posts: 43392

This table contains the full text for all our old WORDPRESS content in html form. The format is a bit odd as it represents a direct copy from wordpress content that includes a lot of wordpress specific comments that carry some meaning in terms of layout instructions etc.. The html in the content column can thus be rendered as is but will not look identical to the way it looks on our website as several post processing steps are not applied yet. The content should work though as a readable approximation for every post. For easy searching etc, a markdown copy of the content is available in the markdown column. If you want to query all posts (both wordpress and gdocs), use the posts_unified table or the posts_unified_with_content view.

Data license: CC-BY

This data as json

id	title	slug	type	status	content	archieml	archieml_update_statistics	published_at	updated_at	gdocSuccessorId	authors	excerpt	created_at_in_wordpress	updated_at_in_wordpress	featured_image	formattingOptions	markdown	wpApiSnapshot
43392	Emissions from food alone could use up all of our budget for 1.5°C or 2°C – but we have a range of opportunities to avoid this	food-emissions-carbon-budget	post	publish	<!-- wp:html --> <div class="blog-info"> <p>Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems.<br>This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on <strong><a href="https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Environmental impacts of food production</a></strong>.</p> <p>Many thanks to Michael Clark and Jason Hill for their feedback on this article.</p> </div> <!-- /wp:html --> <!-- wp:owid/summary --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The two big sources of greenhouse gas emissions are energy and food production. It’s sometimes argued that we should focus on one or the other. This is a false dichotomy. We cannot address climate change without moving away from fossil fuels. Equally, as we show in this article, we cannot reach our climate targets without tackling global food production. Even if we stopped emissions from fossil fuels right now, emissions from food production alone would take us well beyond the carbon budget for 1.5°C, and leave little room to reach our 2°C target.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>There are a range of options to successfully reduce food emissions: a shift to more plant-based diets; healthy calorie consumption; less food waste; and improvements in crop yields and farming practices. Combined, they shift us towards a global food system that is more productive, has a low climate impact, and provides a healthy, nutritious diet for everyone.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- /wp:owid/summary --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>To address global climate change we need to rapidly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. This often raises debate of where our attention should be: do we focus on energy or food; fossil fuels or meat? But this is a false dichotomy. If we don’t achieve large changes to both, then we stand little chance of coming close to our climate targets. We don’t have the option of neglecting one or the other.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Energy <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector">accounts for</a> two-thirds to three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions. Getting off of <a href="http://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels">fossil fuels</a> should be our top priority.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>But equally, as we will see in this article, even if we reduce non-food emissions to zero tomorrow, emissions from food production alone could hinder our chances of keeping temperature rise below 1.5°C or 2°C by the end of the century. Ignoring food emissions is also not an option.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In this article I take a look at projections of emissions from food over the coming century, and what options we have to reduce them.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:heading {"level":3} --> <h3>In a business-as-usual scenario emissions from food production alone could use up all of our 1.5°C or 2°C carbon budget</h3> <!-- /wp:heading --> <!-- wp:columns --> <div class="wp-block-columns"><!-- wp:column --> <div class="wp-block-column"><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>One-quarter to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from our food systems (I’ve discussed the range and sources of these emissions in an <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food">earlier article</a>).{ref}In my article <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food"><strong>here</strong></a><strong> </strong>I take a look at comparisons at numerous estimates of global food emissions and where some of the differences come from.<br><br>Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. <em>Science</em>, 360(6392), 987-992.<br><br>Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. <em>Nature Food</em> (2021).{/ref} These emissions come from various sources: deforestation and land use change; emissions from fertilizers and manure; methane from cattle; methane from rice production; energy use on the farm; supply chain emissions from food processing, refrigeration; and transport. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In a paper published in <em>Science</em>, Michael Clark and his colleagues looked at how food emissions might evolve over the coming century, and they studied whether these would be compatible with our global climate targets.{ref}Clark, Michael A., Nina GG Domingo, Kimberly Colgan, Sumil K. Thakrar, David Tilman, John Lynch, Inês L. Azevedo, and Jason D. Hill. "<a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6517/705">Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2° C climate change targets.</a>" <em>Science</em> 370, no. 6517 (2020): 705-708.{/ref}</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Let’s consider the scenario that we continue along a similar pathway to the past: their business-as-usual projection. This assumes that <a href="http://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth">global population</a> increases in line with the UN’s medium fertility scenario; per capita diets change as people around the world <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-economic-growth">get richer</a> (shifting towards more diverse diets with more meat and dairy); <a href="http://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields">crop yields</a> continue to increase in line with historical improvements; and rates of food loss and the emissions intensity of food production remain constant.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In the chart we see estimates of the <em>cumulative</em> emissions from food from 2020 through to 2100 under this scenario. Emissions here are calculated based on a metric called “global warming potential CO<sub>2</sub> warming-equivalents (CO<sub>2</sub>-we)”. This accounts for the range of greenhouse gases, not just CO<sub>2</sub> but also others such as methane and nitrous oxide.{ref}The other metric that is commonly used is carbon dioxide equivalents (CO<sub>2</sub>eq) based on the warming potential of each gas over 100 years (GWP<sub>100</sub>). If you are interested in the differences in these metrics, I cover them in the context of food emissions in this <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane"><strong>related article</strong></a>.{/ref} This is shown in comparison to our total carbon budgets for 1.5°C or 2°C.  The budgets are based on the thresholds set in the IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming of  1.5°C to have a 67% and 50% chance of meeting our 1.5°C and 2°C targets.{ref}P. Forster, D. Huppmann, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca, C. Smith, J. Rogelj, R. Séférian, in Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield, Eds. (IPCC, 2018), pp. 2SM-1–2SM-50.{/ref}</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In the business-as-usual scenario the authors expect the world to emit around 1356 billion tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub>-we by 2100. This would take us well beyond the carbon budget for 1.5°C – we would emit two to three times more. Let’s be clear on what this means: if we stopped burning fossil fuels <em>tomorrow</em> and eliminated all other emissions, food production alone would take us past our 1.5°C target by mid-century.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>What about 2°C? There we have a bit more room in our budget. But, food emissions would consume nearly all of it. To have a 67% chance of staying below 2°C, we have to keep cumulative emissions below 1405 billion tonnes. After food emissions, there would be only 49 billion tonnes left to share between all non-food sectors. That’s not 49 billion tonnes per year; that’s 49 billion tonnes <em>split over 80 years</em>. This is equal to just over one year of current fossil fuels emissions. If we wanted to meet our target we would have one year to move to a zero-carbon energy system.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>If we wanted to give ourselves a bit more room, and hope for a 50% chance of keeping below 2°C, we would have to reduce all non-food emissions to zero within 10 to 12 years.{ref}The remaining budget for a 50% chance of 2°C is 1816 billion tonnes. After food emissions (1356 billion tonnes), this would leave 460 billion tonnes for non-food sectors. This is equal to around 12 years of current CO<sub>2</sub> emissions from fossil fuels (460 billion / 36 billion = 12). This figure will be a bit less than 12 years – closer to 10 years – once we include non-CO<sub>2</sub> emissions.{/ref}</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Ignoring food emissions is simply not an option if we want to get close to our international climate targets. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow – an impossibility – we would still go well beyond our 1.5°C target, and nearly miss our 2°C one.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --></div> <!-- /wp:column --> <!-- wp:column --> <div class="wp-block-column"><!-- wp:image {"id":43395,"sizeSlug":"full","linkDestination":"none"} --> <figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43395"/></figure> <!-- /wp:image --></div> <!-- /wp:column --></div> <!-- /wp:columns --> <!-- wp:heading {"level":3} --> <h3>How can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food production?</h3> <!-- /wp:heading --> <!-- wp:columns --> <div class="wp-block-columns"><!-- wp:column --> <div class="wp-block-column"><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>If we’re serious about tackling climate change we need to reduce emissions from food production. What can we do?</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>We have a number of options – some fall on the shoulders of consumers; some on producers. Importantly, the options on both sides can be incentivized and driven by better policies, legislation and investment. Alongside their projections of business-as-usual, Clark et al. (2020) also looked at the impact of five interventions for reducing emissions. This helps us see which changes could have the biggest impact, and how close they might take us towards the climate targets.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In the chart we see the cumulative emissions from food between 2020 and 2100 under the following reduction scenarios:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:list {"ordered":true} --> <ol><li><strong>High yields</strong>. This scenario is one in which all countries close existing yield gaps, but also extend the yields that we can currently achieve through improved crop genetics and management practices. Note that the business-as-usual scenario already assumes that crop yields will increase 30% by 2050; and 68% by 2100. This scenario assumes that yields increase 150% above current potential yields. This would require significant progress in bioengineering and crop genetics.<br></li><li><strong>Halve food waste and losses</strong>. What we <em>don’t</em> eat can be just as important as what we do eat. At least 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/food-waste-emissions">come from wasted food</a> – that’s three times the emissions from aviation. If food waste was a country it would be the third largest emitter, beaten only by China and the US. One-quarter of food-related emissions comes from food waste by consumers, or losses in supply chains due to spoilage, lack of refrigeration etc. This scenario assumes that global food wastage and losses are halved.<br></li><li><strong>Healthy calories.</strong> Many eat more food than is needed to maintain a healthy weight (13% of <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/obesity">adults are obese</a>; 39% are overweight). In this scenario, everyone eats a diet that would maintain an average body mass index of 22.5 (the middle of the ‘healthy’ range).{ref}This caloric intake will be different for everyone, and is calculated based on population demographics and activity rates.{/ref} This also means that people who are currently undernourished would eat more, in line with a calorie-sufficient diet.<br></li><li><strong>Best farm practices</strong>. We know that there are <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat">large differences in food emissions</a> for a given food product depending on where and how it is produced. This is true for crops and livestock. Clearly farming practices matter. This scenario is one in which the average emissions intensity (emissions per unit of food) falls by 40% through improved practices (e.g. fertilizer management) and technology improvements (e.g. targeted fertilizers or additives to cattle feed).</li></ol> <!-- /wp:list --> <!-- wp:list {"ordered":true,"start":5} --> <ol start="5"><li><strong>Plant-rich diet</strong>. Eating less meat and dairy – especially beef and lamb – is one of the biggest ways that we can reduce our carbon footprint <em>[I’ve shown this previous work </em><a href="https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local"><strong><em>here</em></strong></a><strong><em>]</em></strong>. In this scenario, everyone shifts towards a plant-rich (but not vegan) diet. For most people in rich and middle-income countries, this would mean a reduction in meat and dairy consumption, but it does not eliminate all animal products completely. For many low-income countries, where meat consumption is low, this would actually mean an increase. It’s based on the EAT-Lancet diet, which aims to balance the goals of healthy nutrition and environmental sustainability for a global population.