facebook linkedin twitter

Solving Agriculture’s Climate Footprint
COMMENTARY | The Ecomodernist

Solving Agriculture’s Climate Footprint

According to a popular proverb, the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now. 

Like planting a tree, governments should have funded large-scale research and development 20 years ago to better address the food system’s sustainability challenges. They still can and they still should. 

Popular proposals to cut food’s large environmental footprint rest on the idea that we have all the technologies and information we need. All we need is to pay farmers to store carbon in the soil, stop eating meat, and convert farms to organic. At best these ideas are insufficient; at worst they’re counterproductive.

Food and farming has an outsized environmental footprint. The transport, storage, disposal, and — most especially — the production of food account for nearly 25% of U.S. and 33% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Water pollution from manure and fertilizer runoff, which can lead to dead zones in fresh and marine water bodies, costs the U.S. public tens to hundreds of billions of dollars per year. And gaseous ammonia emissions from manure and fertilizer are responsible for about one-fifth of air pollution deaths in the US.

Food’s impacts are only expected to rise as global food demand grows. If current trends continue, greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture will dramatically increase by 2050. More land will also be needed to feed everyone sufficient, nutritious and culturally appropriate food. By one estimate, an area of forest, savanna, and other land nearly twice the size of India could be put under the plow in coming decades.

Many of the most popular proposals to make the food system more environmentally sustainable don’t address these challenges, however. Some would even exacerbate them. For example, offsetting greenhouse emissions by paying farmers to store carbon in soil lets companies off the hook for reducing their own emissions while failing to guarantee that carbon will stay in the soil. Some farm practices to store carbon even reduce crop yields, further increasing farming’s land footprint. A large-scale conversion to organic production, as envisioned by many advocates and some legislative proposals such as the Agricultural Resilience Act, would require dramatically more farmland, driving deforestation and other types of land use conversion. And, efforts to nudge people to eat less meat — for example, through “Meat Out” days — have blown up in politicians’ faces, from Colorado to France, in part because it threatens farmers’ and livestock producers’ income. 

Investing in agricultural research, on the other hand, cuts food’s environmental footprint, helps meet growing global food demand, and boosts farmers’ bottom line. Publicly funded agricultural R&D, primarily conducted in universities and government institutions, is a major source of new agricultural technologies and knowledge. It has been and will continue to be key to making farmers more productive, enabling them to produce more food with less land, fertilizer, fuel and other inputs. 

Agricultural productivity growth has large domestic benefits. For instance, advances in dairy science enabled U.S. milk production to increase 25% since 2007 while land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and manure production per gallon of milk all fell about 20%. Making U.S. producers more efficient also makes them more competitive globally. That expands exports — a priority for farm groups — and is environmentally beneficial since the impact of many U.S. products is smaller than those produced in other countries. The carbon footprint of a pound of U.S. beef, for example, is about half the global average

But the climate benefits of R&D extend beyond our borders. American agricultural discoveries and innovations are shared globally, helping scientists and farmers in other major agricultural regions shrink their footprint. Farmers in Brazil, for instance, have widely adopted herbicide- and insecticide-tolerant soybean, which was developed based on basic science funded by U.S. federal agencies. 

The total benefits of increasing public agricultural R&D are dramatic. Agricultural economist Uris Baldos and I show in a new paper that doubling public R&D spending would reduce land use over 40 million acres, about the size of Iowa; cut GHG emissions over 100 million tons per year; and more than double U.S. crop exports by 2050, compared to business-as-usual funding. 

New research could advance a wide array of emerging fields with large, but risky and long-term payoffs that the private sector has little incentive to invest in. Scientists have discovered promising genetic pathways to make photosynthesis more efficient and increase crop growth perhaps as much as 40%. Government research could tackle the long-term and risky challenge of producing low-cost, low-impact and high-quality cultivated (aka lab-grown) meat. And there are many opportunities to advance research on low-emission fertilizers, particularly given the miniscule amount the fertilizer industry spends on R&D.

Yet funding for U.S. public agricultural R&D has stagnated in recent decades. This is in sharp contrast with funding growth in other regions, particularly China, where total public agricultural R&D has surpassed that of the U.S. since 2008. 


An ambitious research agenda could include doubling funding of programs like AFRI, the Department of Agriculture’s flagship grants-making program, as well as the Agriculture Research Service, the federal government’s own research arm. But it’s not just enough to fund research. For research to be successful, scientists need adequate facilities. There’s a multi-billion dollar facility maintenance backlog, preventing researchers from doing their best work. 

Fundamentally, R&D should be central to any proposal for agricultural climate mitigation. Support for agricultural R&D has long been bipartisan, benefitting rural farmers and ranchers, urban consumers, and the environment alike. It may take years for investments in R&D to pay off. But as with planting a tree, that only makes taking action more urgent. 


Daniel Blaustein-Rejto is the Director of the Food and Agriculture program at the Breakthrough Institute, a Berkeley-based research center promoting technological solutions to environmental and human development challenges in energy, conservation, and agriculture. You can follow him on Twitter @danrejto.

A+
a-

In The News

Health

Voting

Opinions

Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Will Help With EV Adoption but More Must be Done

Whether it’s transmission lines going up in flames during California wildfires or the statewide power outages that plagued the state... Read More

Whether it’s transmission lines going up in flames during California wildfires or the statewide power outages that plagued the state of Texas during its unprecedented winter storm, there is no doubt the US energy grid needs an upgrade. An outdated electrical grid is not only dangerous... Read More

CRISPR, GMOs, and the Future of Farming

One of the biggest challenges facing agriculture in the U.S. and around the world is how to make farming more... Read More

One of the biggest challenges facing agriculture in the U.S. and around the world is how to make farming more efficient and limit greenhouse gas emissions in the process. Among the most promising tools for doing so are CRISPR and GMOs. Scientists are now using CRISPR... Read More

Fix BBB’s Rx Provisions so Patients Aren’t Stuck With High Bills and More Needles

Health care reforms that make medicines more affordable for patients and encourage discovery of powerful new medicines are possible. We’re... Read More

Health care reforms that make medicines more affordable for patients and encourage discovery of powerful new medicines are possible. We’re nearly there: If Congress were to fix some counterproductive flaws, the drug pricing provisions in the Build Back Better Act would represent genuine advances. The bill... Read More

The Medical Device “Right to Repair” Effort is an Endorsement of Deregulation

Our government is supposed to protect us, that is the bare minimum of what the American people expect from their... Read More

Our government is supposed to protect us, that is the bare minimum of what the American people expect from their lawmakers. Which is why the recent push for deregulation across the nation is troubling. The 1970s and 1980s brought a wave of deregulation intended to reverse... Read More

Leaders Like John McCain Needed to Win the Future

Democracies around the world face a growing number of challenges. Authoritarianism is resurgent in many countries. Bad actors are challenging... Read More

Democracies around the world face a growing number of challenges. Authoritarianism is resurgent in many countries. Bad actors are challenging and undermining global rules and norms on every continent and in many international institutions. COVID-19 continues to tear at the social fabric and economic livelihoods of... Read More

December 10, 2021
by The Breakthrough Institute
To Meet Methane Pledge, Biden Will Need Reduced Emissions From Cows — and Congress’ Help

The agricultural portion of Biden’s methane reduction plan, announced alongside the COP26 global methane pledge, proposes a reduction in U.S.... Read More

The agricultural portion of Biden’s methane reduction plan, announced alongside the COP26 global methane pledge, proposes a reduction in U.S. cattle emissions by facilitating the development and adoption of climate-friendly livestock innovations. It’s a notable inclusion, since, despite being overshadowed by the oil and gas industries... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top