We investigate the effect of crop price and climate variables on rainfed corn and soybean yields and acreage in the United States using a large panel dataset for the 1977–2007 period. Instrumental variables are used to control for endogeneity of prices in yield and acreage regressions, while allowing for spatially auto-correlated errors. We find that an increase in corn price has a statistically significant positive impact on corn yield, but the effect of soybean price on soybean yields is not statistically significant. The estimated price elasticities of corn yield and acreage are 0.23 and 0.45, respectively. Of the increase in corn supply caused by an increase in corn price, we find that 33.8% is due to price-induced yield enhancement and 66.2% is due to price-induced acreage expansion. We also find that the impact of climate change on corn production ranges from $$-$$7% to $$-$$41% and on soybean ranges from $$-$$8% to $$-$$45%, depending on the climate change scenarios, time horizon, and global climate models used to predict climate change. We show that the aggregate net impact of omitting price variables is an overestimation of the effect of climate change on corn yield by up to 9% and on soybean yield by up to 15%.

Marginal land has received wide attention for its potential to produce bioenergy feedstocks while minimizing diversion of productive agricultural land from food crop production. However, there has been no consensus in the literature on how to define or identify land that is marginal for food crops and beneficial for bioenergy crops. Studies have used different definitions to quantify the amount of such land available; these have largely been based on assumed biophysical thresholds for soil quality and productivity that are unchanging over space and time. We discuss the limitations of these definitions and the rationale for considering economic returns and environmental outcomes in classifying land as marginal. We then propose the concept of “socially” marginal which is defined as land that is earning close to zero returnsafteraccounting for the monetized costs of environmental externalities generated. We discuss a broad set of criteria for classifying land as socially marginal for food crops and suitable for bioenergy crops; with these criteria, this classification depends on spatially varying and time‐varying factors, such as climate and market conditions and policy incentives. While there are challenges related to identifying this marginal land, satellite and other large‐scale datasets increasingly enable such analysis at a fine spatial resolution. We also discuss reasons why landowners might choose not to convert bioenergy‐suitable land to bioenergy crops, and thus the need for policy incentives to support conversion of land that is socially beneficial for bioenergy crop production.

Transforming the agri-food system from a “take-make-waste”, or linear production system, to a circular bioeconomy that reduces, recycles, recovers, reuses, and regenerates wastes and transitions from fossil to biobased fuels and products is being hailed as critical for meeting a growing population’s food and fuel needs in environmentally sustainable ways. While a transformation towards a circular bioeconomy is an appealing strategy to achieve multiple environmental goals, we argue that this strategy needs to go beyond a techno-centric focus and adopt an economic value-based lens to balance the desire for circularity with its costs, benefits, and distributional effects on society. This perspective analyzes the mechanisms that sustain the existing linear economy and proposes a novel social cost-benefit framework to determine the optimal level and path to circularity. We present five critical pathways to achieve a sustainable circular bioeconomy in a market economy consisting of decentralized decision-makers.