{ref}The EAT-Lancet diet was designed by a group of researchers in nutrition, health, sustainability and policy to balance and improve both human and environmental health.<br><br>Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., … & Murray, C. J. (2019). <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4/fulltext">Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems</a>. <em>The Lancet</em>, 393(10170), 447-492.{/ref}<br><br>Diets vary a lot across the world – often with local cultural food choices. So, this diet does not imply that everyone in the world should eat exactly the same food. Instead, it recommends quantities within a broad food group. For example, a certain amount of cereals, without specifying whether this should be wheat, rice, or cassava; or a certain amount of fruit without specifying whether this should be bananas, apples, papayas or watermelon.<br><br>You can understand what this diet looks like in comparison to current diets across the world in our <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/eat-lancet-diet-comparison?country=USA~GBR~EAT-Lancet~IND~KEN">interactive chart</a>. Most of the climate benefits in this diet come from a reduction of meat, dairy and seafood. In this <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/eat-lancet-diet-animal-products?country=EAT-Lancet~USA~ETH~IND~BRA~GBR~CHN">interactive chart</a> you can see how the consumption of animal products in the EAT-Lancet diet compares to current consumption patterns across countries.</li></ol> <!-- /wp:list --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>We see that all of these individual interventions would reduce emissions. The biggest reduction would come from the adoption of plant-rich diets. Emissions would be halved compared to business-as-usual. Each of the five options takes us some of the way there, but none of them can do it alone. If we want to meet our targets we’d need to adopt several.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>At the bottom of the chart we see two additional scenarios: these assume that we combine all of the five options and achieve them either partially or fully. Achieving them ‘partially’ means we would implement 50% of each scenario: we would reduce food waste by only one-quarter rather than half; we would still reduce meat and dairy consumption, but we’d be eating more than the EAT-Lancet recommendations; we would see a 20% reduction in emissions intensity of food production, rather than 40% etc.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>If we partially adopted all of these options we would reduce emissions by 63%. Almost two-thirds. Achieving each of them partially would be much more impactful than any individual one fully.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>If we <em>fully</em> adopted all of them by 2050 we would actually see <em>net negative </em>emissions. A greater than 100% reduction. How can this be? As I covered in a <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food"><strong>related article</strong></a>, when we reduce meat and dairy consumption and increase crop yields we need less agricultural land; forests and natural habitats can regrow on this abandoned farmland. This sequesters carbon – it’s like <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change">negative emissions</a>. So while we would still be producing emissions from fertilizers; methane from cattle and rice etc., these would be offset by increased carbon uptake in regrowing vegetation. On balance we would end up with negative emissions.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Each of these options on their own gets us part of the way there, but to make a real difference we’re going to need to combine them. Combined, they shift us towards a global food system that is more productive, has a lower environmental impact, and provides a healthy, nutritious diet for everyone.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --></div> <!-- /wp:column --> <!-- wp:column --> <div class="wp-block-column"><!-- wp:image {"id":43396,"sizeSlug":"full","linkDestination":"none"} --> <figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al..png" alt="" class="wp-image-43396"/></figure> <!-- /wp:image --></div> <!-- /wp:column --></div> <!-- /wp:columns --> <!-- wp:heading {"level":3} --> <h3>A false dichotomy: we need to reduce emissions from food <em>and</em> energy</h3> <!-- /wp:heading --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Rather than working in opposition to one another, the contribution of food and energy to emissions reductions go hand-in-hand. They need to work together. If we don’t act on one, we need to act faster and earlier on the other. Higher emissions from food means we need lower emissions from other sectors, and vice versa. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>If we can make changes to what we eat, and how we produce this food, we would not only reduce emissions but also have the potential to achieve <em>net negative</em> emissions.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:separator --> <hr class="wp-block-separator"/> <!-- /wp:separator --> <!-- wp:heading {"level":4} --> <h4>Continue reading at <em>Our World in Data...</em></h4> <!-- /wp:heading --> <!-- wp:owid/prominent-link {"title":"The argument for a carbon price","linkUrl":"https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-price","mediaId":43248,"mediaUrl":"https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/05/Screen-Shot-2021-05-31-at-21.19.57.png","mediaAlt":"","className":"is-style-thin"} /--> <!-- wp:owid/prominent-link {"title":"You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local","linkUrl":"https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local","mediaId":29928,"mediaUrl":"https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2020/02/Environmental-impact-of-food-by-life-cycle-stage.png","mediaAlt":"","className":"is-style-thin"} /-->	{ "id": "wp-43392", "slug": "food-emissions-carbon-budget", "content": { "toc": [], "body": [ { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world\u2019s largest problems.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "spanType": "span-newline" }, { "text": "This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food", "children": [ { "text": "Environmental impacts of food production", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-link" } ], "spanType": "span-bold" }, { "text": ".", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "Many thanks to Michael Clark and Jason Hill for their feedback on this article.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "text": [ { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "The two big sources of greenhouse gas emissions are energy and food production. It\u2019s sometimes argued that we should focus on one or the other. This is a false dichotomy. We cannot address climate change without moving away from fossil fuels. Equally, as we show in this article, we cannot reach our climate targets without tackling global food production. Even if we stopped emissions from fossil fuels right now, emissions from food production alone would take us well beyond the carbon budget for 1.5\u00b0C, and leave little room to reach our 2\u00b0C target.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "There are a range of options to successfully reduce food emissions: a shift to more plant-based diets; healthy calorie consumption; less food waste; and improvements in crop yields and farming practices. Combined, they shift us towards a global food system that is more productive, has a low climate impact, and provides a healthy, nutritious diet for everyone.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] } ], "type": "callout", "title": "Summary", "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "To address global climate change we need to rapidly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. This often raises debate of where our attention should be: do we focus on energy or food; fossil fuels or meat? But this is a false dichotomy. If we don\u2019t achieve large changes to both, then we stand little chance of coming close to our climate targets. We don\u2019t have the option of neglecting one or the other.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "Energy ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector", "children": [ { "text": "accounts for", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-link" }, { "text": " two-thirds to three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions. Getting off of ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "url": "http://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels", "children": [ { "text": "fossil fuels", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-link" }, { "text": " should be our top priority.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "But equally, as we will see in this article, even if we reduce non-food emissions to zero tomorrow, emissions from food production alone could hinder our chances of keeping temperature rise below 1.5\u00b0C or 2\u00b0C by the end of the century. Ignoring food emissions is also not an option.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "In this article I take a look at projections of emissions from food over the coming century, and what options we have to reduce them.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "text": [ { "text": "In a business-as-usual scenario emissions from food production alone could use up all of our 1.5\u00b0C or 2\u00b0C carbon budget", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "type": "heading", "level": 2, "parseErrors": [] }, { "left": [ { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "One-quarter to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from our food systems (I\u2019ve discussed the range and sources of these emissions in an ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food", "children": [ { "text": "earlier article", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-link" }, { "text": ").{ref}In my article ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food", "children": [ { "children": [ { "text": "here", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-bold" } ], "spanType": "span-link" }, { "children": [ { "text": " ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-bold" }, { "text": "I take a look at comparisons at numerous estimates of global food emissions and where some of the differences come from.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "spanType": "span-newline" }, { "spanType": "span-newline" }, { "text": "Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food\u2019s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "Science", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-italic" }, { "text": ", 360(6392), 987-992.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "spanType": "span-newline" }, { "spanType": "span-newline" }, { "text": "Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "Nature Food", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-italic" }, { "text": " (2021).{/ref} These emissions come from various sources: deforestation and land use change; emissions from fertilizers and manure; methane from cattle; methane from rice production; energy use on the farm; supply chain emissions from food processing, refrigeration; and transport.\u00a0", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "In a paper published in ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "Science", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-italic" }, { "text": ", Michael Clark and his colleagues looked at how food emissions might evolve over the coming century, and they studied whether these would be compatible with our global climate targets.{ref}Clark, Michael A., Nina GG Domingo, Kimberly Colgan, Sumil K. Thakrar, David Tilman, John Lynch, In\u00eas L. Azevedo, and Jason D. Hill. \"", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "url": "https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6517/705", "children": [ { "text": "Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5\u00b0 and 2\u00b0 C climate change targets.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-link" }, { "text": "\" ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "Science", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-italic" }, { "text": " 370, no. 6517 (2020): 705-708.{/ref}", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "Let\u2019s consider the scenario that we continue along a similar pathway to the past: their business-as-usual projection. This assumes that ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "url": "http://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth", "children": [ { "text": "global population", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-link" }, { "text": " increases in line with the UN\u2019s medium fertility scenario; per capita diets change as people around the world ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-economic-growth", "children": [ { "text": "get richer", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-link" }, { "text": " (shifting towards more diverse diets with more meat and dairy); ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "url": "http://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields", "children": [ { "text": "crop yields", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-link" }, { "text": " continue to increase in line with historical improvements; and rates of food loss and the emissions intensity of food production remain constant.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "In the chart we see estimates of the ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "cumulative", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-italic" }, { "text": " emissions from food from 2020 through to 2100 under this scenario. Emissions here are calculated based on a metric called \u201cglobal warming potential CO", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "2", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-subscript" }, { "text": " warming-equivalents (CO", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "2", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-subscript" }, { "text": "-we)\u201d. This accounts for the range of greenhouse gases, not just CO", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "2", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-subscript" }, { "text": " but also others such as methane and nitrous oxide.