From executive summary: "This report evaluates the potential for additional carbon sequestration and GHG reductions in U.S. forestry and agriculture over the next several decades and beyond. It reports these reductions as changes from baseline trneds, starting in 2010 and projected out 100 years to 2110. The report employs the Forest and Agriculture Sector Optimization Model with Greenhouse Gases (FASOMGHG). FASOMGHG is a partial equilibrium economic model of the U.S. forest and agriculture sectors, with land use competition between them, and linkages to international trade. FASOMGHG includes most major GHG mitigation options in U.S. forestry and agriculture; accounts fo rchanges in CO2, GH4, and N2O from most activities; and tracks carbon sequestration and carbon losses over time. It also projects a dynamic baseline and reports all additional GHG mitigation as changes from that baseline. FASOMGHG tracks five forest product categories and over 2,000 production possibilities for field crops, livestock, and biofuels for private lands in the conterminous United States broken into 11 regions. Public lands are not included. FASOMGHG evaluates the joint economic and biophysical effects of a range of GHG mitigation scenarios, under which costs, mitigation levels, eligible activities, and GHG coverage may vary. The six scenarios evaluated in this report are constant GHG prices, rising GHG prices, fixed national mitigation levels, inclusion of selected mitigation activities only, incentive payments for CO2 only, and payments on a per-acre versus per-tonne basis. GHG mitigation incentives are estimated by dollars per tonne of CO2 equivalent ($/t CO2 Eq.) payments for four of the six scenarios above. The model and analysis cover the 100 years from 2010 to 2110, but three focus dates are highlighted: 2015, 2025, and 2055. FASOMGHG's standard GHG accounting and payment approach is a comprehensive, pay-as-you-go system, for all applicable GHGs and activities over time. The analysis reported here is unique from other studies conducted on forestry and agricultural mitigation options on a number of fronts. First, the range of covered activities across the sectors is wide. Most comparable studies look at just one of the sectors or at one or a small subset of activities within each secvtor, which this report examines a fairly comprehensive set of activites across the two sectos covering a vast majority of all GHG effects. Of particular note are the inclusions of biofuels and non-CO2 mitigation options in agriculture. Second, the intertemporal dynamics of the economic and biophysical systems within FASOMGHG allow for an accounting of mitigation over time and by region, and for quantification of leakage effects that other studies generally have not produced. And third, the inclusion of non-GHG co-effects allows insights into the multiple environmental and economic tradeoffs that pertain to GHG mitigation in these sectors.
