Agricultural revolution in Africa could increase global carbon emissions
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – Productivity-boosting agricultural innovations in Africa could lead to an increase in global deforestation rates and carbon emissions, a Purdue University study finds.
Historically, improvements in agricultural technology have conserved land and decreased carbon emissions at the global level: Gaining better yields in one area lessens the need to clear other areas for crops, sidestepping a land conversion process that can significantly raise the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
Agricultural advances in Africa, however, could have the reverse effect, increasing globally the amount of undeveloped land converted to cropland and raising greenhouse gas emissions, said Thomas Hertel, a distinguished professor of agricultural economics.
“Increasing productivity in Africa – a carbon-rich region with low agricultural yields – could have negative effects on the environment, especially if agricultural markets are highly integrated,” he said. “This study highlights the importance of understanding the interplay between globalization and the environmental impacts of agricultural technology. They are deeply intertwined.”
Debate surrounds the effects of agricultural innovation on the environment, Hertel noted. Some researchers suggest that increasing the profitability of farming will amplify its negative environmental effects, raising greenhouse gas emissions and accelerating tropical deforestation. Others argue that intensifying agricultural production is better for the environment overall because more land can be spared for nature if the same amount of crops can be produced using less land.
“We set out to determine who was right,” Hertel said. “We discovered that both hypotheses can be valid – it depends on the local circumstances.”
Hertel and fellow researchers Navin Ramankutty and Uris Baldos developed a novel economic framework to analyze the effects of regional improvements in agricultural technology on global rates of land use and carbon emissions. Their analysis showed that historical “green revolutions” in regions such as Latin America and Asia – in which better varieties of cereal grains produced dramatic gains in harvests – helped spare land and diminish carbon emissions compared with an alternative scenario without crop innovations.
The global effects of a green revolution in Africa, however, are less certain, Hertel said.
“If the future global economy remains as fragmented as it has been historically – a world of very distinct agricultural markets – then a green revolution in Africa will lower global carbon emissions,” he said. “But if markets become more integrated, faster agricultural innovation in Africa could raise global carbon emissions in the coming decades.”
In an integrated world markets scenario, the researchers’ analysis showed that ramping up agricultural productivity in Africa over the years 2025-2050 could increase global cropland expansion by 1.8 million hectares (4.4 million acres) and global carbon emissions by 267 million metric tons.
The sharp differences between the global impacts of a prospective African green revolution and those of previous green revolutions can be traced to several factors, Hertel said.
In an African green revolution, the relatively lower yields of African croplands would require more area to be converted to agriculture to make up for the displaced crop production in the rest of the world. The area converted would likely be carbon intensive and have a low emissions efficiency – that is, crop yields would be low relative to the carbon emissions released by converting the land to crops.
But the potential negative effects of an African green revolution will diminish over time, Hertel said. If sustained over several decades, agricultural innovation in Africa would eventually conserve land and decrease carbon emissions, especially if yields improved quickly. The most carbon-rich land, however, should be immediately protected from conversion to cropland, he said.
“We need to prevent regions in Africa that are rich in carbon and biodiversity from being cleared for agriculture to avoid increasing emissions,” he said. “Boosting yields brings many benefits, but increasing global food supplies while minimizing the environmental footprint of agriculture remains a major challenge.”
The paper was published Monday (Sept. 8) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
ABSTRACT
Global Market Integration Increases Likelihood that a Future African Green Revolution Could Increase Crop Land Use and CO2 emissions
Thomas W. Hertel 1; Navin Ramankutty 2; Uris Lantz C. Baldos 1
1 Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayete, Indiana, 47907, USA
2 Department of Geography, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 0B9, Canada
There has been a resurgence of interest in the impacts of agricultural productivity on land use and the environment. At the center of this debate is the assertion that agricultural innovation is land sparing. However, numerous case studies and global empirical studies have found little evidence of higher yields being accompanied by reduced area. We find that these studies overlook two crucial factors: estimation of a true counterfactual scenario and a tendency to adopt a regional, rather than a global, perspective. This paper introduces a general framework for analyzing the impacts of regional and global innovation on long-run crop output, prices, land rents, land use, and associated carbon dioxide emissions. In so doing, it facilitates a reconciliation of the apparently conflicting views of the impacts of agricultural productivity growth on global land use and environmental quality. Our historical analysis demonstrates that the Green Revolution in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East was unambiguously land and emissions sparing, compared to a counterfactual world without these innovations. In contrast, we find that the environmental impacts of a prospective African Green Revolution are potentially ambiguous. We trace these divergent outcomes to relative differences between the innovating region and the rest of the world in yields, emissions efficiencies, cropland supply response, and intensification potential. Globalization of agriculture raises the potential for adverse environmental consequences. However, if sustained for several decades, an African Green Revolution will eventually become land sparing.