{ref}The other metric that is commonly used is carbon dioxide equivalents (CO", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "2", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-subscript" }, { "text": "eq) based on the warming potential of each gas over 100 years (GWP", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "100", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-subscript" }, { "text": "). If you are interested in the differences in these metrics, I cover them in the context of food emissions in this ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane", "children": [ { "children": [ { "text": "related article", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-bold" } ], "spanType": "span-link" }, { "text": ".{/ref} This is shown in comparison to our total carbon budgets for 1.5\u00b0C or 2\u00b0C. \u00a0The budgets are based on the thresholds set in the IPCC\u2019s Special Report on Global Warming of\u00a0 1.5\u00b0C to have a 67% and 50% chance of meeting our 1.5\u00b0C and 2\u00b0C targets.{ref}P. Forster, D. Huppmann, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca, C. Smith, J. Rogelj, R. S\u00e9f\u00e9rian, in Global Warming of 1.5\u00b0C: An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5\u00b0C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. P\u00f6rtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. P\u00e9an, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield, Eds. (IPCC, 2018), pp. 2SM-1\u20132SM-50.{/ref}", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "In the business-as-usual scenario the authors expect the world to emit around 1356 billion tonnes of CO", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "2", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-subscript" }, { "text": "-we by 2100. This would take us well beyond the carbon budget for 1.5\u00b0C \u2013 we would emit two to three times more. Let\u2019s be clear on what this means: if we stopped burning fossil fuels ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "tomorrow", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-italic" }, { "text": " and eliminated all other emissions, food production alone would take us past our 1.5\u00b0C target by mid-century.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "What about 2\u00b0C? There we have a bit more room in our budget. But, food emissions would consume nearly all of it. To have a 67% chance of staying below 2\u00b0C, we have to keep cumulative emissions below 1405 billion tonnes. After food emissions, there would be only 49 billion tonnes left to share between all non-food sectors. That\u2019s not 49 billion tonnes per year; that\u2019s 49 billion tonnes ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "split over 80 years", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-italic" }, { "text": ". This is equal to just over one year of current fossil fuels emissions. If we wanted to meet our target we would have one year to move to a zero-carbon energy system.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "If we wanted to give ourselves a bit more room, and hope for a 50% chance of keeping below 2\u00b0C, we would have to reduce all non-food emissions to zero within 10 to 12 years.{ref}The remaining budget for a 50% chance of 2\u00b0C is 1816 billion tonnes. After food emissions (1356 billion tonnes), this would leave 460 billion tonnes for non-food sectors. This is equal to around 12 years of current CO", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "2", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-subscript" }, { "text": " emissions from fossil fuels (460 billion / 36 billion = 12). This figure will be a bit less than 12 years \u2013 closer to 10 years \u2013 once we include non-CO", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "2", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-subscript" }, { "text": " emissions.{/ref}", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "Ignoring food emissions is simply not an option if we want to get close to our international climate targets. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow \u2013 an impossibility \u2013 we would still go well beyond our 1.5\u00b0C target, and nearly miss our 2\u00b0C one.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] } ], "type": "sticky-right", "right": [ { "alt": "", "size": "wide", "type": "image", "filename": "Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits.png", "parseErrors": [] } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "text": [ { "text": "How can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food production?", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "type": "heading", "level": 2, "parseErrors": [] }, { "left": [ { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "If we\u2019re serious about tackling climate change we need to reduce emissions from food production. What can we do?", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "We have a number of options \u2013 some fall on the shoulders of consumers; some on producers. Importantly, the options on both sides can be incentivized and driven by better policies, legislation and investment. Alongside their projections of business-as-usual, Clark et al. (2020) also looked at the impact of five interventions for reducing emissions. This helps us see which changes could have the biggest impact, and how close they might take us towards the climate targets.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "In the chart we see the cumulative emissions from food between 2020 and 2100 under the following reduction scenarios:", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "numbered-list", "items": [ { "type": "text", "value": [ { "children": [ { "text": "High yields", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-bold" }, { "text": ". This scenario is one in which all countries close existing yield gaps, but also extend the yields that we can currently achieve through improved crop genetics and management practices. Note that the business-as-usual scenario already assumes that crop yields will increase 30% by 2050; and 68% by 2100. This scenario assumes that yields increase 150% above current potential yields. This would require significant progress in bioengineering and crop genetics.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "spanType": "span-newline" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "children": [ { "text": "Halve food waste and losses", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-bold" }, { "text": ". What we ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "don\u2019t", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-italic" }, { "text": " eat can be just as important as what we do eat. At least 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/food-waste-emissions", "children": [ { "text": "come from wasted food", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-link" }, { "text": " \u2013 that\u2019s three times the emissions from aviation. If food waste was a country it would be the third largest emitter, beaten only by China and the US. One-quarter of food-related emissions comes from food waste by consumers, or losses in supply chains due to spoilage, lack of refrigeration etc. This scenario assumes that global food wastage and losses are halved.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "spanType": "span-newline" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "children": [ { "text": "Healthy calories.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-bold" }, { "text": " Many eat more food than is needed to maintain a healthy weight (13% of ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/obesity", "children": [ { "text": "adults are obese", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-link" }, { "text": "; 39% are overweight). In this scenario, everyone eats a diet that would maintain an average body mass index of 22.5 (the middle of the \u2018healthy\u2019 range).{ref}This caloric intake will be different for everyone, and is calculated based on population demographics and activity rates.{/ref} This also means that people who are currently undernourished would eat more, in line with a calorie-sufficient diet.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "spanType": "span-newline" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "children": [ { "text": "Best farm practices", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-bold" }, { "text": ". We know that there are ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat", "children": [ { "text": "large differences in food emissions", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-link" }, { "text": " for a given food product depending on where and how it is produced. This is true for crops and livestock. Clearly farming practices matter. This scenario is one in which the average emissions intensity (emissions per unit of food) falls by 40% through improved practices (e.g. fertilizer management) and technology improvements (e.g. targeted fertilizers or additives to cattle feed).", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "numbered-list", "items": [ { "type": "text", "value": [ { "children": [ { "text": "Plant-rich diet", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-bold" }, { "text": ". Eating less meat and dairy \u2013 especially beef and lamb \u2013 is one of the biggest ways that we can reduce our carbon footprint ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "[I\u2019ve shown this previous work ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-italic" }, { "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local", "children": [ { "children": [ { "children": [ { "text": "here", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-italic" } ], "spanType": "span-bold" } ], "spanType": "span-link" }, { "children": [ { "children": [ { "text": "]", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-italic" } ], "spanType": "span-bold" }, { "text": ". In this scenario, everyone shifts towards a plant-rich (but not vegan) diet. For most people in rich and middle-income countries, this would mean a reduction in meat and dairy consumption, but it does not eliminate all animal products completely. For many low-income countries, where meat consumption is low, this would actually mean an increase. It\u2019s based on the EAT-Lancet diet, which aims to balance the goals of healthy nutrition and environmental sustainability for a global population.{ref}The EAT-Lancet diet was designed by a group of researchers in nutrition, health, sustainability and policy to balance and improve both human and environmental health.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "spanType": "span-newline" }, { "spanType": "span-newline" }, { "text": "Willett, W., Rockstr\u00f6m, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., \u2026 & Murray, C. J. (2019). ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "url": "https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4/fulltext", "children": [ { "text": "Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT\u2013Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-link" }, { "text": ". ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "The Lancet", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-italic" }, { "text": ", 393(10170), 447-492.{/ref}", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "spanType": "span-newline" }, { "spanType": "span-newline" }, { "text": "Diets vary a lot across the world \u2013 often with local cultural food choices. So, this diet does not imply that everyone in the world should eat exactly the same food. Instead, it recommends quantities within a broad food group. For example, a certain amount of cereals, without specifying whether this should be wheat, rice, or cassava; or a certain amount of fruit without specifying whether this should be bananas, apples, papayas or watermelon.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "spanType": "span-newline" }, { "spanType": "span-newline" }, { "text": "You can understand what this diet looks like in comparison to current diets across the world in our ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/eat-lancet-diet-comparison?country=USA~GBR~EAT-Lancet~IND~KEN", "children": [ { "text": "interactive chart", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-link" }, { "text": ". Most of the climate benefits in this diet come from a reduction of meat, dairy and seafood. In this ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/eat-lancet-diet-animal-products?country=EAT-Lancet~USA~ETH~IND~BRA~GBR~CHN", "children": [ { "text": "interactive chart", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-link" }, { "text": " you can see how the consumption of animal products in the EAT-Lancet diet compares to current consumption patterns across countries.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "We see that all of these individual interventions would reduce emissions. The biggest reduction would come from the adoption of plant-rich diets. Emissions would be halved compared to business-as-usual. Each of the five options takes us some of the way there, but none of them can do it alone. If we want to meet our targets we\u2019d need to adopt several.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "At the bottom of the chart we see two additional scenarios: these assume that we combine all of the five options and achieve them either partially or fully. Achieving them \u2018partially\u2019 means we would implement 50% of each scenario: we would reduce food waste by only one-quarter rather than half; we would still reduce meat and dairy consumption, but we\u2019d be eating more than the EAT-Lancet recommendations; we would see a 20% reduction in emissions intensity of food production, rather than 40% etc.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "If we partially adopted all of these options we would reduce emissions by 63%. Almost two-thirds. Achieving each of them partially would be much more impactful than any individual one fully.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "If we ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "fully", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-italic" }, { "text": " adopted all of them by 2050 we would actually see ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "net negative ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-italic" }, { "text": "emissions. A greater than 100% reduction. How can this be? As I covered in a ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food", "children": [ { "children": [ { "text": "related article", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-bold" } ], "spanType": "span-link" }, { "text": ", when we reduce meat and dairy consumption and increase crop yields we need less agricultural land; forests and natural habitats can regrow on this abandoned farmland. This sequesters carbon \u2013 it\u2019s like ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "url": "https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change", "children": [ { "text": "negative emissions", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-link" }, { "text": ". So while we would still be producing emissions from fertilizers; methane from cattle and rice etc., these would be offset by increased carbon uptake in regrowing vegetation. On balance we would end up with negative emissions.