Global climate frameworks miss the ‘big picture’ on food, say scientists

Schemes may fall short of ambitions by dealing separately with food production, supply and consumption

From the INTERNATIONAL MAIZE AND WHEAT IMPROVEMENT CENTER (CIMMYT)

Global schemes to fight climate change may miss their mark by ignoring the “fundamental connections” in how food is produced, supplied and consumed, say scientists in a new paper published in the journal Nature Food. Global bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), handle the different components of the food system separately. This includes crop and livestock production; food processing, storage and transport; and food consumption. Scientists argue this disjointed approach may harm strategies to reduce food emissions and safeguard food from climate impacts, and that a “comprehensive” and “unified” approach is needed.

Food and climate change are deeply interlinked, but food emissions need to be tracked beyond the “farm gate,” that is, beyond the emissions arising from growing crops or raising livestock. Researchers are uncovering new insights on how the different subcomponents of the food system contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation. They argue that we must understand how these components work together — or clash in some cases — in order to effectively address agriculture in a changing climate.

A systems approach is crucial for achieving lasting change at a large scale, and for bringing a much broader set of players into the discussion, say the authors. “Actions aimed at changing only some of the component parts of the food system are not going to solve the climate crisis,” said Cynthia Rosenzweig, the lead author of the paper. “We need all actors and institutions involved in the many different parts of the food system to understand their roles and impacts, and to make the informed choices needed for widespread transformation,” she explained.

Towards a unified food systems approach

The authors recommend that global reporting systems take a unified food systems approach in measuring their emissions. They argue this could improve international and national-level responses to climate change in agriculture in three important ways.

First, a systems approach would allow for much better estimates of the whole food system’s contribution to total human-induced greenhouse gases. “Current best estimates of emissions from food production, related land-use changes, processing, consumption and management of food waste, range from 21 to 37 percent of all human-induced emissions,” said paper co-author Tek Sapkota, a scientist with the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT). “While this overall figure helps us recognize that the food system is an important source of greenhouse gas emissions, we need a complete accounting of emissions from all components of food systems in order to inform appropriate responses,” he explained.

Secondly, a big-picture view could help us understand how growing demand for climate-friendly foods might interact with climate-efficient food production. “There is increasing awareness of the link between diets, nutrition, and climate change, informed by recent studies such as the EAT-Lancet Commission report,” said co-author Prajal Pradhan from the Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “Dietary changes are important, but measures need to be taken across the whole system, and must deal with production, consumption and also food loss and waste at all stages of the supply chain.”

Finally, the interconnectivity of all parts of the food system means that measures in one area will have positive or negative consequences elsewhere. “We want to avoid situations where strategies to fight climate change, such as growing bioenergy crops or protecting forests, have a detrimental effect on food supply,” said Luis G. Barioni, another co-author of the paper based at the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA). “The goal is to develop actions that strike a balance between food security, adaptation and mitigation. A food system gives us the unique vantage point to assess this,” he said.

Many agricultural practices can increase yields and resilience to climate change, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions, say the authors. Farming techniques that increase the amount of organic matter in soils — such as leaving behind stems from harvested crops, or using livestock manure for fertilizer — can boost the resilience of some crops to rising temperatures, without harming yields or increasing emissions. “These interactions are only clear when we look through the lens of the whole food system,” emphasized Sapkota. “This kind of understanding is crucial to the success of any climate change response in agriculture.”

###

Read more: Rosenzweig C et al. 2020. Climate change responses benefit from a global food system approach. Nature Foodhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0031-z

This article is a synthesis of chapter 5 of the IPCC’s Special Report on “Climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems” which was contributed collectively by the authors in the manuscript.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

62 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 19, 2020 6:53 pm

Warmer is better for food production. Witness last year’s record corn (maize) and soybean harvests in Brazil — on the Equator, the warmest region on Earth.

The most productive (agriculturally) land in the US is the Imperial Valley, a below-sea-level valley just south of Death Valley. They get six (6) cuttings per year of alfalfa there. How’s that compare with your neck of the farm? Next most productive is the San Joaquin Valley. Ever been in Fresno in August?

Most of our food crops are tropical in origin. According to Biz Insider the most important crops worldwide, listed by annual production and average yield in 2008, are corn, wheat, rice, potatoes, cassava, soybeans, sweet potatoes, sorghum, yams, and plantains. Hey, they’re all tropical or semi-tropical plants! Not listed but also semi-tropical are grapes and barley. Hops are from temperate climes (just being honest).

A warmer globe means more rain, according the IPCC (but it makes sense, which is remarkable). They (the IPCC experts) predict (scenario model) a 7% increase in rain in the next few decades. That would increase agricultural productivity worldwide. Yes. Better for ag. Warmer is.

Conversely, the Little Ice Age was an agricultural disaster. Big famines. Not enough to eat. Lots of hunger.

This is not rocket science. Even Mike Bloomberg should get it.

WXcycles
February 19, 2020 7:06 pm

Terrible truths our children still don’t get taught at school: The United Nations is the mother of all misanthropy and an unwavering enemy of Humanity. Smallpox was successfully eliminated so we can take heart that the United Nations can be systematically eliminated too.

