Agriculture is one of the few areas where government regulations have not caused costs to boom with little value to the public. In the past few decades, American science and technology have produced more food on less land with less environmental strain than ever thought possible. There is so much food people can self-identify with the organic growing process, something that would have meant starvation when organic was the only solution.
But the European Union stopped accepting science around 1995 and, worse, they even dictate to former colonies in Africa that those countries cannot embrace technology. Yet they may have no choice, because their own climate laws are going to mandate modernization. Currently accounting for about 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, emissions from agriculture need to be cut by about three-quarters by 2050 to meet their targets.
Researchers at Chalmers University of Technology and SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden have found that under favorable conditions, better technology could cut these emissions by as much as 50 percent.
"Emissions from manure storage can all but be eliminated if the facilities are covered and waste gases are flared, says David Bryngelsson, lead author of the study. And emissions from fertilizer production can largely be avoided by using the latest technology. However, far more ambitious climate policies for agriculture are needed to make these technology improvements happen."
The technological prospects for cattle are less promising, according to the researchers. This is a critical finding, since cattle account for a very large share of the emissions. The study therefore concludes that reductions in beef consumption are necessary for meeting the climate targets.
"But we don't have to give up meat entirely", says Stefan Wirsenius, co-author of the study. "Poultry and pork cause rather low emissions, in a range equivalent to 10 to 30 pounds of carbon dioxide per pound of protein, while beef cause 200 pounds per pound protein. So we can continue to eat large quantities of poultry and pork - provided that we cut back on beef."
Cheese and other dairy products are also serious climate problems, according to the study:
"EU and US consumption of cheese and other dairy products is among the highest in the world and causes a climate impact equal to that of their pork and chicken consumption" says Stefan Wirsenius. "If we were to replace some of the dairy products with vegetable products, such as oat milk, we would have a better chance of meeting our climate targets."
The scientists have also looked at the effect of reducing food waste. The results may be surprising:
"Although wasting less food is good for the climate, the impact of reducing waste is small compared to what's required to meet the targets," says David Bryngelsson. "Reducing the amount of food that goes to waste can only cut emissions from food and agriculture by five to ten percent. Reducing beef and dairy consumption is much more important."
The findings are reported in the article "How can the EU climate targets be met? A combined analysis of technological and demand-side changes in food and agriculture," in the journal Food Policy. Study authors are David Bryngelsson, Stefan Wirsenius, Fredrik Hedenus, and Ulf Sonesson.