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "Each of these options on their own gets us part of the way there, but to make a real difference we\u2019re going to need to combine them. Combined, they shift us towards a global food system that is more productive, has a lower environmental impact, and provides a healthy, nutritious diet for everyone.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] } ], "type": "sticky-right", "right": [ { "alt": "", "size": "wide", "type": "image", "filename": "Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al..png", "parseErrors": [] } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "text": [ { "text": "A false dichotomy: we need to reduce emissions from food ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "and", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-italic" }, { "text": " energy", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "type": "heading", "level": 2, "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "Rather than working in opposition to one another, the contribution of food and energy to emissions reductions go hand-in-hand. They need to work together. If we don\u2019t act on one, we need to act faster and earlier on the other. Higher emissions from food means we need lower emissions from other sectors, and vice versa.\u00a0", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "type": "text", "value": [ { "text": "If we can make changes to what we eat, and how we produce this food, we would not only reduce emissions but also have the potential to achieve ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "net negative", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-italic" }, { "text": " emissions.", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "parseErrors": [] }, { "text": [ { "text": "Continue reading at ", "spanType": "span-simple-text" }, { "children": [ { "text": "Our World in Data...", "spanType": "span-simple-text" } ], "spanType": "span-italic" } ], "type": "heading", "level": 3, "parseErrors": [] }, { "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-price", "type": "prominent-link", "title": "The argument for a carbon price", "description": "", "parseErrors": [] }, { "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local", "type": "prominent-link", "title": "You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local", "description": "", "parseErrors": [] } ], "type": "article", "title": "Emissions from food alone could use up all of our budget for 1.5\u00b0C or 2\u00b0C \u2013 but we have a range of opportunities to avoid this", "authors": [ "Hannah Ritchie" ], "excerpt": "If we want to meet our global climate targets we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food. What options do we have?", "dateline": "June 10, 2021", "subtitle": "If we want to meet our global climate targets we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food. What options do we have?", "sidebar-toc": false, "featured-image": "food-budgets-thumbnail.png" }, "createdAt": "2021-06-07T15:41:43.000Z", "published": false, "updatedAt": "2021-06-10T14:59:55.000Z", "revisionId": null, "publishedAt": "2021-06-10T10:00:00.000Z", "relatedCharts": [], "publicationContext": "listed" }	{ "errors": [ { "name": "unexpected wp component tag", "details": "Found unhandled wp:comment tag image" }, { "name": "unexpected wp component tag", "details": "Found unhandled wp:comment tag list" }, { "name": "unexpected wp component tag", "details": "Found unhandled wp:comment tag list" }, { "name": "unexpected wp component tag", "details": "Found unhandled wp:comment tag image" }, { "name": "unhandled html tag found", "details": "Encountered the unhandled tag hr" }, { "name": "unexpected wp component tag", "details": "Found unhandled wp:comment tag separator" } ], "numBlocks": 17, "numErrors": 6, "wpTagCounts": { "html": 1, "list": 2, "image": 2, "column": 4, "columns": 2, "heading": 4, "paragraph": 25, "separator": 1, "owid/summary": 1, "owid/prominent-link": 2 }, "htmlTagCounts": { "p": 27, "h3": 3, "h4": 1, "hr": 1, "ol": 2, "div": 7, "figure": 2 } }	2021-06-10 10:00:00	2024-02-16 14:22:51	19p4tSTPrgmFJa71iWPGUds8q4H7UUDHzcln6xTMcbw8	[ "Hannah Ritchie" ]	If we want to meet our global climate targets we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food. What options do we have?	2021-06-07 15:41:43	2021-06-10 14:59:55	https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/food-budgets-thumbnail.png	{}	Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on [Environmental impacts of food production](https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food). Many thanks to Michael Clark and Jason Hill for their feedback on this article. <Callout title="Summary"/> To address global climate change we need to rapidly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. This often raises debate of where our attention should be: do we focus on energy or food; fossil fuels or meat? But this is a false dichotomy. If we don’t achieve large changes to both, then we stand little chance of coming close to our climate targets. We don’t have the option of neglecting one or the other. Energy [accounts for](https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector) two-thirds to three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions. Getting off of [fossil fuels](http://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels) should be our top priority. But equally, as we will see in this article, even if we reduce non-food emissions to zero tomorrow, emissions from food production alone could hinder our chances of keeping temperature rise below 1.5°C or 2°C by the end of the century. Ignoring food emissions is also not an option. In this article I take a look at projections of emissions from food over the coming century, and what options we have to reduce them. ## In a business-as-usual scenario emissions from food production alone could use up all of our 1.5°C or 2°C carbon budget One-quarter to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from our food systems (I’ve discussed the range and sources of these emissions in an [earlier article](https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food)).{ref}In my article [here](https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food) I take a look at comparisons at numerous estimates of global food emissions and where some of the differences come from. Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. _Science_, 360(6392), 987-992. Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. _Nature Food_ (2021).{/ref} These emissions come from various sources: deforestation and land use change; emissions from fertilizers and manure; methane from cattle; methane from rice production; energy use on the farm; supply chain emissions from food processing, refrigeration; and transport. In a paper published in _Science_, Michael Clark and his colleagues looked at how food emissions might evolve over the coming century, and they studied whether these would be compatible with our global climate targets.{ref}Clark, Michael A., Nina GG Domingo, Kimberly Colgan, Sumil K. Thakrar, David Tilman, John Lynch, Inês L. Azevedo, and Jason D. Hill. "[Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2° C climate change targets.](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6517/705)" _Science_ 370, no. 6517 (2020): 705-708.{/ref} Let’s consider the scenario that we continue along a similar pathway to the past: their business-as-usual projection. This assumes that [global population](http://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth) increases in line with the UN’s medium fertility scenario; per capita diets change as people around the world [get richer](https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-economic-growth) (shifting towards more diverse diets with more meat and dairy); [crop yields](http://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields) continue to increase in line with historical improvements; and rates of food loss and the emissions intensity of food production remain constant. In the chart we see estimates of the _cumulative_ emissions from food from 2020 through to 2100 under this scenario. Emissions here are calculated based on a metric called “global warming potential CO2 warming-equivalents (CO2-we)”. This accounts for the range of greenhouse gases, not just CO2 but also others such as methane and nitrous oxide.{ref}The other metric that is commonly used is carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq) based on the warming potential of each gas over 100 years (GWP100). If you are interested in the differences in these metrics, I cover them in the context of food emissions in this [related article](https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane).{/ref} This is shown in comparison to our total carbon budgets for 1.5°C or 2°C. The budgets are based on the thresholds set in the IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C to have a 67% and 50% chance of meeting our 1.5°C and 2°C targets.{ref}P. Forster, D. Huppmann, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca, C. Smith, J. Rogelj, R. Séférian, in Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield, Eds. (IPCC, 2018), pp. 2SM-1–2SM-50.{/ref} In the business-as-usual scenario the authors expect the world to emit around 1356 billion tonnes of CO2-we by 2100. This would take us well beyond the carbon budget for 1.5°C – we would emit two to three times more. Let’s be clear on what this means: if we stopped burning fossil fuels _tomorrow_ and eliminated all other emissions, food production alone would take us past our 1.5°C target by mid-century. What about 2°C? There we have a bit more room in our budget. But, food emissions would consume nearly all of it. To have a 67% chance of staying below 2°C, we have to keep cumulative emissions below 1405 billion tonnes. After food emissions, there would be only 49 billion tonnes left to share between all non-food sectors. That’s not 49 billion tonnes per year; that’s 49 billion tonnes _split over 80 years_. This is equal to just over one year of current fossil fuels emissions. If we wanted to meet our target we would have one year to move to a zero-carbon energy system. If we wanted to give ourselves a bit more room, and hope for a 50% chance of keeping below 2°C, we would have to reduce all non-food emissions to zero within 10 to 12 years.{ref}The remaining budget for a 50% chance of 2°C is 1816 billion tonnes. After food emissions (1356 billion tonnes), this would leave 460 billion tonnes for non-food sectors. This is equal to around 12 years of current CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (460 billion / 36 billion = 12). This figure will be a bit less than 12 years – closer to 10 years – once we include non-CO2 emissions.{/ref} Ignoring food emissions is simply not an option if we want to get close to our international climate targets. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow – an impossibility – we would still go well beyond our 1.5°C target, and nearly miss our 2°C one. <Image filename="Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits.png" alt=""/> ## How can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food production? If we’re serious about tackling climate change we need to reduce emissions from food production. What can we do? We have a number of options – some fall on the shoulders of consumers; some on producers. Importantly, the options on both sides can be incentivized and driven by better policies, legislation and investment. Alongside their projections of business-as-usual, Clark et al. (2020) also looked at the impact of five interventions for reducing emissions. This helps us see which changes could have the biggest impact, and how close they might take us towards the climate targets. In the chart we see the cumulative emissions from food between 2020 and 2100 under the following reduction scenarios: 0. High yields. This scenario is one in which all countries close existing yield gaps, but also extend the yields that we can currently achieve through improved crop genetics and management practices. Note that the business-as-usual scenario already assumes that crop yields will increase 30% by 2050; and 68% by 2100. This scenario assumes that yields increase 150% above current potential yields. This would require significant progress in bioengineering and crop genetics. 1. Halve food waste and losses. What we _don’t_ eat can be just as important as what we do eat. At least 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions [come from wasted food](https://ourworldindata.org/food-waste-emissions) – that’s three times the emissions from aviation. If food waste was a country it would be the third largest emitter, beaten only by China and the US. One-quarter of food-related emissions comes from food waste by consumers, or losses in supply chains due to spoilage, lack of refrigeration etc. This scenario assumes that global food wastage and losses are halved. 2. Healthy calories. Many eat more food than is needed to maintain a healthy weight (13% of [adults are obese](https://ourworldindata.org/obesity); 39% are overweight). In this scenario, everyone eats a diet that would maintain an average body mass index of 22.5 (the middle of the ‘healthy’ range).{ref}This caloric intake will be different for everyone, and is calculated based on population demographics and activity rates.{/ref} This also means that people who are currently undernourished would eat more, in line with a calorie-sufficient diet. 3. Best farm practices. We know that there are [large differences in food emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat) for a given food product depending on where and how it is produced. This is true for crops and livestock. Clearly farming practices matter. This scenario is one in which the average emissions intensity (emissions per unit of food) falls by 40% through improved practices (e.g. fertilizer management) and technology improvements (e.g. targeted fertilizers or additives to cattle feed). 