Public Release: 17-Dec-2018
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
The agricultural sector is the world’s largest source of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions, and IIASA-led research has found that changing agricultural practices and a shift in diet away from meat and dairy products could reduce the sector’s emissions by up to 50% by 2050 compared to a situation without mitigation efforts.
IIASA researcher Stefan Frank led the team which carried out the first detailed analysis of agricultural non-CO2 mitigation using a combination of four different global economic models and assessed the reduction potential. They used the carbon price in the models to estimate the mitigation potential of each option, although Frank stresses that carbon taxes are not considered a likely policy instrument for the agricultural sector in reality.
“We gain insights on the contribution of different mitigation options across regions and identify robust emission reduction strategies both on the supply and demand side,” he says.
Efforts in the agricultural sector alone could reduce up to 15% of agricultural methane and nitrous oxide emissions by 2050, a total of 0.8-1.4 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (GtCO2e/y), at an already low cost of US$20/t CO2e. Dietary changes in overconsuming countries could contribute additional reductions of 0.6 Gt CO2e/y, a total emissions reduction of 23%.
The researchers used the Global Biosphere Management Model (GLOBIOM), developed at IIASA, and CAPRI, IMAGE, and MAGNET, developed by the University of Bonn, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, and Wageningen University, respectively, to model eight carbon price trajectories ranging from US$20/t CO2e emitted, to US$950/t CO2e by 2050 to estimate the economic emission reduction potential from the sector. This highest figure is thought to be the price needed to meet the 1.5°C climate stabilization target across all sectors of the economy.
At the highest carbon prices of US$950/t CO2e, agriculture could achieve emissions reductions of 3.9 Gt CO2e/y by 2050, 50% lower than the baseline scenario without climate change mitigation efforts.
Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture currently make up 10-12% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and the percentage is growing, largely thanks to the increased use of synthetic fertilizers and growing ruminant herds. Since 1990, emissions have increased by a third, but the data shows that production is up by 70%, so agriculture is becoming more efficient over time. If the world is to meet the 1.5°C climate stabilization target set out under the Paris Agreement, however, these emissions will need to fall.
The beef and dairy industries are highly greenhouse gas intensive, and across all models and carbon price scenarios, had the potential to contribute more than two thirds of the total mitigation potential in agriculture.
Frank and his colleagues identified three areas for mitigation on the supply side – technical options such as animal feed supplements to improve feed digestibility or anaerobic digesters, structural options, which are more fundamental changes to agriculture such as changes to crop and livestock portfolios, and production effects such as changes in production levels. Demand side options involved consumers in developed and emerging countries switching to diets with fewer animal products.
“Steering mitigation action towards a limited number of regions, such as Africa, China, India, and Latin America, and commodities such as beef and milk, which are characterized by relatively high emission intensities, would allow for the realization of substantial emissions savings on the supply side,” says Frank.
The models show that as carbon prices rise, technical and structural options become exhausted, after which emissions reductions can be achieved through reducing production and consumption of greenhouse gas intensive products, such as meat and dairy. Such dietary changes would have an added benefit. As demand drops in overconsuming countries, less nitrous oxides and methane is emitted while at the same time it would also yield a more balanced distribution of the calorie intake from meat and dairy across more world regions with benefits for food security.
“The models agree that diet change can contribute only part of the efforts needed to achieve the 1.5°C climate stabilization target and policymakers should not forget about the production side measures which in this study provide the large majority of the mitigation potential.” says IIASA researcher and coauthor Petr Havlík. “The comparison across multiple models also shows that there are still substantial uncertainties in the reference level non-CO2 emissions development and the related mitigation potential. Unless these uncertainties are reduced, they will need to be factored in the plans of deployment of negative emissions technologies”.
As countries will have to periodically monitor progress and take stock of the implementation of the Paris Agreement, the insights provided in the study could help policymakers to identify regional mitigation priorities in the sector and have a better understanding of the potential contribution of agriculture.
