Kozyra, Brian C. Murray, Alexandra Kravchenko, Lucy R. Henry, and Robert B. Jackson
Approximately 6% of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States come from agriculture. This number could be reduced through the use of on-farm management practices, such as switching to no-till, reducing fallow, managing species composition on grazing lands, and adjusting management of nitrogen fertilizer. Efforts are under way by government, industry, and others to incentivize such practices by creating new business opportunities or revenue for farmers and ranchers. This assessment reviews a wide range of agricultural practices and provides a roadmap and resource for programs and initiatives that are designing protocols, metrics, or incentives to engage farmers and ranchers in large-scale efforts to enhance GHG mitigation on working agricultural land in the United States.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Nitrogen Use in U.S. Agriculture: Historic Trends, Future Projections, and Biofuel Policy Impacts
October 2011 - by Justin S. Baker, Brian C. Murray, Bruce A. McCarl, Steven K. Rose, and Joshua Schneck
Agriculture is among the world’s largest sources of greenhouse emissions and is the largest source of certain types of anthropogenic nitrogen pollution. But as a source of renewable fuels production and carbon sequestration, agriculture could also be part of the solution to energy security and climate change problems. Similarly, improved management of agricultural nitrogen use could be the key to managing nitrogen pollution in surface- and groundwater systems. If policy makers are to determine how best to develop and implement effective policy interventions to correct environmental problems in agriculture, the critical linkages among demand, supply, land use, nitrogen use, and greenhouse gas emissions must be captured. This paper projects greenhouse gas emissions and nitrogen use from agricultural and forestry practices under baseline and alternative biofuel scenarios in the United States, while accounting for land use competition, production heterogeneity, and a full suite of biofuel production possibilities.
The United States, China, and the Competition for Clean Energy
July 2011 - by Brian Murray, Jonas Monast, Chi-Jen Yang, and Justine Chow
The United States is now grappling with the challenge of meeting its long-term energy needs in a secure, affordable, reliable, safe, and environmentally sustainable way. In United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations in December 2010, the United States and other countries committed to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) by 2020 and fund mitigation and adaptation activities in developing countries. China, now the world’s largest emitter, has agreed to cut its GHG emissions significantly, reflecting its recent commitment to scientifically balanced development and the development and deployment of renewable and other clean energy sources. Since mid-decade, China has gone from being a relatively small player in clean energy to the world’s largest investor. This policy brief poses a number of questions aimed at identifying how best the U.S. should advance its interests with regard to the development and deployment of clean energy technologies, both in absolute terms and relative to China and other major economies.
Examination of the Carbon Fee Alternative for the State of California
June 2011 - by Brian C. Murray, Jan V. Mazurek, and Timothy H. Profeta
The California Air Resources Board (ARB), as a result of a recent court decision, is required to provide information about a carbon fee as one of several alternatives to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Other alternatives include direct regulation of facilities, cap and trade, and a mix of sectoral strategies. This paper examines the carbon fee as an option for controlling greenhouse gases and compares it to other regulatory alternatives, such as the cap-and-trade approach ARB initially decided to take.
State of the Science on Coastal Blue Carbon: A Summary for Policy Makers
May 2011 - by Samantha Sifleet, Linwood Pendleton, and Brian C. Murray
The natural science of blue carbon is evolving rapidly, and many policy makers remain uncertain about the biophysical potential of these habitats as engines of carbon storage. To better manage the ecosystem services provided by coastal blue carbon, we need a good scientific understanding of how coastal habitats sequester and store carbon, where on the planet carbon is stored in these habitats, how rapidly the habitats are being modified with a risk of carbon release into the atmosphere or water column, and the mechanisms and rate of carbon emissions that follow habitat conversion. This report examines the current science as it relates to these topics. In doing so, it aims to give policy makers a feel for what is known and unknown about coastal blue carbon.
Green Payments for Blue Carbon: Economic Incentives for Protecting Threatened Coastal Habitats
April 2011 - by Brian C. Murray, Linwood Pendleton, W. Aaron Jenkins, and Samantha Sifleet
This report examines the critical question of whether monetary payments for blue carbon—carbon captured and stored by coastal marine and wetland ecosystems—can alter economic incentives to favor protection of coastal habitats such as mangroves, seagrass meadows, and salt marshes. This idea is analogous to payments for REDD+ (reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation), an instrument of global climate policy that aims to curtail forest clearing, especially in the tropics. Like payments for REDD+, incentives to retain rather than emit blue carbon would preserve biodiversity as well as a variety of other ecosystem services at local and regional scales.