0. Plant-rich diet. Eating less meat and dairy – especially beef and lamb – is one of the biggest ways that we can reduce our carbon footprint _[I’ve shown this previous work _[_here_](https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local)_]_. In this scenario, everyone shifts towards a plant-rich (but not vegan) diet. For most people in rich and middle-income countries, this would mean a reduction in meat and dairy consumption, but it does not eliminate all animal products completely. For many low-income countries, where meat consumption is low, this would actually mean an increase. It’s based on the EAT-Lancet diet, which aims to balance the goals of healthy nutrition and environmental sustainability for a global population.{ref}The EAT-Lancet diet was designed by a group of researchers in nutrition, health, sustainability and policy to balance and improve both human and environmental health. Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., … & Murray, C. J. (2019). [Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4/fulltext). _The Lancet_, 393(10170), 447-492.{/ref} Diets vary a lot across the world – often with local cultural food choices. So, this diet does not imply that everyone in the world should eat exactly the same food. Instead, it recommends quantities within a broad food group. For example, a certain amount of cereals, without specifying whether this should be wheat, rice, or cassava; or a certain amount of fruit without specifying whether this should be bananas, apples, papayas or watermelon. You can understand what this diet looks like in comparison to current diets across the world in our [interactive chart](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/eat-lancet-diet-comparison?country=USA~GBR~EAT-Lancet~IND~KEN). Most of the climate benefits in this diet come from a reduction of meat, dairy and seafood. In this [interactive chart](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/eat-lancet-diet-animal-products?country=EAT-Lancet~USA~ETH~IND~BRA~GBR~CHN) you can see how the consumption of animal products in the EAT-Lancet diet compares to current consumption patterns across countries. We see that all of these individual interventions would reduce emissions. The biggest reduction would come from the adoption of plant-rich diets. Emissions would be halved compared to business-as-usual. Each of the five options takes us some of the way there, but none of them can do it alone. If we want to meet our targets we’d need to adopt several. At the bottom of the chart we see two additional scenarios: these assume that we combine all of the five options and achieve them either partially or fully. Achieving them ‘partially’ means we would implement 50% of each scenario: we would reduce food waste by only one-quarter rather than half; we would still reduce meat and dairy consumption, but we’d be eating more than the EAT-Lancet recommendations; we would see a 20% reduction in emissions intensity of food production, rather than 40% etc. If we partially adopted all of these options we would reduce emissions by 63%. Almost two-thirds. Achieving each of them partially would be much more impactful than any individual one fully. If we _fully_ adopted all of them by 2050 we would actually see _net negative _emissions. A greater than 100% reduction. How can this be? As I covered in a [related article](https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food), when we reduce meat and dairy consumption and increase crop yields we need less agricultural land; forests and natural habitats can regrow on this abandoned farmland. This sequesters carbon – it’s like [negative emissions](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change). So while we would still be producing emissions from fertilizers; methane from cattle and rice etc., these would be offset by increased carbon uptake in regrowing vegetation. On balance we would end up with negative emissions. Each of these options on their own gets us part of the way there, but to make a real difference we’re going to need to combine them. Combined, they shift us towards a global food system that is more productive, has a lower environmental impact, and provides a healthy, nutritious diet for everyone. <Image filename="Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al..png" alt=""/> ## A false dichotomy: we need to reduce emissions from food _and_ energy Rather than working in opposition to one another, the contribution of food and energy to emissions reductions go hand-in-hand. They need to work together. If we don’t act on one, we need to act faster and earlier on the other. Higher emissions from food means we need lower emissions from other sectors, and vice versa. If we can make changes to what we eat, and how we produce this food, we would not only reduce emissions but also have the potential to achieve _net negative_ emissions. ### Continue reading at _Our World in Data..._ ### The argument for a carbon price https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-price ### You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local	{ "id": 43392, "date": "2021-06-10T11:00:00", "guid": { "rendered": "https://owid.cloud/?p=43392" }, "link": "https://owid.cloud/food-emissions-carbon-budget", "meta": { "owid_publication_context_meta_field": { "latest": true, "homepage": true, "immediate_newsletter": true } }, "slug": "food-emissions-carbon-budget", "tags": [], "type": "post", "title": { "rendered": "Emissions from food alone could use up all of our budget for 1.5\u00b0C or 2\u00b0C \u2013 but we have a range of opportunities to avoid this" }, "_links": { "self": [ { "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/posts/43392" } ], "about": [ { "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/types/post" } ], "author": [ { "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/users/17", "embeddable": true } ], "curies": [ { "href": "https://api.w.org/{rel}", "name": "wp", "templated": true } ], "replies": [ { "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/comments?post=43392", "embeddable": true } ], "wp:term": [ { "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/categories?post=43392", "taxonomy": "category", "embeddable": true }, { "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/tags?post=43392", "taxonomy": "post_tag", "embeddable": true } ], "collection": [ { "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/posts" } ], "wp:attachment": [ { "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/media?parent=43392" } ], "version-history": [ { "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/posts/43392/revisions", "count": 5 } ], "wp:featuredmedia": [ { "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/media/43414", "embeddable": true } ], "predecessor-version": [ { "id": 43436, "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/posts/43392/revisions/43436" } ] }, "author": 17, "format": "standard", "status": "publish", "sticky": false, "content": { "rendered": "\n<div class=\"blog-info\">\n<p>Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world\u2019s largest problems.<br>This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on <strong><a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Environmental impacts of food production</a></strong>.</p>\n<p>Many thanks to Michael Clark and Jason Hill for their feedback on this article.</p>\n</div>\n\n\n\t<div class=\"wp-block-owid-summary\">\n\t\t<h2>Summary</h2>\n\t\t\n\n<p>The two big sources of greenhouse gas emissions are energy and food production. It\u2019s sometimes argued that we should focus on one or the other. This is a false dichotomy. We cannot address climate change without moving away from fossil fuels. Equally, as we show in this article, we cannot reach our climate targets without tackling global food production. Even if we stopped emissions from fossil fuels right now, emissions from food production alone would take us well beyond the carbon budget for 1.5\u00b0C, and leave little room to reach our 2\u00b0C target.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>There are a range of options to successfully reduce food emissions: a shift to more plant-based diets; healthy calorie consumption; less food waste; and improvements in crop yields and farming practices. Combined, they shift us towards a global food system that is more productive, has a low climate impact, and provides a healthy, nutritious diet for everyone.</p>\n\n\n\t</div>\n\n\n<p>To address global climate change we need to rapidly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. This often raises debate of where our attention should be: do we focus on energy or food; fossil fuels or meat? But this is a false dichotomy. If we don\u2019t achieve large changes to both, then we stand little chance of coming close to our climate targets. We don\u2019t have the option of neglecting one or the other.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>Energy <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector\">accounts for</a> two-thirds to three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions. Getting off of <a href=\"http://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels\">fossil fuels</a> should be our top priority.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>But equally, as we will see in this article, even if we reduce non-food emissions to zero tomorrow, emissions from food production alone could hinder our chances of keeping temperature rise below 1.5\u00b0C or 2\u00b0C by the end of the century. Ignoring food emissions is also not an option.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>In this article I take a look at projections of emissions from food over the coming century, and what options we have to reduce them.</p>\n\n\n\n<h3>In a business-as-usual scenario emissions from food production alone could use up all of our 1.5\u00b0C or 2\u00b0C carbon budget</h3>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-columns\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-column\">\n<p>One-quarter to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from our food systems (I\u2019ve discussed the range and sources of these emissions in an <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food\">earlier article</a>).{ref}In my article <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food\"><strong>here</strong></a><strong> </strong>I take a look at comparisons at numerous estimates of global food emissions and where some of the differences come from.<br><br>Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food\u2019s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. <em>Science</em>, 360(6392), 987-992.<br><br>Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. <em>Nature Food</em> (2021).{/ref} These emissions come from various sources: deforestation and land use change; emissions from fertilizers and manure; methane from cattle; methane from rice production; energy use on the farm; supply chain emissions from food processing, refrigeration; and transport. </p>\n\n\n\n<p>In a paper published in <em>Science</em>, Michael Clark and his colleagues looked at how food emissions might evolve over the coming century, and they studied whether these would be compatible with our global climate targets.{ref}Clark, Michael A., Nina GG Domingo, Kimberly Colgan, Sumil K. Thakrar, David Tilman, John Lynch, In\u00eas L. Azevedo, and Jason D. Hill. “<a href=\"https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6517/705\">Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5\u00b0 and 2\u00b0 C climate change targets.</a>” <em>Science</em> 370, no. 6517 (2020): 705-708.{/ref}</p>\n\n\n\n<p>Let\u2019s consider the scenario that we continue along a similar pathway to the past: their business-as-usual projection. This assumes that <a href=\"http://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth\">global population</a> increases in line with the UN\u2019s medium fertility scenario; per capita diets change as people around the world <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-economic-growth\">get richer</a> (shifting towards more diverse diets with more meat and dairy); <a href=\"http://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields\">crop yields</a> continue to increase in line with historical improvements; and rates of food loss and the emissions intensity of food production remain constant.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the chart we see estimates of the <em>cumulative</em> emissions from food from 2020 through to 2100 under this scenario. Emissions here are calculated based on a metric called \u201cglobal warming potential CO<sub>2</sub> warming-equivalents (CO<sub>2</sub>-we)\u201d. This accounts for the range of greenhouse gases, not just CO<sub>2</sub> but also others such as methane and nitrous oxide.{ref}The other metric that is commonly used is carbon dioxide equivalents (CO<sub>2</sub>eq) based on the warming potential of each gas over 100 years (GWP<sub>100</sub>). If you are interested in the differences in these metrics, I cover them in the context of food emissions in this <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane\"><strong>related article</strong></a>.{/ref} This is shown in comparison to our total carbon budgets for 1.5\u00b0C or 2\u00b0C.  The budgets are based on the thresholds set in the IPCC\u2019s Special Report on Global Warming of  1.5\u00b0C to have a 67% and 50% chance of meeting our 1.5\u00b0C and 2\u00b0C targets.{ref}P. Forster, D. Huppmann, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca, C. Smith, J. Rogelj, R. S\u00e9f\u00e9rian, in Global Warming of 1.5\u00b0C: An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5\u00b0C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. P\u00f6rtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. P\u00e9an, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield, Eds. (IPCC, 2018), pp. 2SM-1\u20132SM-50.{/ref}</p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the business-as-usual scenario the authors expect the world to emit around 1356 billion tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub>-we by 2100. This would take us well beyond the carbon budget for 1.5\u00b0C \u2013 we would emit two to three times more. Let\u2019s be clear on what this means: if we stopped burning fossil fuels <em>tomorrow</em> and eliminated all other emissions, food production alone would take us past our 1.5\u00b0C target by mid-century.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>What about 2\u00b0C? There we have a bit more room in our budget. But, food emissions would consume nearly all of it. To have a 67% chance of staying below 2\u00b0C, we have to keep cumulative emissions below 1405 billion tonnes. After food emissions, there would be only 49 billion tonnes left to share between all non-food sectors. That\u2019s not 49 billion tonnes per year; that\u2019s 49 billion tonnes <em>split over 80 years</em>. This is equal to just over one year of current fossil fuels emissions. If we wanted to meet our target we would have one year to move to a zero-carbon energy system.