It’s my hope that during the next term US Presidential term, President Trump will evict the United Nations from the Western world, with 3 months notice, cut all funding to it, and ensure that no similar organisation can ever arise again within the United States, and demolish the UN Headquarters building at the earliest available date.

A July 4th, 2021, as “Demolition Day” would be perfect.

Everyone likes demo day!

Deacon
February 19, 2020 7:23 pm

back to Kelvin Kilty post….”…and food is still quite inexpensive..”
this has always amazed me in the USA…I work in industry not food related…but have to transport product from manufacturer to user. Not a cheap item.
How food can be as cheap in a grocery story or many restaurants is baffling …go get an egg, bacon, cheese biscuit for a breakfast snack…consider the cost to grow the egg and put it in a shipping container…the cost to raise a pig and harvest it for the bacon…the cost to produce the cheese, grow the wheat to produce the flour for the biscuit…then move it to your location in order for the restaurant to make your breakfast and pay their bills/salaries.
Think about it…not a single egg is produced within “how many miles” of NY City…yet how many eggs are consumed in a single day?
Cut out the trucks run on oil…Hunger Games in a week…and that is only one item.
Funny to me, a military veteran….the logistics to feed and supply the fighting force is the defining difference between winning and losing…and requires the most man power…
but in the civilian world…we who have it easy completely forget the work to create and move the food and needed/wanted materials for our existence.
Oil got us here and is still the solution.

TasChas
February 19, 2020 7:59 pm

Me I like climate friendly food! Nothing better on a climate change induced hot day than a big steak on the BBQ washed down by an ice cold CO2 laden beer!
For those skeptical warmunists I’m talking about vegetable concentrates in the steak!

GeeJam
February 19, 2020 11:48 pm

Here we go again. Endless paragraphs of waffle from ‘the tree-hugging experts’ without any direct specific reference to what it is that we should all stop eating (or drinking) in order to save the world from impending doom. No examples. No lists.

I’ll do it for them.

MAP (Modified Air Packaging): Man-made CO2 (a bi-product of ammonia manufacture) is injected into food packaging to (i) prevent oxidisation, (ii) prolong shelf life and (iii) protect easily damaged goods. By removing MAP, we can all enjoy tiny bits of crushed stale crisps (potato chips USA), eat grey looking pre-packed ham and develop an appetite for breakfast cereals that have lost their snap, crackle and pop. However, apart from dramatically increasing the amount of food waste, we will save the planet from Armageddon.

Flat Lemonade and Coke: No more effervescent tiny bubbles of evil man-made CO2 injected into drinks. By eliminating the novelty effect of carbonated drinks (CO2 adds no flavour), ocean levels will stop rising at the alarming rate we were promised three decades ago.

Ban Baking Powder: Bicarbonate of Soda, as used in the snack foods industry, cake manufacture on a global scale, biscuits, crackers, rusks, liver salts (Andrews) and denture cleaning products – all makes CO2. So, just think, what a fluffy American pancake ban would do to stop climate change.

A Worldwide Fermented Yeast Ban: If, like us, you’re fed up with tiny pockets of CO2 making bread rise, astonished at the way beer is brewed, wine is fermented, etc., then stop. You know it makes sense.

Fermented Soya Beans Ban: No more Tofu from now on (can’t stand the stuff anyway). Vegans need to discover another way of consuming what little protein they don’t already eat. Think of how skin and muscle doesn’t require any protein whatsoever to rejuvenate. Think of complexion. Think of anaemia.

Dry Ice Pellets: Used in large scale bakeries to ‘sand-blast’ baking equipment – more effective than cleaning down with water and detergents. Goodness knows what dry ice is made from, but I’ve been told it’s evil – apparently.

Decaffeinated Coffee: This is getting boring now.

Refrigerants: I give up.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  GeeJam
February 20, 2020 5:47 am

“Flat Lemonade and Coke: No more effervescent tiny bubbles of evil man-made CO2 injected into drinks. By eliminating the novelty effect of carbonated drinks (CO2 adds no flavour), ocean levels will stop rising at the alarming rate we were promised three decades ago.”

No, that is going too far! I would rather have the seas rise than do away with my carbonated Dr. Pepper.

Some things are just sacred.

February 20, 2020 7:49 am

“Global schemes to fight climate change may miss their mark“

If that isn’t self evident to the folks writing this nonsense, I have to wonder what credentials allowed them into the academic fold. Oh that’s right, I forgot the standards have been consistently lowered over the last many decades so that belief systems can be respected and never confronted with real facts. Global schemes to fight climate change are as likely to be successful as plans to reverse the Earth’s orbit about the sun.

AK in VT
February 20, 2020 2:52 pm

This is nothing short of finding ways to control what you can raise for food. It was done in WWII with a law passed (and surviving US Supreme Court scrutiny) which controlled through interstate commerce clause how many acres of certain crops certain farmers were allowed to raise: the Ohio farmer lost and the Supreme Court even ruled that the interstate commerce clause could be used to control how much one could grow in his/her own backyard for personal consumption!

As Prince Philip infamously one said, “He who controls the food controls the populace” (Paraphrase).

AK