UN finds that greenhouse gases are increasing from agriculture

Among the findings of a new report is that 60 percent of human-induced nitrous oxide emissions—which have a global warming potential that is 300 times higher than CO2—come from agriculture. 

Lucy Nicholson/Reuters/File
Workers pick strawberries in a field on a farm in Oxnard, Calif., in February 2015.

Food production accounts for approximately 30 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, 21 percent of these emissions come from deforestation and land use changes that are a result of agriculture.

These figures come from a report published by the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, with contributions from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the University of Minnesota, the CGIAR network, and international universities. The authors estimate that if land clearing for food production continues at its current pace, emissions from land use changes alone could increase by at least 30 percent in 2050. The baseline data used to develop the report comes from the Emissions Database of the FAO’s Statistics Division (FAOSTAT), which recently released statistics of global agricultural emissions to the year 2014. According to the FAO, this data is the first of its kind to be made publicly available.

The numbers from FAOSTAT indicate that greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture reached a record high in 2014, at a carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent of 5.25 billion tons. The report, entitled “How Does Agriculture Change Our Climate,” focuses on emissions generated by deforestation and agricultural management. The authors cite ruminant livestock as contributing one-third of agricultural methane emissions—methane is a greenhouse gas which is 27 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. According to the report, “livestock supply one-third of protein for human consumption, but drive approximately 80 percent of non-CO2 emissions.” Rice production also emits 11 percent of total emissions from agricultural management.   

Brazil and Indonesia generated almost 50 percent of the total loss of land from tropical deforestation, between 2000 and 2012. Deforestation from agriculture accounts for 75 percent of global land clearing, and greenhouse gases from global deforestation account for 10 percent of total emissions. Trees store CO2 in their trunks, branches, and root systems; once they are cleared to make space for livestock and agriculture, the CO2 is released into the atmosphere. The authors also say that developed countries, such as the United States and China, indirectly spur deforestation through their consumption of meat, palm oil, timber, and soy.

The report also highlights that 60 percent of human-induced nitrous oxide emissions—which has a global warming potential that is 300 times higher than CO2—comes from agriculture. This is mainly generated through inefficient fertilizer application. China, India, and the U.S. account for more than 55 percent of nitrous oxide emissions.

The report suggests that changes in land management are not enough to reduce emissions. Instead, the authors propose a three-pronged approach that also targets a change in consumer behavior: minimizing yield gaps via sustainable intensification, reducing food waste, and modifying dietary habits.

The report concludes with words of caution: “If we depend on current yield trends alone to meet future demand for food, we will need the entire global emissions allowance for keeping global average temperatures below two degrees Celsius. That would leave virtually no emissions for all other sectors, including energy production, industry, and transport.”

This article was originally published on Food Tank.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.