###
Reference
Frank S, Havlík P, Stehfest E, van Meijl H, Witzke P, Pérez-Domínguez I, van Dijk M, Doelmann JC et al. (2018) Agricultural non-CO2 emission reduction potential in the context of the 1.5°C target. Nature Climate Change DOI: 10.1038/s41558-018-0358-8 [pure.iiasa.ac.at/15632]
More information about the models:
GLOBIOM (IIASA) – http://globiom.org/
CAPRI (EuroCARE) – http://www.capri-model.org
IMAGE: (PBL) – https://models.pbl.nl/image/index.php/IMAGE_framework
MAGNET: (WECR) – http://www.magnet-model.org/
About IIASA:
The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) is an international scientific institute that conducts research into the critical issues of global environmental, economic, technological, and social change that we face in the twenty-first century. Our findings provide valuable options to policymakers to shape the future of our changing world. IIASA is independent and funded by prestigious research funding agencies in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe. http://www.iiasa.ac.at
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis: “The agricultural sector is the world’s largest source of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions”
WR: Totally wrong: the oceans are the largest source of non-CO2 greenhouse gases emissions: water vapor H2O. The number of H2O molecules in the atmosphere is around 25 times the number of CO2 molecules. As water stays around 10 days in the air (https://www.britannica.com/science/hydrosphere/The-water-cycle) every day (!) two and a half times the total number of atmospheric CO2 molecules is emitted by oceans and plants/trees. Too significant a number to overlook.
What about H2O, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis?
I belive Venezuela has put their recommebdations into practice. Word is another 2 million Venezuelans will be fleeing Venezuela in 2019. That will leave plenty of room for the paper’s authors and their acolytes.
Of course all the deligates at the Polish conference only had vegs for their ml. ?
So lets kill off the livestock we eat, no more. So what hap[pens to the land area, why nature takes over and they too all breath out, and worse thery too fart.
MJE
Except that these flows are in the current account of the carbon cycle and not a perturbation of the carbon cycle by external carbon that was previously sequesteted under the ground and then dug up by humans (the AGW issue). Also the attribution of increases in atmospheric methane to human activity overlooks natural flows. Please see
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/16/beef-and-climate-change/
“<em<The beef and dairy industries are highly greenhouse gas intensive, …”
Thanks for the information.
I feel it is my duty to keep CO2 rising. I’ll use the word “robust” here. [See Menicholas at 4:43 pm ]
The Earth’s growing things are more robust at a level of CO2 well above the 280, 350 or whatever.
I had beef last night and for lunch today. I do my part.
Be of good cheer, all.
The study is bogus because they forgot to include consideration of the primary greenhouse gas, H2O. Considering that H2O accounts for most of the radiant greenhouse effect I doubt that changing our diet will have any significant effect on the overall radiant greenhouse effect if there actually is such a thing.
The radiant GHG effect is the only effect they have and when combined with a similar effect from the liquid and solid water in clouds results in increasing surface emissions beyond the forcing by 600 mw per Watt of forcing. The foundational error made by the IPCC is applying nebulous positive feedback to amplify the 600 mw up to 3.3 Watts of additional surface emissions per Watt of forcing.
This error is so obvious, but also so large, that many on both sides have a hard time accepting that an error this big is even possible as the result from ostensibly intelligent scientists. They don’t account for the fact that political bias, much like a lack or protein in the diet, makes people stupid, and this also applies to those ostensibly intelligent scientists.
If you want to control YOUR portions, fine. That’s your choice. Don’t you dare try to control mine or anyone else’s, especially by using government force. That’s tyranny and will not be tolerated.
They’re coming for the ranches and farmers next. That’s what they said they were going to do, and that’s what they’re doing.
Try putting a carbon tax on foi gras and watch how the French react
Does the model determine how much new farmland is needed to grow the protein-containing crops that will be needed if meat is no longer produced? Is that much land available? Does it include the emissions from this added farming? Does it include the added greenhouse gas emissions from management of farm waste that is no longer consumed by farm animals?
Much of the land currently used for livestock production is not suitable for arable farming, as it too steep, wrong soil type, too wet, too dry etc.
Consider the vegetarian Inuit, Maasai, Australian rancher and Mongolian sheep/goat herder?
“vegetarian Inuit” ? Riiiiight !
Not any more.
Science is going backwards, millions of deaths per annum.
Deaths from ‘diseases’ and causes that were unknown barely 80 years ago.
40% (at least) of everyone who passes away today, tomorrow etc etc will have died through one of those ‘Modern Day Diseases’
Yet it was known, two hundred years ago that a diet high in animal fat was the key to being tall, svelte & elegant, alert & intelligent, good humoured & empathic plus- relative immunity to common ailments.
