Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation

Bajželj, Bojana; Richards, Keith; Allwood, Julian M.; Smith, Pete; Dennis, John S.; Curmi, Elizabeth; Gilligan, Christopher A.

doi:10.1038/nclimate2353

Cited by 617 publications

(511 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

446

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this context, both the choice of policy instruments and the way in which governments react to pressures to avoid or deflect the costs of mitigation may have the potential for conflict with World Trade Organisation (WTO) trade rules (Blandford & Josling, 2009). B Changes in consumer diets and decreases in food waste are essential to deliver emissions reductions and provide global food security in 2050 as recent global studies suggest (Bajželj et al, 2014;Tilman & Clark, 2014). Similar observations have been confirmed for Europe, especially with respect to livestock products (Bellarby et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Seeking optimality in climate change agri-food policies: stakeholder perspectives from Western Europe

Kalfagianni

Kuik

2016

Climate Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines stakeholder perspectives on the 'optimality' of the climate policy mix in the agri-food sector in the EU using the criteria of environmental effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and political feasibility. Based on a literature review and selected stakeholder interviews in two Northern (The Netherland and UK) and two Southern EU Member States (Italy and Spain), we conclude that the current policy mix is far from optimal. There are currently no EU-wide policy instruments to address GHG emissions in the agri-food sector, and little Member State level action. A number of initiatives from the private sector (particularly retailers) are present, although they are limited in scope and objectives. Looking forward, three concrete recommendations for improvements may be identified. First, stakeholders identify the need for the development of EU-wide policy instrumentation for GHG abatement from the agri-food sector, to provide a 'level playing field' for farmers and other economic agents in the sector. Second, many stakeholders consider it crucial that a holistic, 'whole supply chain' in contrast to a 'piecemeal' approach is taken. Third, the role of government is considered important, but predominantly in terms of providing a general framework within which more ambitious voluntary approaches could develop. Policy relevanceFrom a policy perspective, this article aims to assist the EU develop more 'optimal' climate policies for the agri-food sector by taking into account the views and perspectives of different stakeholders involved in different countries on three main 'optimality' criteria, namely, environmental effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and political feasibility.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Seeking optimality in climate change agri-food policies: stakeholder perspectives from Western Europe

Kalfagianni

Kuik

2016

Climate Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To explore the scope for combining emissions reduction strategies, we next assessed two promising demand-side measures 14 implemented alongside land sparing. We quantified the effect of replacing some animal products in the diet with vegetarian substitutes (Fig.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The potential for land sparing to offset greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Greenhouse gas emissions from global agriculture are increasing at around 1% perannum, yet substantial cuts in emissions are needed across all sectors 1 . The challenge of reducing agricultural emissions is particularly acute, because the reductions achievable by changing farming practices are limited 2,3 and are hampered by rapidly rising food demand 4,5 . Here we assess the technical mitigation potential offered by land sparingincreasing agricultural yields, reducing farmland area and actively restoring natural habitats on the land spared 6 . Restored habitats can sequester carbon and can offset emissions from agriculture. Using the United Kingdom as an example, we estimate net emissions in 2050 under a range of future agricultural scenarios. We find that a landsparing strategy has the technical potential to achieve significant reductions in net emissions from agriculture and land-use change. Coupling land sparing with demandside strategies to reduce meat consumption and food waste can further increase the technical mitigation potential, however economic and implementation considerations might limit the degree to which this technical potential could be realised in practice.We projected the mitigation potential of land sparing in the United Kingdom with reference to its binding commitment to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050 (relative to 1990 levels) 7 . We began by identifying a technically plausible range in the future yields of all major crop and livestock commodities produced in the UK, based on historic trends and future potential. We define yields as the annual tonnage of production per hectare for crops and the feed conversion ratio (feed consumed per kilogram of production) for livestock. Future yields could vary across a wide range, driven by a number of biophysical, technical and socioeconomic factors [8][9][10][11] . We assessed the likely bounds of this range based on an assessment of technical potential and reflect this in our projections, which span yield declines through to sustained long-term growth averaging 1.3% per annum across all commodities 3 (Table 1; Supplementary Fig. 1; Supplementary Discussion). For the avoidance of doubt, we do not equate our lower yielding scenarios with 'land sharing'.We next projected emissions attributable to UK agricultural production out to 2050, quantifying all sources of emissions that would be affected by a land-sparing strategy. We therefore quantified not only emissions reported under 'Agriculture' in the UK's greenhouse gas inventory 12 , but also emissions related to agriculture but reported in other sectors (e.g. farm energy use, agro-chemical production and land-use change), and emissions arising overseas due to imported feed for livestock (see Supplementary Table 2 for all emissions sources quantified). Our projections assumed that agricultural production increases from present levels in proportion to projected demand growth (Supplementary Table 1). In certain scenarios, projected UK farming capacity does not keep pace with demand growth. In such cases ...

