Why the Paris Agreement won't succeed without agricultural innovations

If the world is to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius by 2100, greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector will need to be addressed – and in a whole new way. 

|
Dar Yasin/AP
An elderly Kashmiri man harvests strawberries at a farm in the outskirts of Srinagar, Indian controlled Kashmir. Agriculture and horticulture are the main income source on the region.

Even if the agricultural industry perfectly implemented all of today's emission-reducing practices, greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture would still block the climate goals of the United Nation's Paris Agreement, a recent study finds. 

To limit global temperature increases to 2 degree Celsius, as set forth by the Paris Agreement in December, non-carbon dioxide emissions from the agriculture sector – such as methane and nitrous oxide – need to be reduced by one gigaton per year by 2030, the authors write.  

"Without the guidance of a 2°C-based goal in agriculture, much effort will be driven by what is technically or politically feasible, rather than by what is necessary," the researchers report in a paper published Tuesday in the journal Global Change Biology. 

And simply implementing what is only "technically or politically feasible" offers "a fraction of the mitigation needed" to reach the temperature goals set in Paris, they say. 

In their study, the team of researchers found a surprising gap: Even if all of today's "best practices" were implemented, only 20 to 40 percent of agriculture's emissions would be eliminated.

"And this assumes that we have wall to wall implementation [of current strategies] to reduce by 20 to 40 percent – so even that is a huge effort," Dr. Lini Wollenberg, a professor at the University of Vermont's Gund Institute for Ecological Economics and a co-author of the paper, tells The Christian Science Monitor. "We were shocked at how hard it would be to meet the one gigaton of CO2 goal with current technology."

Examples of already acknowledged solutions include reducing food waste, using water efficiently in rice production, utilizing agroforestry practices, and sustainable livestock production. Food waste in 2012 had a carbon footprint of 3.3 gigatons, meaning that if this waste was a country, it would rank third behind the United States and China in greenhouse gas emissions.  

And while these are meaningful reduction methods, they are not enough. The 34 researchers from organizations across the world hope their study will add a new sense of urgency for politicians, innovators, and scientists about the need for new mitigation strategies to fight agricultural emissions. 

"The large gap between desired mitigation outcomes and plausible outcomes indicates that more transformative technical and policy options will be needed to reduce non-CO2 emissions or that mitigation from other sources will be needed to offset them," the authors write in their paper. "New low emissions technologies are in the pipeline for agriculture, but vastly more effort and urgency is necessary to make options operational."

Some of these proposed technologies include new strategies for raising both livestock and crops. Researchers are looking to identify specific cattle breeds that produce less methane, a dietary inhibitor for cattle that reduces their methane emissions by 30 percent; specific wheat and maize crops that have lower nitrous oxide emissions; and certain soil practices that help the soil retain carbon for a longer period. 

"We need to help farmers play their part in reaching global climate goals while still feeding the world," says Prof. Pete Smith, theme leader for environment and food security at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland and co-author of the paper, in a press release. "A lot can be done with existing best management practices in agriculture. The tough part is how to reduce emissions by a further two to five times and support large numbers of farmers to change their practices in the next 10 to 20 years."

However, the US has bigger emission sources to tackle when it comes to climate change, such as electricity and transportation. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says the agriculture sector contributes 9 percent of all US greenhouse gas emissions – the smallest of all five sectors listed by the EPA.    

But as Dr. Wollenberg points out, agriculture emissions look far more serious when zoomed out to an international level.

While agriculture emissions may be only 9 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the US, agriculture contributes an average of 30 percent to all countries' total emission number. Many African nations have low emission rates, for example, but agricultural practices contribute to a significant portion of the country's overall rate, sometimes as high as 80 to 100 percent. In 42 countries, agriculture contributes to more than half of the overall greenhouse gas emissions. 

"If agriculture is not included in mitigation scenarios we won't be able to achieve any of these targets. Not 2 degrees, much less 1.5 degrees," adds Wollenberg. "What this study is saying essentially is that to reach the 2 degree target that everyone has already agreed to, agriculture has to be considered as part of the mitigation solution. Agriculture has to do much more."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

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.

QR Code to Why the Paris Agreement won't succeed without agricultural innovations
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0517/Why-the-Paris-Agreement-won-t-succeed-without-agricultural-innovations
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe