Abstract: Current cross-sectional methodologies measuring climate change impacts assume that regions at the same latitude face a similar climate response and therefore have the same adaptive capacity. This paper proves that assumption to be erroneous in the European Union. It does so by ameliorating the Ricardian methodology by restricting which farmers (and therefore which adaptation options) are allowed in the dataset. In doing so, a comparative Ricardian methodology is suggested that makes it possible to examine, for the first time, how the climate responsiveness of a region changes if adaptive capacity changes. The paper combines climate, soil, geographic, socio-economic, and farm-level data in a linear mixed-effect model and examines whether Eastern and Western Europe have the same climate responses and how these responses change if regional adaptive capacity increases. The paper concludes that both regions currently have a significantly different climate response, but that if Eastern Europe were to implement the same adaptation options as Western Europe, it could avoid a large decrease in land value and even benefit from climate change depending on the climate scenario.

Abstract: Phytoremediation could be a sustainable remediation alternative for conventional remediation technologies. However, its implementation on a commercial scale remains disappointing. To emphasize its sustainability, this paper examines whether and how the potential economic benefit of CO2 abatement for different crops used for phytoremediation or sustainable land management purposes could promote phytotechnologies. Our analysis is based on a case study in the Campine region, where agricultural soils are contaminated with mainly cadmium. We use Life Cycle Analysis to show for the most relevant crops (willow (Salix spp), energy maize (Zea mays), and rapeseed (Brassica napus)), that phytoremediation, used for renewable energy production, could abate CO2. Converting this in economic numbers through the Marginal Abatement Cost of CO2 ( 20 ton−1) we can integrate this in the economic analysis to compare phytoremediation crops among each other, and phytoremediation with conventional technologies. The external benefit of CO2 abatement when using phytoremediation crops for land management ranges between 55 and 501 per hectare. The purpose of these calculations is not to calculate a subsidy for phytoremediation. There is no reason why one would prefer phytoremediation crops for renewable energy production over normal biomass. Moreover, subsidies for renewable energy already exist. Therefore, we should not integrate these numbers in the economic analysis again. However, these numbers could contribute to making explicit the competitive advantage of phytoremediation compared to conventional remediation technologies, but also add to a more sustainably funded decision on which crop should be grown on contaminated land.