show abstract

“…Agricultural expansion was assumed to be responsible for meeting additional demand until industrial fertilisers became available, with the relative contribution of expansion assumed to decline to 22 % by 1999 (12) , and intensification through industrial fertilisation, irrigation and mechanisation becoming the dominant means to meet growing demand. The future failure of intensification to meet increasing food demand to 2050 is demonstrated by Bajželj et al (27) , but the relative contribution of demand management and intensification in the future remains unquantified, and should be viewed as schematic rather than quantitative.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies have shown the importance of demand-side measures (24)(25)(26) . Recently, a new study has quantified the potential role of sustainable intensification in meeting global food requirements, and it showed that sustainable intensification alone cannot deliver food security; demand management appears to be essential (27) . Bajželj et al (27) found that delivering more food for 2050 by sustainable intensification, through yield gap closure, could reduce baseline cropland area, forest area loss, total greenhouse gas emissions and water use relative to a baseline of current yield trend, but would still lead to expanded agricultural area.…”

Section: Proceedings Of the Nutrition Societymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, a new study has quantified the potential role of sustainable intensification in meeting global food requirements, and it showed that sustainable intensification alone cannot deliver food security; demand management appears to be essential (27) . Bajželj et al (27) found that delivering more food for 2050 by sustainable intensification, through yield gap closure, could reduce baseline cropland area, forest area loss, total greenhouse gas emissions and water use relative to a baseline of current yield trend, but would still lead to expanded agricultural area. The addition of demand-side options (healthy diet, plus waste reduction by 50 %) could deliver enough food but also allowed a decrease of cropland and pasture area, an increase in forest area and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, not just relative to the baseline, but also in absolute terms compared with the present.…”

Section: Proceedings Of the Nutrition Societymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Malthus is still wrong: we can feed a world of 9–10 billion, but only by reducing food demand

Smith

2014

Proc. Nutr. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1798, Thomas Robert Malthus published ‘An essay on the principle of population’ in which he concluded that: ‘The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race.’ Over the following century he was criticised for underestimating the potential for scientific and technological innovation to provide positive change. Since then, he has been proved wrong, with a number of papers published during the past few decades pointing out why he has been proved wrong so many times. In the present paper, I briefly review the main changes in food production in the past that have allowed us to continue to meet ever growing demand for food, and I examine the possibility of these same innovations delivering food security in the future. On the basis of recent studies, I conclude that technological innovation can no longer be relied upon to prove Malthus wrong as we strive to feed 9–10 billion people by 2050. Unless we are prepared to accept a wide range of significant, undesirable environmental consequences, technology alone cannot provide food security in 2050. Food demand, particularly the demand for livestock products, will need to be managed if we are to continue to prove Malthus wrong into the future.

show abstract

Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation

Cited by 617 publications

References 30 publications

Seeking optimality in climate change agri-food policies: stakeholder perspectives from Western Europe

Seeking optimality in climate change agri-food policies: stakeholder perspectives from Western Europe

The potential for land sparing to offset greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture

Malthus is still wrong: we can feed a world of 9–10 billion, but only by reducing food demand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About