Maniacs on a mission form their own FALSE god. Sheer idiocy!
‘It depends on local circumstances.’
Cue 50 years of ‘studies’ for each locality, during which time nothing is allowed to be grown….
‘during which nothing is allowed to be grown’. except grant applications.
A man on a mission to save the planet, no matter the cost. It is not enough that he did the study. He also proposes his own solution – having presented no alternatives:
“The most carbon-rich land, however, should be immediately protected from conversion to cropland, he (Hertel) said.”
Who is this “We” in we need to prevent this land from being developed. I believe this dunce actually believes people should be restrained from using their own land by an outside force…..one not even on their continent ! Welcome to the new world order.
Wasn’t Purdue honoured by one N.Armstrong?
Africans have been the “necessary” sacrifice of greens all along. As I said to a green once “how can you tell a starving African he can’t eat today, because you are worried about something which might happen in 50 years?” Or as the political chairman of a Conservative Association once said, its “climate alarmism is closet racism”.
Yup. I’m reminded of a Randy Newman song.
Bill Gates is one entrepeneur who is not lining up with the establishment. He’s a rebel, trying to establish the infrastructure for industry there. Thank Goodness there are some real non-conformists remianing in the world!
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, Dave.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-interview-with-african-economics-expert-for-god-s-sake-please-stop-the-aid-a-363663.html
Agenda 21 sticks in my craw. And burns. What’s worse, is that legislation derived from these devious positions is passed, with nary a hint of constituent consent.
As an ecologist, I travelled all over Africa in my early years – I know the soils, the water systems, the extensive subsistence agriculture and the tribal cultures – and now, I know a little about climate change and who are the most vulnerable communities. Of course these studies of carbon emissions are irrelevant cobblers. Climate change in Africa as elsewhere is subject to natural cycles. No amount of ‘mitigation’ will affect the situation in Africa. But what they do not need is ‘integrated’ production (that means production that feeds global markets). These markets drive production systems that pay no heed to ecological factors of water supply (especially ‘fossil’ water reservoirs that cannot be readily replenished), soil fertility, biodiversity – and often left out of the equation – human happiness built on intact communities and culture. Real ‘greens’ (Eric Worrall and Mike Bromley please note) have been involved in trying to safeguard African development – not by preventing it or supporting starvation, but by working there to develop better and more appropriate agricultural systems. Detractors of ‘green’ thinking never seem to look to the downside of their own neo-conservative models of development – massive migration to slum-cities, cultural severence, impacts on biodiversity and long term degradation of soil systems – all for an illusory ‘wealth’ measured in GDP.
Interesting Point of view Peter,
Thanks for sharing. “Time spent in reconnassaince is seldom wasted”
I worked in Africa in the 1960s – Nigeria (and later in the late 1990s -several countries) as a geologist and mining engineer. There definitely is an attitude among NGOs that we leave these people with their “human happiness” at being poor. The Pope mentioned this wonderful situation a decade or so ago for Latin America and he didn’t get any applause for it. And don’t let them benefit from mining and other economic development if it appears it might ruin the perpetual safaris for the NGOs like the ones Peter was likely on.
The ‘happy communities’ tipped me off. Why is it that after spending over $60trillion in aid since independence (50 trillion in a UN report of ~1995) have we seen so little for it? It’s because of NGO junkets and the ephemeral cottage industry, boy scout projects they do to keep the myth alive.
Also the mention of neo-conservatives and pooh poohing GDP growth identifies Peter Taylor as a part of the monolithic culture and politics that guides their thinking (inculcated by the corrupted biological and social sciences that they were shaped by). If you have been here at WUWT very long, you know this is disingenuous. Most visitors here have been arguing that we should be spending on real environmental problems, clean water, economic development and bringing these much loved-to-death, NGOed people into the fold of world prosperity, instead of sky-is-falling fantasy and hysteria that requires their sacrifice. Why do you think the topic of this thread is talking about real problems that are being ignored by the consensus and their fraternal NGO zealots. Are you saying that everyone who has a concern for the plight of Africans and a desire to lay the truth bear is a neo conservative? Gee, I can only hope that this isn’t true or we are doomed. Conservatives are an endangered species is my fear under the constant propaganda of business is evil.
Not to end on too negative a note, you too, are at least sceptical of the CO2 control knob and I’m thankful for that. That is a large thing for a modern biologist. All you need now is to transcend what was done to you at university and stick with the biochemistry, zoology, and the like. Ecology is too fraught with political viruses you don’t need to do your job well. Separate the wheat from the chaff in that discipline.
Ah yes, those poor child-like Africans: incapable of knowing their own interests without wise people like you to tell them.
All the world’s great cities were slum-cities once: and when they were, they all grew in population for the same reason as today’s slum cities do. Life as a dirt-poor subsistence farmer is unremittingly hard, short, and hopeless.