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>If we wanted to give ourselves a bit more room, and hope for a 50% chance of keeping below 2\u00b0C, we would have to reduce all non-food emissions to zero within 10 to 12 years.{ref}The remaining budget for a 50% chance of 2\u00b0C is 1816 billion tonnes. After food emissions (1356 billion tonnes), this would leave 460 billion tonnes for non-food sectors. This is equal to around 12 years of current CO<sub>2</sub> emissions from fossil fuels (460 billion / 36 billion = 12). This figure will be a bit less than 12 years \u2013 closer to 10 years \u2013 once we include non-CO<sub>2</sub> emissions.{/ref}</p>\n\n\n\n<p>Ignoring food emissions is simply not an option if we want to get close to our international climate targets. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow \u2013 an impossibility \u2013 we would still go well beyond our 1.5\u00b0C target, and nearly miss our 2\u00b0C one.</p>\n\n\n\n<p></p>\n</div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-column\">\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><img loading=\"lazy\" width=\"1541\" height=\"1004\" src=\"https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-43395\" srcset=\"https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits.png 1541w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits-400x261.png 400w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits-800x521.png 800w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits-150x98.png 150w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits-768x500.png 768w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits-1536x1001.png 1536w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1541px) 100vw, 1541px\" /></figure>\n</div>\n</div>\n\n\n\n<h3>How can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food production?</h3>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-columns\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-column\">\n<p>If we\u2019re serious about tackling climate change we need to reduce emissions from food production. What can we do?</p>\n\n\n\n<p>We have a number of options \u2013 some fall on the shoulders of consumers; some on producers. Importantly, the options on both sides can be incentivized and driven by better policies, legislation and investment. Alongside their projections of business-as-usual, Clark et al. (2020) also looked at the impact of five interventions for reducing emissions. This helps us see which changes could have the biggest impact, and how close they might take us towards the climate targets.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the chart we see the cumulative emissions from food between 2020 and 2100 under the following reduction scenarios:</p>\n\n\n\n<ol><li><strong>High yields</strong>. This scenario is one in which all countries close existing yield gaps, but also extend the yields that we can currently achieve through improved crop genetics and management practices. Note that the business-as-usual scenario already assumes that crop yields will increase 30% by 2050; and 68% by 2100. This scenario assumes that yields increase 150% above current potential yields. This would require significant progress in bioengineering and crop genetics.<br></li><li><strong>Halve food waste and losses</strong>. What we <em>don\u2019t</em> eat can be just as important as what we do eat. At least 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/food-waste-emissions\">come from wasted food</a> \u2013 that\u2019s three times the emissions from aviation. If food waste was a country it would be the third largest emitter, beaten only by China and the US. One-quarter of food-related emissions comes from food waste by consumers, or losses in supply chains due to spoilage, lack of refrigeration etc. This scenario assumes that global food wastage and losses are halved.<br></li><li><strong>Healthy calories.</strong> Many eat more food than is needed to maintain a healthy weight (13% of <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/obesity\">adults are obese</a>; 39% are overweight). In this scenario, everyone eats a diet that would maintain an average body mass index of 22.5 (the middle of the \u2018healthy\u2019 range).{ref}This caloric intake will be different for everyone, and is calculated based on population demographics and activity rates.{/ref} This also means that people who are currently undernourished would eat more, in line with a calorie-sufficient diet.<br></li><li><strong>Best farm practices</strong>. We know that there are <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat\">large differences in food emissions</a> for a given food product depending on where and how it is produced. This is true for crops and livestock. Clearly farming practices matter. This scenario is one in which the average emissions intensity (emissions per unit of food) falls by 40% through improved practices (e.g. fertilizer management) and technology improvements (e.g. targeted fertilizers or additives to cattle feed).</li></ol>\n\n\n\n<ol start=\"5\"><li><strong>Plant-rich diet</strong>. Eating less meat and dairy \u2013 especially beef and lamb \u2013 is one of the biggest ways that we can reduce our carbon footprint <em>[I\u2019ve shown this previous work </em><a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local\"><strong><em>here</em></strong></a><strong><em>]</em></strong>. In this scenario, everyone shifts towards a plant-rich (but not vegan) diet. For most people in rich and middle-income countries, this would mean a reduction in meat and dairy consumption, but it does not eliminate all animal products completely. For many low-income countries, where meat consumption is low, this would actually mean an increase. It\u2019s based on the EAT-Lancet diet, which aims to balance the goals of healthy nutrition and environmental sustainability for a global population.{ref}The EAT-Lancet diet was designed by a group of researchers in nutrition, health, sustainability and policy to balance and improve both human and environmental health.<br><br>Willett, W., Rockstr\u00f6m, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., \u2026 & Murray, C. J. (2019). <a href=\"https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4/fulltext\">Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT\u2013Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems</a>. <em>The Lancet</em>, 393(10170), 447-492.{/ref}<br><br>Diets vary a lot across the world \u2013 often with local cultural food choices. So, this diet does not imply that everyone in the world should eat exactly the same food. Instead, it recommends quantities within a broad food group. For example, a certain amount of cereals, without specifying whether this should be wheat, rice, or cassava; or a certain amount of fruit without specifying whether this should be bananas, apples, papayas or watermelon.<br><br>You can understand what this diet looks like in comparison to current diets across the world in our <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/eat-lancet-diet-comparison?country=USA~GBR~EAT-Lancet~IND~KEN\">interactive chart</a>. Most of the climate benefits in this diet come from a reduction of meat, dairy and seafood. In this <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/eat-lancet-diet-animal-products?country=EAT-Lancet~USA~ETH~IND~BRA~GBR~CHN\">interactive chart</a> you can see how the consumption of animal products in the EAT-Lancet diet compares to current consumption patterns across countries.</li></ol>\n\n\n\n<p>We see that all of these individual interventions would reduce emissions. The biggest reduction would come from the adoption of plant-rich diets. Emissions would be halved compared to business-as-usual. Each of the five options takes us some of the way there, but none of them can do it alone. If we want to meet our targets we\u2019d need to adopt several.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>At the bottom of the chart we see two additional scenarios: these assume that we combine all of the five options and achieve them either partially or fully. Achieving them \u2018partially\u2019 means we would implement 50% of each scenario: we would reduce food waste by only one-quarter rather than half; we would still reduce meat and dairy consumption, but we\u2019d be eating more than the EAT-Lancet recommendations; we would see a 20% reduction in emissions intensity of food production, rather than 40% etc.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>If we partially adopted all of these options we would reduce emissions by 63%. Almost two-thirds. Achieving each of them partially would be much more impactful than any individual one fully.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>If we <em>fully</em> adopted all of them by 2050 we would actually see <em>net negative </em>emissions. A greater than 100% reduction. How can this be? As I covered in a <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food\"><strong>related article</strong></a>, when we reduce meat and dairy consumption and increase crop yields we need less agricultural land; forests and natural habitats can regrow on this abandoned farmland. This sequesters carbon \u2013 it\u2019s like <a href=\"https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change\">negative emissions</a>. So while we would still be producing emissions from fertilizers; methane from cattle and rice etc., these would be offset by increased carbon uptake in regrowing vegetation. On balance we would end up with negative emissions.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>Each of these options on their own gets us part of the way there, but to make a real difference we\u2019re going to need to combine them. Combined, they shift us towards a global food system that is more productive, has a lower environmental impact, and provides a healthy, nutritious diet for everyone.</p>\n</div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-column\">\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><img loading=\"lazy\" width=\"1911\" height=\"1534\" src=\"https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al..png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-43396\" srcset=\"https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al..png 1911w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al.-400x321.png 400w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al.-685x550.png 685w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al.-150x120.png 150w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al.-768x616.png 768w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al.-1536x1233.png 1536w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1911px) 100vw, 1911px\" /></figure>\n</div>\n</div>\n\n\n\n<h3>A false dichotomy: we need to reduce emissions from food <em>and</em> energy</h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Rather than working in opposition to one another, the contribution of food and energy to emissions reductions go hand-in-hand. They need to work together. If we don\u2019t act on one, we need to act faster and earlier on the other. Higher emissions from food means we need lower emissions from other sectors, and vice versa. </p>\n\n\n\n<p>If we can make changes to what we eat, and how we produce this food, we would not only reduce emissions but also have the potential to achieve <em>net negative</em> emissions.</p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\"/>\n\n\n\n<h4>Continue reading at <em>Our World in Data…</em></h4>\n\n\n <block type=\"prominent-link\" style=\"is-style-thin\">\n <link-url>https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-price</link-url>\n <title>The argument for a carbon price</title>\n <content></content>\n <figure><img width=\"768\" height=\"344\" src=\"https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/05/Screen-Shot-2021-05-31-at-21.19.57-768x344.png\" class=\"attachment-medium_large size-medium_large\" alt=\"\" loading=\"lazy\" srcset=\"https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/05/Screen-Shot-2021-05-31-at-21.19.57-768x344.png 768w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/05/Screen-Shot-2021-05-31-at-21.19.57-400x179.png 400w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/05/Screen-Shot-2021-05-31-at-21.19.57-800x358.png 800w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/05/Screen-Shot-2021-05-31-at-21.19.57-150x67.png 150w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/05/Screen-Shot-2021-05-31-at-21.19.57-1536x688.png 1536w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/05/Screen-Shot-2021-05-31-at-21.19.57-2048x917.png 2048w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 768px) 100vw, 768px\" /></figure>\n </block>\n\n <block type=\"prominent-link\" style=\"is-style-thin\">\n <link-url>https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local</link-url>\n <title>You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local</title>\n <content></content>\n <figure><img width=\"768\" height=\"690\" src=\"https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2020/02/Environmental-impact-of-food-by-life-cycle-stage-768x690.png\" class=\"attachment-medium_large size-medium_large\" alt=\"\" loading=\"lazy\" srcset=\"https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2020/02/Environmental-impact-of-food-by-life-cycle-stage-768x690.png 768w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2020/02/Environmental-impact-of-food-by-life-cycle-stage-400x359.png 400w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2020/02/Environmental-impact-of-food-by-life-cycle-stage-612x550.png 612w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2020/02/Environmental-impact-of-food-by-life-cycle-stage-150x135.png 150w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2020/02/Environmental-impact-of-food-by-life-cycle-stage-1536x1380.png 1536w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2020/02/Environmental-impact-of-food-by-life-cycle-stage-2048x1840.png 2048w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 768px) 100vw, 768px\" /></figure>\n </block>", "protected": false }, "excerpt": { "rendered": "If we want to meet our global climate targets we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food. What options do we have?", "protected": false }, "date_gmt": "2021-06-10T10:00:00", "modified": "2021-06-10T15:59:55", "template": "", "categories": [ 1 ], "ping_status": "closed", "authors_name": [ "Hannah Ritchie" ], "modified_gmt": "2021-06-10T14:59:55", "comment_status": "closed", "featured_media": 43414, "featured_media_paths": { "thumbnail": "/app/uploads/2021/06/food-budgets-thumbnail-150x59.png", "medium_large": "/app/uploads/2021/06/food-budgets-thumbnail-768x301.png" } }

