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.
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.
Distinguished maybe but wrong. We are told 3 posts ago that converting forest to cropland is carbon neutral, due to the effects on albedo and release of volatile organic aerosols.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/08/study-conversion-of-forests-to-cropland-cooled-the-climate/
There have been advances in farmin practices, esp since after Live Aid in 1986. The money raised is still working and farmers can reap more than one harvest. Ethiopia, as one example, is very fertile…just as with much of Africa, corrupt!
Upvote. This was exactly my thought reading these two posts back to back. My second was, “What about the consensus?”
Productivity-boosting agricultural innovations in Africa could lead to an increase in global deforestation rates and carbon emissions, a Purdue University study finds.
We just heard that razing forests to turn them into cropland cooled the planet.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/08/study-conversion-of-forests-to-cropland-cooled-the-climate/
This is why I draw a parallel between the Alarmed Ones and Eugenics.
To a man, the concern is not global warming, climate change, disruption whatever, it is TOO MANY People.
And more specifically too many poor brown people.
The longer the CAGW scam goes on, the more apparent that it is just another vehicle for our racists.
I always did prefer the open racists, at least I know where they stand.
These sneaky, spineless world savers, deserve to be made to practise what they proscribe.
Winston Chruchill was a strong eugenics supporter. He was even a supporter of the feeble minded persons act of 1912. Fortunately, the bill never passed.
“Are greenhouse gas emissions a reason to keep Africa starving?”
Of course, silly. It’s not like they’re white Western lefty kool-aid drinkers or anything.
/do I really need to?
It isn’t only the populations of Africa that these people want to reduce. It’s been announced that the US and UK will be sending troops to Africa to help contain Ebola. Those troops will be exposed to the virus and sent home at some point. Will quarantine procedures be up to the task?
Africa will starve essentially forever. No matter what the West will do. You only need primitive tools and primitive know-how to do primitive farming. To do otherwise is not within reach for an other millennium. It is not my wish but my judgement.
[snip – ugly racial rant]
As a fine illustration of your statement, I offer the example of Zimbabwe.
Yup! Rhodesia, or as we know it now as Zimbabewe. A political system installed…by the English.
Patrick,
Rhodesia was the bread basket of Africa with the system installed by the British. Zimbabwe is the totalitarian system set up by the incoming tribal warlord which has become the basket case of Africa. Same place, different systems.
[snip – ugly racial rant]
Really? Being English and having been married to an African, are you sure about that?
George Steiner
See my comments and references below which says you have had your eyes off the prize. Do you wish to RE-STATE your wrong position? You could not be more wrong about “Africa will starve essentially forever.” The evidence so far says your forever is perhaps 5 years. You are entitled to your opinions, but not the facts.
Here is just one of my many references below. Does this look like starving forever? Just like global warming people made the mistake of thinking that things don’t change. The climate changes and so do economies and politics. The cold war is over!!!! Dictators are no longer tolerated as much as before. The mobile phone revolution is being felt. Be sceptical about what you see or read in the Daily Bugle. Bad news sells.
I gaurantee you, having seen it firsthand, no-one hungry and poor in Africa is going to worry about CO2 emissions. Nope! Not one bit! Most won’t even know what CO2 is nor the “climate change” scare. Make enough people hungy and deperate (French “revolution”), we might see something happen. It’s not a question of if but when. How many bullets do we have or can make? On the borders of Ethiopia and Kenya there are camps with 2 million+ refugees. Many other border camps exist in Africa, some with “residents” who have been in the camp for 20 years or more. Kenya has just closed the border to non-residents arriving by air. Kenya is a major transport hub in Africa.
Patrick, English and the UN. Also I’ve spent my time in Africa, had a small business in Kenya and spent time in TNZ. Also was involved in establishing a business in Nigeria.
One of the main problems in Africa is that every do-gooder lefty NGO wants to fix it and control it with their non functional concepts and grant monies. African’s are moving out of poverty but not with the help of these groups. African’s are doing it on their own. They have everything they need to be successful and are going to be a great nation weather the left likes it or not….The left will try to keep them in poverty but will fail.
Cheap energy, capitalism, free markets and internal governments will/are empowering Africans. White people are not the issue or is it the Chinese or Indians who are there. It’s the ideologies of global warming, anti GM crops, no DDT, etc…that are really hurting Africans right now. They need to do what China, Mexico, India and others have done and that is close your doors to the UN, NGO’s and other hanger-on’s and keep them out of your business.
Man, we need to keep them out of our business,too. I’m heartened that some countries have done this.
Well said. Problem is the Chinese are exploring in the rift valley (There are massive resurces there). And they will NOT employ locals. I also know former UN employees who left the UN because the money received was spent on whiskey and other BS. And I kid you not! Money given from poor poeple in rich countries make rich people in poor countries, richer!
Interesting there’s no mention of the northward advance of the Sahel into the southern Sahara as plants respond to increasing atmospheric CO2, marginally warmer temps and more rain by reclaiming arid areas and producing more biomass. Also, no mention of steadily increasing domestic crop yields worldwide as corn, wheat, rice, etc respond to the same free plant foods. What we need is more CO2 not less!
The strongest always rules.
[snip -ugly racial rant]
The problem in Africa is weeds. Weeds must be cleared by women with hoes in order to plant crops, and then must be removed by women during the growing season. Young people do not want to live like that and are moving away to the cities, understandably. Inexpensive, effective herbicides would free the women and allow farmers to own and farm more than one hectare of land.
Leonard Gianessi presents his work with African farmers, and how much difference it makes for women who are freed from weeding.
Begin 1:36
Atrazine and paraquat are inexpensive and effective, and have been in safe use for decades. This is not really a “green revolution” – it just means at the very least stop heartlessly blocking the use of herbicides, and stop terrifying people with bad science.
Attn: Moderators
Adam
September 9, 2014 at 5:11 pm
[Taken care of, thank you. .mod]
Actually the perennial NGOs and gov aid departments have the same problem that the CAGW people have. If they let go of their schtick, then there is no need for grants and the employment numbers are staggering. This is why NGOs harass mining and other real economic development. They know it is a quick way to end the safari they are on and they are not fit for any other job. Good old self interest and they hate the corporate world!
Starve to death now to save your offspring. Voila. First DDT and now this! Sheesh!
What could all the worry be about?
What could all the worry be about?
What could the greens be worried about? Agenda 21 has its eyes on the prize. Keep your eyes on the thimble. It’s a funny old game.
The Sahel has been greening since the 1980s. So what was that about reducing carbon emissions? The biosphere has been greening in recent decades. So what was that about reducing carbon emissions? Co2 aerial fertilization has been one of the biggest factors. This is getting silly now ladies and gentlemen.
Peer reviewed greening biosphere references.
Sahel
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-013-0880-6
Wait, what? Why would a green revolution in African agriculture result in “displaced crop production in the rest of the world”. I can see that their conclusions follow from that assumption but I can see no justification for that assumption. If low-yield regions of Africa can become slightly higher-yield areas, that’s not going to cause farmers in other parts of the world where the yields are higher yet to stop planting their fields.