You may believe that “cultural severance” is worse than watching your child dying of some disease of poverty, but most people (African or otherwise) would not agree with you. Though you wouldn’t know it if you listen to green propaganda, these very poor people are human beings just like those of us who are so much more fortunate. What arrogance, to suggest that we should ban them aspiring even to a fraction of what we have, just because some of us think they know better!
@Gary Young P
Well said, though it was 60 Bn not trillion but that’s a quibble.
Having spent 30 years in Africa I hear you. It is interesting how outsiders are filled with solutions Africans will implement to save the world from the actions of outsiders. 60% of food produced in Africa doesn’t make it to the table. It is not so much a need to grow more it is about using more of what is produced.
Also helpful: stop dumping Agric exports, stop paying slave wages in industries like garments and shoes, and stop ripping off the resources with bribery. Sequestering carbon is about the last thing on anyone’s mind. Quite right too.
Well said, and seconded.
“Climate change in Africa as elsewhere is subject to natural cycles.”
Then it’s not climate change, just normal variability of weather.
You have no idea about the cultural differences between say a Sierria Leonian an Ethiopian, a Kenyan, a Zimbabwean, a Ghanan or a Botswanian…
Patrick,
You have no idea the expressions of astonishment when I explain to friends in my (black-dominated) church that the variations in cultures and even racial types (that’s clumsy) is as diverse if not more so than in Europe. Many still refer to Africa as the “mother COUNTRY.” Ah me.
BTW Upper Volta and Gabon: Sahel to Tropics for four years.
Ah, a church! Well that makes the “Christian” domination of Africa ok then.
Climate science = an excuse for rich Western people with guaranteed monthly paychecks and pensions to interfere in developing countries whose people have to make a living day to day from their own efforts.
No wonder Africa is turning more and more to China for investment.
Indeed. If there was a conspiracy to force the poor of the world to remain poor so that the the rich of the world remain rich, it would not look much different than the politics of “climate change”.
Africa is NOT turning to China for investment. It is being taken over BY the Chinese with totalk exclusion of the local workforce.
Save the planet … commit genocide … now just pretty up the justification and the actions and no one will ever know, not even the victims.
Just one point about preventing people from farming their OWN LAND. They will farm it anyway and if you prevent them from getting coal fired power stations they will ACCELERATE deforestation. I have seen deforestation on my OWN LAND via wood thieves. See Haiti from satellite compared to its neighbours. Stop the meddling and let people determine what they do on THEIR OWN LAND.
The arrogance and hypocrisy are breathtaking.
““We need to prevent regions in Africa that are rich in carbon and biodiversity from being cleared for agriculture to avoid increasing emissions“.
So these unfortunate people are to be prevented from using their best land for agriculture. So more land will have to be cleared, more fertiliser will have to be used, more expense will be incurred, more sheer hard work will be needed, more time will be wasted, all in the face of relentless, merciless, well-funded green opposition and obstruction, purely so that they don’t add 0.00000000135% to global annual CO2 emissions while just one country in another continent is increasing its emission of CO2 by a greater amount each day from a large stream of new coal and gas plants and is not even criticised simply because it also manufactures a few solar panels.
I found these two TYGER MustReads illuminating:
http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/tyger-lair-from-edenhofer-interview-1.html
http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/tyger-spoors.html
Yet again, the fundamental question. How do we actually know increased emissions will cause an issue, they are tiny in comparison with Nature’s output, the numbers show it, & twice a very small number, is a very small number, & so far, Nature is NOT playing ball with the GCMs, which therefore by default, must be flawed!
A bit of grade-school maths ‘shows how we (that’s anyone) can know’: http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/eating-sun-fourth-estatelondon-2009.html
Right on Alan. Instead of whether the effect is positive or negative, a worthwhile study (but with no chance of being funded or published) would be to estimate how much of an impact (using IPCC assumptions) a change in EITHER direction would have on the global temperatures. (I refuse to say “on climate change”.)
For bonus points calculate how much agriculture would benefit from similar increases in CO2.
Global Dumbing is really REALLY the problem we’re all facing.
No amount of “Agricultural Innovation” is going to get over the problem that the soils of Africa (and indeed anywhere at less than 40 degrees of latitude) are exhausted. This has happened over the last few millions of years as plants grew, died, decomposed, were recycled etc but all the time, the vital trace elements and nutrients in the rock fraction of the soil leached away into the world’s oceans.
Places higher than 40 degrees were regularly glaciated and the ice sheets worked to remove the old tired souls, grind up some new rock and leave it in place of the old. (Volcanoes are great things in this respect also – I really do urge any gardening types amongst us to find some ‘Rock Dust’ from their garden store/centre wherever, spread it around and see what it does. You will be gobsmacked)
In the technical vernacular, the soils are ‘weathered’, they cannot support much in the way of vegetation. There is nothing there for plants, even though they only need tiny amounts. Why, oh why, don’t these people know or realise this?