title

slug

type

status

content

archieml

archieml_update_statistics

published_at

updated_at

gdocSuccessorId

authors

excerpt

created_at_in_wordpress

updated_at_in_wordpress

featured_image

formattingOptions

markdown

wpApiSnapshot

43392

Emissions from food alone could use up all of our budget for 1.5°C or 2°C – but we have a range of opportunities to avoid this

food-emissions-carbon-budget

post

publish

<div class="blog-info"> Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Environmental impacts of food production</a>. Many thanks to Michael Clark and Jason Hill for their feedback on this article. </div>    The two big sources of greenhouse gas emissions are energy and food production. It’s sometimes argued that we should focus on one or the other. This is a false dichotomy. We cannot address climate change without moving away from fossil fuels. Equally, as we show in this article, we cannot reach our climate targets without tackling global food production. Even if we stopped emissions from fossil fuels right now, emissions from food production alone would take us well beyond the carbon budget for 1.5°C, and leave little room to reach our 2°C target.   There are a range of options to successfully reduce food emissions: a shift to more plant-based diets; healthy calorie consumption; less food waste; and improvements in crop yields and farming practices. Combined, they shift us towards a global food system that is more productive, has a low climate impact, and provides a healthy, nutritious diet for everyone.    To address global climate change we need to rapidly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. This often raises debate of where our attention should be: do we focus on energy or food; fossil fuels or meat? But this is a false dichotomy. If we don’t achieve large changes to both, then we stand little chance of coming close to our climate targets. We don’t have the option of neglecting one or the other.   Energy <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector">accounts for</a> two-thirds to three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions. Getting off of <a href="http://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels">fossil fuels</a> should be our top priority.   But equally, as we will see in this article, even if we reduce non-food emissions to zero tomorrow, emissions from food production alone could hinder our chances of keeping temperature rise below 1.5°C or 2°C by the end of the century. Ignoring food emissions is also not an option.   In this article I take a look at projections of emissions from food over the coming century, and what options we have to reduce them.   <h3>In a business-as-usual scenario emissions from food production alone could use up all of our 1.5°C or 2°C carbon budget</h3>   <div class="wp-block-columns"> <div class="wp-block-column"> One-quarter to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from our food systems (I’ve discussed the range and sources of these emissions in an <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food">earlier article</a>).{ref}In my article <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food">here</a> I take a look at comparisons at numerous estimates of global food emissions and where some of the differences come from. Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-992. Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food (2021).{/ref} These emissions come from various sources: deforestation and land use change; emissions from fertilizers and manure; methane from cattle; methane from rice production; energy use on the farm; supply chain emissions from food processing, refrigeration; and transport.    In a paper published in Science, Michael Clark and his colleagues looked at how food emissions might evolve over the coming century, and they studied whether these would be compatible with our global climate targets.{ref}Clark, Michael A., Nina GG Domingo, Kimberly Colgan, Sumil K. Thakrar, David Tilman, John Lynch, Inês L. Azevedo, and Jason D. Hill. "<a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6517/705">Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2° C climate change targets.</a>" Science 370, no. 6517 (2020): 705-708.{/ref}   Let’s consider the scenario that we continue along a similar pathway to the past: their business-as-usual projection. This assumes that <a href="http://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth">global population</a> increases in line with the UN’s medium fertility scenario; per capita diets change as people around the world <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-economic-growth">get richer</a> (shifting towards more diverse diets with more meat and dairy); <a href="http://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields">crop yields</a> continue to increase in line with historical improvements; and rates of food loss and the emissions intensity of food production remain constant.   In the chart we see estimates of the cumulative emissions from food from 2020 through to 2100 under this scenario. Emissions here are calculated based on a metric called “global warming potential CO2 warming-equivalents (CO2-we)”. This accounts for the range of greenhouse gases, not just CO2 but also others such as methane and nitrous oxide.{ref}The other metric that is commonly used is carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq) based on the warming potential of each gas over 100 years (GWP100). If you are interested in the differences in these metrics, I cover them in the context of food emissions in this <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane">related article</a>.{/ref} This is shown in comparison to our total carbon budgets for 1.5°C or 2°C.  The budgets are based on the thresholds set in the IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming of  1.5°C to have a 67% and 50% chance of meeting our 1.5°C and 2°C targets.{ref}P. Forster, D. Huppmann, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca, C. Smith, J. Rogelj, R. Séférian, in Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield, Eds. (IPCC, 2018), pp. 2SM-1–2SM-50.{/ref}   In the business-as-usual scenario the authors expect the world to emit around 1356 billion tonnes of CO2-we by 2100. This would take us well beyond the carbon budget for 1.5°C – we would emit two to three times more. Let’s be clear on what this means: if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow and eliminated all other emissions, food production alone would take us past our 1.5°C target by mid-century.   What about 2°C? There we have a bit more room in our budget. But, food emissions would consume nearly all of it. To have a 67% chance of staying below 2°C, we have to keep cumulative emissions below 1405 billion tonnes. After food emissions, there would be only 49 billion tonnes left to share between all non-food sectors. That’s not 49 billion tonnes per year; that’s 49 billion tonnes split over 80 years. This is equal to just over one year of current fossil fuels emissions. If we wanted to meet our target we would have one year to move to a zero-carbon energy system.   If we wanted to give ourselves a bit more room, and hope for a 50% chance of keeping below 2°C, we would have to reduce all non-food emissions to zero within 10 to 12 years.{ref}The remaining budget for a 50% chance of 2°C is 1816 billion tonnes. After food emissions (1356 billion tonnes), this would leave 460 billion tonnes for non-food sectors. This is equal to around 12 years of current CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (460 billion / 36 billion = 12). This figure will be a bit less than 12 years – closer to 10 years – once we include non-CO2 emissions.{/ref}   Ignoring food emissions is simply not an option if we want to get close to our international climate targets. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow – an impossibility – we would still go well beyond our 1.5°C target, and nearly miss our 2°C one.   </div>   <div class="wp-block-column"> <figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43395"/></figure> </div> </div>   <h3>How can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food production?</h3>   <div class="wp-block-columns"> <div class="wp-block-column"> If we’re serious about tackling climate change we need to reduce emissions from food production. What can we do?   We have a number of options – some fall on the shoulders of consumers; some on producers. Importantly, the options on both sides can be incentivized and driven by better policies, legislation and investment. Alongside their projections of business-as-usual, Clark et al. (2020) also looked at the impact of five interventions for reducing emissions. This helps us see which changes could have the biggest impact, and how close they might take us towards the climate targets.   In the chart we see the cumulative emissions from food between 2020 and 2100 under the following reduction scenarios:   <ol><li>High yields. This scenario is one in which all countries close existing yield gaps, but also extend the yields that we can currently achieve through improved crop genetics and management practices. Note that the business-as-usual scenario already assumes that crop yields will increase 30% by 2050; and 68% by 2100. This scenario assumes that yields increase 150% above current potential yields. This would require significant progress in bioengineering and crop genetics. </li><li>Halve food waste and losses. What we don’t eat can be just as important as what we do eat. At least 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/food-waste-emissions">come from wasted food</a> – that’s three times the emissions from aviation. If food waste was a country it would be the third largest emitter, beaten only by China and the US. One-quarter of food-related emissions comes from food waste by consumers, or losses in supply chains due to spoilage, lack of refrigeration etc. This scenario assumes that global food wastage and losses are halved. </li><li>Healthy calories. Many eat more food than is needed to maintain a healthy weight (13% of <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/obesity">adults are obese</a>; 39% are overweight). In this scenario, everyone eats a diet that would maintain an average body mass index of 22.5 (the middle of the ‘healthy’ range).{ref}This caloric intake will be different for everyone, and is calculated based on population demographics and activity rates.{/ref} This also means that people who are currently undernourished would eat more, in line with a calorie-sufficient diet. </li><li>Best farm practices. We know that there are <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat">large differences in food emissions</a> for a given food product depending on where and how it is produced. This is true for crops and livestock. Clearly farming practices matter. This scenario is one in which the average emissions intensity (emissions per unit of food) falls by 40% through improved practices (e.g. fertilizer management) and technology improvements (e.g. targeted fertilizers or additives to cattle feed).</li></ol>   <ol start="5"><li>Plant-rich diet. Eating less meat and dairy – especially beef and lamb – is one of the biggest ways that we can reduce our carbon footprint [I’ve shown this previous work <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local">here</a>]. In this scenario, everyone shifts towards a plant-rich (but not vegan) diet. For most people in rich and middle-income countries, this would mean a reduction in meat and dairy consumption, but it does not eliminate all animal products completely. For many low-income countries, where meat consumption is low, this would actually mean an increase. It’s based on the EAT-Lancet diet, which aims to balance the goals of healthy nutrition and environmental sustainability for a global population.{ref}The EAT-Lancet diet was designed by a group of researchers in nutrition, health, sustainability and policy to balance and improve both human and environmental health. Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., … & Murray, C. J. (2019). <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4/fulltext">Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems</a>. The Lancet, 393(10170), 447-492.{/ref} Diets vary a lot across the world – often with local cultural food choices. So, this diet does not imply that everyone in the world should eat exactly the same food. Instead, it recommends quantities within a broad food group. For example, a certain amount of cereals, without specifying whether this should be wheat, rice, or cassava; or a certain amount of fruit without specifying whether this should be bananas, apples, papayas or watermelon. You can understand what this diet looks like in comparison to current diets across the world in our <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/eat-lancet-diet-comparison?country=USA~GBR~EAT-Lancet~IND~KEN">interactive chart</a>. Most of the climate benefits in this diet come from a reduction of meat, dairy and seafood. In this <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/eat-lancet-diet-animal-products?country=EAT-Lancet~USA~ETH~IND~BRA~GBR~CHN">interactive chart</a> you can see how the consumption of animal products in the EAT-Lancet diet compares to current consumption patterns across countries.</li></ol>   We see that all of these individual interventions would reduce emissions. The biggest reduction would come from the adoption of plant-rich diets. Emissions would be halved compared to business-as-usual. Each of the five options takes us some of the way there, but none of them can do it alone. If we want to meet our targets we’d need to adopt several.   At the bottom of the chart we see two additional scenarios: these assume that we combine all of the five options and achieve them either partially or fully. Achieving them ‘partially’ means we would implement 50% of each scenario: we would reduce food waste by only one-quarter rather than half; we would still reduce meat and dairy consumption, but we’d be eating more than the EAT-Lancet recommendations; we would see a 20% reduction in emissions intensity of food production, rather than 40% etc.   If we partially adopted all of these options we would reduce emissions by 63%. Almost two-thirds. Achieving each of them partially would be much more impactful than any individual one fully.   If we fully adopted all of them by 2050 we would actually see net negative emissions. A greater than 100% reduction. How can this be? As I covered in a <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food">related article</a>, when we reduce meat and dairy consumption and increase crop yields we need less agricultural land; forests and natural habitats can regrow on this abandoned farmland. This sequesters carbon – it’s like <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change">negative emissions</a>. So while we would still be producing emissions from fertilizers; methane from cattle and rice etc., these would be offset by increased carbon uptake in regrowing vegetation. On balance we would end up with negative emissions.   Each of these options on their own gets us part of the way there, but to make a real difference we’re going to need to combine them. Combined, they shift us towards a global food system that is more productive, has a lower environmental impact, and provides a healthy, nutritious diet for everyone. </div>   <div class="wp-block-column"> <figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img src="https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al..png" alt="" class="wp-image-43396"/></figure> </div> </div>   <h3>A false dichotomy: we need to reduce emissions from food and energy</h3>   Rather than working in opposition to one another, the contribution of food and energy to emissions reductions go hand-in-hand. They need to work together. If we don’t act on one, we need to act faster and earlier on the other. Higher emissions from food means we need lower emissions from other sectors, and vice versa.    If we can make changes to what we eat, and how we produce this food, we would not only reduce emissions but also have the potential to achieve net negative emissions.   <hr class="wp-block-separator"/>   <h4>Continue reading at Our World in Data...</h4>