Generally, a diet including animal fat was the key to good physical and mental health.
Take a walk through a shopping mall, a busy supermarket, glance at ‘science’, ‘education’ and ‘politics’.
Do you see people displaying (m)any more than even just one of the above characteristics.?
And even the Lead Picture into this article is ‘less than correct’ – I don’t see a lot of fat on that lump of meat.
And what does the wine represent if not a symbol of ‘animal blood’
The drinking of same being held in a small, intimate and deeply reverential ceremony that hunters would hold after catching/killing their prey to give thanks to ‘raise a toast’ and say Thank You to the animal they’d just caught.
Thank you for giving *your* life that we may have ours.
And alcohol drinking now?
One Big Phat Joke, a Flat Out Lie about ‘being social’ and an opportunity to get even more dumb & stupid than the lack of fat in our diet brings on.
Even before (how) many of us were inflicted with Kwashkior in the first 3 years of our lives through being bottle-fed babies.
How do you, how does anyone, even start to turn that one around?
How many will die before that science progresses?
It has to progress, because Climate Science is a direct consequence of our current low standard of nutrition.
Simply, the lack of fat.
70% of the earth’s land surface is classified as “rangeland”. It is only suitable for grazing.
Remove livestock from it and vegetation will still grow, and it will be eaten by methane-article g animals, methane-farting termites, or smoke and co2-producing fires.
This doesn’t include the montane, forested and wetland areas that are also unfit for crop-farming. They certainly aren’t thinking too hard about what happens to those remaining acres that are supposed to grow all of our food.
Then there is the question of what we do with the products of cropping that are not fit for human consumption and which are currently fed to livestock.
More waste…,,
Here is a nice compilation of 30 natural systems in which global warming exerts both an effect and the opposite of that effect
It was first posted by Jimbo then re-posted by Pierre Gosselin at NoTricksZone, with links to papers:
http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/30/robust-science-more-than-30-contradictory-pairs-of-peer-reviewed-papers/
Here they are as a text list:
Amazon dry season greener
Amazon dry season browner
Avalanches may increase
Avalanches may decrease – wet snow more though [?]
Bird migrations longer
Bird migrations shorter
Bird migrations out of fashion
Boreal forest fires may increase
Boreal forest fires may continue decreasing
Chinese locusts swarm when warmer
Chinese locusts swarm when cooler
Columbia spotted frogs decline
Columbia spotted frogs thrive in warming world
Coral island atolls to sink [?]
Coral island atolls to rise [? – ?]
Earth’s rotation to slow down
Earth’s rotation to speed up
East Africa to get less rain
East Africa to get more rain – pdf
Great Lakes less snow
Great Lakes more snow
Gulf stream slows down (and it causes warming)
Gulf stream speeds up a little (and it also causes warming)
Indian monsoons to be drier
Indian monsoons to be wetter
Indian rice yields to decrease – full paper
Indian rice yields to increase
Latin American forests may decline
Latin American forests have thrived in warmer world with more co2!
Leaf area index reduced [1990s]
Leaf area index increased [1981-2006]
Malaria may increase
Malaria may continue decreasing
Malaria in Burundi to increase
Malaria in Burundi to decrease [?]
North Atlantic cod to decline
North Atlantic cod to thrive
North Atlantic cyclone frequency to increase
North Atlantic cyclone frequency to decrease – full pdf
North Atlantic Ocean less salty
North Atlantic Ocean more salty
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to decline [? – ? – ?]
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to grow [?]
Plant methane emissions significant
Plant methane emissions insignificant
Plants move uphill
Plants move downhill [?]
Sahel to get less rain
Sahel to get more rain
Sahel may get more or less rain
San Francisco less foggy
San Francisco more foggy
Sea level rise accelerated
Sea level rise decelerated – full pdf
Soil moisture less
Soil moisture more
Squids get smaller
Squids get larger
Stone age hunters may have triggered past warming
Stone age hunters may have triggered past cooling
Swiss mountain debris flow may increase
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease then increase in volume
UK may get more droughts
UK may get more rain
Wind speed to go up
Wind speed slows down
Wind speed to speed up then slow down
Winters maybe warmer
Winters maybe colder
I’m having a cheeseburger while I mull this over.
I’m not changing my diet of meats and dairy products over this faux claim.
First step will change to recyclable materials for https://goo.gl/images/M8gEwp