If we really do want to get windmills and sunshine panels to do something useful, set them off grinding up rock taken off the top, bottom or middle of any nearby mountain and spread the stuff across the land and simply let nature take its course.
That’s how to green a desert, first make it black (dark grey would probably suffice)
Gotta laugh haven’t ya, I did mean soils, so where did souls come from……
How did Africa become the Progressives’ experimental playground ?
It is incredible to witness isnt it.
I wonder if these people ever actually do think things along the lines of “its only brown people” or “theres enough africans in africa” or “the world is overpopulated, less is good”
This is horrible, and adds to the green deathtoll. How can these people say stuff like this in public without being lynched by the usual racism screaming liberal leftists?
Guys, please stay cool. The paper is predominantly on land use change. Also looking at CO2 emissions helped finance it. The acknowledgments read:
T.W.H. acknowledges support from the US Department of Energy Office of Science Integrated Assessment Modeling Program Grant DE-SC005171.
So they had to do this. The problem is that in this way the climate change aspect is forced upon all kinds of otherwise reasonable research. This climate fad has become the biggest grant cash cow in science history, and at the same time the dumbest scientific platitude.
Those scientists who believe this are too ignorant to be considered “scientists”. Those that don’t believe, but take the cash are too dishonest to be considered as same. What do we call them? Believers is my choice.
How long before the fanatical greens decide that ebola is a good thing for the climate?
They already have.
No one is saying to keep Africa starving .. the point is that rich countries may need to reduce emissions more. to meet global development goals.
Barry
September 9, 2014 at 5:20 am
No one is saying to keep Africa starving .. the point is that rich countries may need to reduce emissions more. to meet global development goals.
————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Really Barry ?! Is that the point ? Is it really ?
On the contrary: all the green rhetoric about “carrying capacity” is precisely about keeping Africa starving and keeping Africans as dirt-poor subsistence farmers. It’s also about the rest of the world being reduced to that level too – apart from the green priesthood, of course.
@Barry…
No-one has proven that CO2 is or has caused global warming.
The UN IPCC’s claim is a political agenda with no proof.
Since when can a gas[CO2] in an open system act like a solid [blanket] and “trap” heat?
Gasses expand when heated and rise. Don’t they???
I guess Barry has not been to Africa, and how people can, need and do fight for food. Yes, really they do (I have seen it). Does not happen too often wherever it is you are from however I’d imagine.
straight to the, might, may, could , bin i am afraid-
“COULD Increase Crop Land Use and CO2 emissions”
How’s that for progressive program?
Let them do without.
Without energy
Without electricity
Without healthy food
Without clean water
Without sanitary systems
Without refrigeration
Without safe medicines
Without…in general
They truly hate the poor folks of color…or maybe it’s just the poor.
Maybe they’re right because the poor are the biggest polluters.
They’re the biggest carriers of diseases.
They’ll do too much damage the the climate if they continue to breathe.
I guess the greens all agree the poor already live too long and don’t suffer enough.
Sounds about right. Unfortunately. 🙁
There is, believe it or not, a significant amount of food waste in Africa. It’s no way near as much as in the US or the EU zone, but it is there, and is surprising.
Rodents
Mildew
No refrigeration
Waste is hardly surprising.
The model may be missing a component: As we switch away from oil we will likely consume more biofuels. The land used in Africa will make land elsewhere available to grow sugar cane for ethanol and similar crops. The key is to avoid using corn ethanol, which is quite impractical. Sugar cane is fine.
off oil to biofuels ? really ? in what, 200 years time ? wow … I predict we will still be using gasoline as fuel in 200 years …
Land in Africa is being used to grow food for them, not fuel for us. Or don’t you get that?
“Let them eat leaves” (Official Souse.).
Even the noble schemes are insidious. Take “free trade” crops. Sounds great unless you are the farmer. The rules prevent a farmer from improving his lot by buying a tractor–it is only for small farmers. And most of the extra $ actually goes to middlemen.
Africa needs roads, railroads, and electricity. Without roads you can’t get your crops to market and can’t get a fair price for them. Western governments and NGOs try to prevent these 3 things from happening. Coal fired power plants are no longer supported by the World Bank for example, due to climate change. Criminal. And the poor are thrown off their land when it is set aside for carbon credits.
Lets keep a green boot firmly on the heads of these carboniggas, these CO2Ns, with their dangerous fossil fuel industry-funded agenda of escaping from poverty. All for mother earth! (A very white mother earth.)
/sarc off
Ah typical. Lefty loves the poor so much he wants to make sure they are always around. Down right evil.