\n \n \n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Using Vegetable Oils for Biofuel Accelerates Tropical Deforestation and Increases Carbon Emissions.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Chen, T. J.; Sexton, R. J.; and Smith, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n . 2025.\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n
Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 27 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{chen2025bbd,\r\n\ttitle={Using Vegetable Oils for Biofuel Accelerates Tropical Deforestation and Increases Carbon Emissions},\r\n\tauthor={Chen, Tzu-Hui J. and Sexton, Richard J. and Smith, Aaron},\r\n\tjournal={},\r\n\turl={https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v_vX4GDiChpw-3gX7lFC6AJrZiMyRrqC/preview},\r\n\tabstract={Biofuels are promoted worldwide as a strategy to replace fossil fuels and cut greenhouse gas emissions. However, their climate benefits are uncertain because biofuel production can induce deforestation and other land use change that causes carbon emissions. Here we show that global demand for biomass-based diesel fuel between 2002 and 2018 drove the conversion of approximately 1.7 million hectares of forest to oil palm in Indonesia and Malaysia, which is about one-fifth of the total forest-to-palm expansion during this period. Using econometric models and high-resolution satellite data, we demonstrate that biomass-based diesel demand raised palm oil prices, which in turn accelerated deforestation, primarily in natural forests. The associated land-use change released more than one gigaton of CO2, giving biomass based diesel higher carbon emissions per megajoule than that of fossil diesel. These findings indicate that biofuels derived from vegetable oils have likely increased, rather than reduced, global emissions, and highlight the urgent need to shift renewable fuel policies away from crop-based feedstocks.},\r\n\tkeywords={energy},\r\n\tvolume={},\r\n\tyear={2025}\r\n}\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n
\n\n\n
\n Biofuels are promoted worldwide as a strategy to replace fossil fuels and cut greenhouse gas emissions. However, their climate benefits are uncertain because biofuel production can induce deforestation and other land use change that causes carbon emissions. Here we show that global demand for biomass-based diesel fuel between 2002 and 2018 drove the conversion of approximately 1.7 million hectares of forest to oil palm in Indonesia and Malaysia, which is about one-fifth of the total forest-to-palm expansion during this period. Using econometric models and high-resolution satellite data, we demonstrate that biomass-based diesel demand raised palm oil prices, which in turn accelerated deforestation, primarily in natural forests. The associated land-use change released more than one gigaton of CO2, giving biomass based diesel higher carbon emissions per megajoule than that of fossil diesel. These findings indicate that biofuels derived from vegetable oils have likely increased, rather than reduced, global emissions, and highlight the urgent need to shift renewable fuel policies away from crop-based feedstocks.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Policy Options to Achieve US Sustainable Aviation Fuel Targets.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wu, M.; McCormack, K.; Scott, W. A.; Smith, A.; Zhang, J.; and Stock, J. H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n
NBER Working Paper, 34326. 2025.\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n
Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 16 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{wu2025saf,\r\n\ttitle={Policy Options to Achieve US Sustainable Aviation Fuel Targets},\r\n\tauthor={Wu, Mengying and McCormack, Kristen and Scott, William A. and Smith, Aaron and Zhang, Jingran and Stock, James H.},\r\n\tjournal={NBER Working Paper},\r\n\turl={https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J5uwzkOfdO3C46du55HQO6iI89RFJBvU/preview},\r\n\tabstract={Decarbonizing aviation in the short term will likely entail replacing large quantities of petroleum jet fuel with sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs), which are predominantly biofuels. In the United States, biofuels are currently used as substitutes for gasoline and diesel in road transportation and are supported by a complex set of federal and state policies including the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), state low carbon fuel standards, and state and federal tax credits. Policies promoting SAF therefore interact with surface transport biofuel policies. In this paper, we use a new detailed partial equilibrium model of road and air transportation fuel markets to compare various policy options designed to achieve a target of 3 billion gallons of SAF by 2030. Our results suggest that the target is attainable with current technology but not with current policy. Several potential federal policies, including modifications to the existing RFS, a federal SAF tax credit, or a clean aviation standard could meet the 3 billion gallon target with similar emissions reductions and costs but different incidence. The lowest cost policy we study entails replacing all current biofuels policies with a modest carbon tax on fossil transportation fuels paired with a SAF tax credit.},\r\n\tkeywords={energy},\r\n\tvolume={34326},\r\n\tyear={2025}\r\n}\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n
\n\n\n
\n Decarbonizing aviation in the short term will likely entail replacing large quantities of petroleum jet fuel with sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs), which are predominantly biofuels. In the United States, biofuels are currently used as substitutes for gasoline and diesel in road transportation and are supported by a complex set of federal and state policies including the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), state low carbon fuel standards, and state and federal tax credits. Policies promoting SAF therefore interact with surface transport biofuel policies. In this paper, we use a new detailed partial equilibrium model of road and air transportation fuel markets to compare various policy options designed to achieve a target of 3 billion gallons of SAF by 2030. Our results suggest that the target is attainable with current technology but not with current policy. Several potential federal policies, including modifications to the existing RFS, a federal SAF tax credit, or a clean aviation standard could meet the 3 billion gallon target with similar emissions reductions and costs but different incidence. The lowest cost policy we study entails replacing all current biofuels policies with a modest carbon tax on fossil transportation fuels paired with a SAF tax credit.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Was Allen Paul Right? Liquidation Bias in Commodity Futures Markets.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Irwin, S. H; Sanders, D. R; Smith, A.; and Yan, L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n . 2025.\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n
Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 13 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{irwin2025delivery,\r\n\ttitle={Was Allen Paul Right? Liquidation Bias in Commodity Futures Markets},\r\n\tauthor={Irwin, Scott H and Sanders, Dwight R and Smith, Aaron and Yan, Lei},\r\n\turl={https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JV-WFf7LbSJmITdnnNc9s_qwqoiiP1FL/preview},\r\n\tabstract={This study examines liquidation bias—the systematic rise in nearby commodity futures prices relative to deferred contracts before expiration—using 27 U.S. commodity futures contracts from 1990-2021. We find spreads increase 0.65\\% over the final 15 trading days, with strongest effects in grains (0.94\\%) and livestock (1.75\\%). The phenomenon persists across market conditions and changes in trading technology, suggesting it is driven by contract design. Evidence supports delivery options as the primary driver, particularly in markets with seller-only delivery initiation. These findings highlight important trade-offs in futures contract design and demonstrate how embedded options systematically affect commodity futures pricing, with implications for analyzing hedging effectiveness and market efficiency.},\r\n\tkeywords={agriculture},\r\n\tyear={2025}\r\n}\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n
\n\n\n
\n This study examines liquidation bias—the systematic rise in nearby commodity futures prices relative to deferred contracts before expiration—using 27 U.S. commodity futures contracts from 1990-2021. We find spreads increase 0.65% over the final 15 trading days, with strongest effects in grains (0.94%) and livestock (1.75%). The phenomenon persists across market conditions and changes in trading technology, suggesting it is driven by contract design. Evidence supports delivery options as the primary driver, particularly in markets with seller-only delivery initiation. These findings highlight important trade-offs in futures contract design and demonstrate how embedded options systematically affect commodity futures pricing, with implications for analyzing hedging effectiveness and market efficiency.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n