Demand for REDD Carbon Credits: A Primer on Buyers, Markets, and Factors Impacting Prices
February 2011 - by Joshua D. Schneck, Brian C. Murray, Christopher S. Galik, and W. Aaron Jenkins
This paper provides an overview of the demand for forest carbon, including potential buyers and their objectives, markets for forest carbon, and forces that affect the price of forest carbon. It is intended for parties and organizations who are considering developing forest carbon projects, as an aid to understanding the changing market and demand for forest carbon credits. While the primary focus of the paper is on markets and demand for REDD credits—credits arising from projects that reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation—much of the information is applicable to afforestation and reforestation projects, as well as improved forest management.
Estimating the Employment Impacts of Energy and Environmental Policies and Programs: Workshop Summary Report
December 2010 - by Josh Schneck, Brian C. Murray, Etan Gumerman, and Suzanne Tegen
With U.S. unemployment rates hovering near 10 percent, new energy and environmental policies are being scrutinized more and more for their ability to create jobs. Yet, the information provided concerning these policies’ impact on jobs is widely variable, is often conflicting, and can confuse policymaking efforts. This policy brief summarizes the key points of a workshop the Nicholas Institute convened in October, which examined how to best estimate and convey the employment impacts that may result from enactment of energy and environmental policy.
Payments for Blue Carbon: Potential for Protecting Threatened Coastal Habitats
November 2010 - by Brian C. Murray, W. Aaron Jenkins, Samantha Sifleet, Linwood Pendleton, and Alexis Baldera
Coastal habitats worldwide are under increasing threat of destruction through human activities such as farming, aquaculture, timber extraction, or real estate development. This loss of habitat carries with it the loss of critical functions that coastal ecosystems provide: support of marine species, retention of shorelines, water quality, and scenic beauty, to name a few. These losses are large from an ecological standpoint but they are economically significant as well. Because the value of these ecosystem services is not easily captured in markets, those who control these lands often do not consider these values when choosing whether to clear the habitat to produce goods that can be sold in the marketplace. This is a form of market failure that leads to excessive habitat destruction. As a result, scientists, policymakers, and other concerned parties are seeking ways to change economic incentives to correct the problem. This is a revised version of a previously published policy brief.
The Effects of Low-Carbon Policies on Net Farm Income
February 2010 - by Justin S. Baker, Bruce A. McCarl, Brian C. Murray, Steven K. Rose, Ralph J. Alig, Darius Adams, Greg Latta, Robert Beach, Adam Daigneault
Expanding the Scope of International Terrestrial Carbon Options: Implications of REDD+ and Beyond
February 2010 - by Kathleen Lawlor, Aaron Jenkins, Lydia P. Olander, Brian C. Murray
Policy Options for Transitioning from Voluntary to Federal Offsets Markets
January 2010 - by Lydia Olander, David Cooley and Brian Murray
Nicholas Institute Discussion Brief on H.R. 2454, S. 1733, and S.2729
Forging a Path for High-Quality Compliance REDD Credits
December 2009 - by Brian Murray, Lydia Olander, Donald P. Kanak
Protecting Energy-Intensive Trade-Exposed (EITE) Industry
October 2009 - by Joshua Schneck, Brian Murray, Jan Mazurek and Peter Manilof
Nicholas Institute Brief Comparing EITE Allocation Under S. 1733, The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act of 2009, and H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
Protecting Energy-Intensive Trade-Exposed Industry
October 2009 - by Joshua Schneck, Brian Murray, Jan Mazurek, and Gale Boyd
Nicholas Institute Discussion Memo on H.R. 2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
Allowance Price Containment Options for Cap-and-Trade Legislation
October 2009 - by Peter Maniloff and Brian Murray
Nicholas Institute Discussion Memo on H.R. 2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
Addressing Uncertainty in Investment in Initial Offsets Projects
October 2009 - by Lydia Olander, David Cooley, Brian Murray, and Jan Mazurek
Document Actions