{
    "id": "wp-43392",
    "slug": "food-emissions-carbon-budget",
    "content": {
        "toc": [],
        "body": [
            {
                "type": "text",
                "value": [
                    {
                        "text": "Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world\u2019s largest problems.",
                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                    },
                    {
                        "spanType": "span-newline"
                    },
                    {
                        "text": "This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on ",
                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                    },
                    {
                        "children": [
                            {
                                "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food",
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "Environmental impacts of food production",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-link"
                            }
                        ],
                        "spanType": "span-bold"
                    },
                    {
                        "text": ".",
                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                    }
                ],
                "parseErrors": []
            },
            {
                "type": "text",
                "value": [
                    {
                        "text": "Many thanks to Michael Clark and Jason Hill for their feedback on this article.",
                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                    }
                ],
                "parseErrors": []
            },
            {
                "text": [
                    {
                        "type": "text",
                        "value": [
                            {
                                "text": "The two big sources of greenhouse gas emissions are energy and food production. It\u2019s sometimes argued that we should focus on one or the other. This is a false dichotomy. We cannot address climate change without moving away from fossil fuels. Equally, as we show in this article, we cannot reach our climate targets without tackling global food production. Even if we stopped emissions from fossil fuels right now, emissions from food production alone would take us well beyond the carbon budget for 1.5\u00b0C, and leave little room to reach our 2\u00b0C target.",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    },
                    {
                        "type": "text",
                        "value": [
                            {
                                "text": "There are a range of options to successfully reduce food emissions: a shift to more plant-based diets; healthy calorie consumption; less food waste; and improvements in crop yields and farming practices. Combined, they shift us towards a global food system that is more productive, has a low climate impact, and provides a healthy, nutritious diet for everyone.",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    }
                ],
                "type": "callout",
                "title": "Summary",
                "parseErrors": []
            },
            {
                "type": "text",
                "value": [
                    {
                        "text": "To address global climate change we need to rapidly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. This often raises debate of where our attention should be: do we focus on energy or food; fossil fuels or meat? But this is a false dichotomy. If we don\u2019t achieve large changes to both, then we stand little chance of coming close to our climate targets. We don\u2019t have the option of neglecting one or the other.",
                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                    }
                ],
                "parseErrors": []
            },
            {
                "type": "text",
                "value": [
                    {
                        "text": "Energy ",
                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                    },
                    {
                        "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector",
                        "children": [
                            {
                                "text": "accounts for",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "spanType": "span-link"
                    },
                    {
                        "text": " two-thirds to three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions. Getting off of ",
                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                    },
                    {
                        "url": "http://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels",
                        "children": [
                            {
                                "text": "fossil fuels",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "spanType": "span-link"
                    },
                    {
                        "text": " should be our top priority.",
                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                    }
                ],
                "parseErrors": []
            },
            {
                "type": "text",
                "value": [
                    {
                        "text": "But equally, as we will see in this article, even if we reduce non-food emissions to zero tomorrow, emissions from food production alone could hinder our chances of keeping temperature rise below 1.5\u00b0C or 2\u00b0C by the end of the century. Ignoring food emissions is also not an option.",
                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                    }
                ],
                "parseErrors": []
            },
            {
                "type": "text",
                "value": [
                    {
                        "text": "In this article I take a look at projections of emissions from food over the coming century, and what options we have to reduce them.",
                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                    }
                ],
                "parseErrors": []
            },
            {
                "text": [
                    {
                        "text": "In a business-as-usual scenario emissions from food production alone could use up all of our 1.5\u00b0C or 2\u00b0C carbon budget",
                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                    }
                ],
                "type": "heading",
                "level": 2,
                "parseErrors": []
            },
            {
                "left": [
                    {
                        "type": "text",
                        "value": [
                            {
                                "text": "One-quarter to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from our food systems (I\u2019ve discussed the range and sources of these emissions in an ",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food",
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "earlier article",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-link"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": ").{ref}In my article ",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food",
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "children": [
                                            {
                                                "text": "here",
                                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                            }
                                        ],
                                        "spanType": "span-bold"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-link"
                            },
                            {
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": " ",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-bold"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": "I take a look at comparisons at numerous estimates of global food emissions and where some of the differences come from.",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "spanType": "span-newline"
                            },
                            {
                                "spanType": "span-newline"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": "Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food\u2019s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. ",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "Science",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-italic"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": ", 360(6392), 987-992.",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "spanType": "span-newline"
                            },
                            {
                                "spanType": "span-newline"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": "Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. ",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "Nature Food",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-italic"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": " (2021).{/ref} These emissions come from various sources: deforestation and land use change; emissions from fertilizers and manure; methane from cattle; methane from rice production; energy use on the farm; supply chain emissions from food processing, refrigeration; and transport.\u00a0",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    },
                    {
                        "type": "text",
                        "value": [
                            {
                                "text": "In a paper published in ",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "Science",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-italic"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": ", Michael Clark and his colleagues looked at how food emissions might evolve over the coming century, and they studied whether these would be compatible with our global climate targets.{ref}Clark, Michael A., Nina GG Domingo, Kimberly Colgan, Sumil K. Thakrar, David Tilman, John Lynch, In\u00eas L. Azevedo, and Jason D. Hill. \"",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "url": "https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6517/705",
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5\u00b0 and 2\u00b0 C climate change targets.",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-link"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": "\" ",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "Science",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-italic"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": " 370, no. 6517 (2020): 705-708.{/ref}",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    },
                    {
                        "type": "text",
                        "value": [
                            {
                                "text": "Let\u2019s consider the scenario that we continue along a similar pathway to the past: their business-as-usual projection. This assumes that ",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "url": "http://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth",
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "global population",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-link"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": " increases in line with the UN\u2019s medium fertility scenario; per capita diets change as people around the world ",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-economic-growth",
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "get richer",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-link"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": " (shifting towards more diverse diets with more meat and dairy); ",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "url": "http://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields",
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "crop yields",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-link"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": " continue to increase in line with historical improvements; and rates of food loss and the emissions intensity of food production remain constant.",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    },
                    {
                        "type": "text",
                        "value": [
                            {
                                "text": "In the chart we see estimates of the ",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "cumulative",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-italic"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": " emissions from food from 2020 through to 2100 under this scenario. Emissions here are calculated based on a metric called \u201cglobal warming potential CO",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "2",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-subscript"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": " warming-equivalents (CO",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "2",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-subscript"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": "-we)\u201d. This accounts for the range of greenhouse gases, not just CO",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "2",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-subscript"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": " but also others such as methane and nitrous oxide.{ref}The other metric that is commonly used is carbon dioxide equivalents (CO",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "2",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-subscript"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": "eq) based on the warming potential of each gas over 100 years (GWP",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "100",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-subscript"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": "). If you are interested in the differences in these metrics, I cover them in the context of food emissions in this ",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane",
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "children": [
                                            {
                                                "text": "related article",
                                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                            }
                                        ],
                                        "spanType": "span-bold"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-link"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": ".{/ref} This is shown in comparison to our total carbon budgets for 1.5\u00b0C or 2\u00b0C. \u00a0The budgets are based on the thresholds set in the IPCC\u2019s Special Report on Global Warming of\u00a0 1.5\u00b0C to have a 67% and 50% chance of meeting our 1.5\u00b0C and 2\u00b0C targets.{ref}P. Forster, D. Huppmann, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca, C. Smith, J. Rogelj, R. S\u00e9f\u00e9rian, in Global Warming of 1.5\u00b0C: An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5\u00b0C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. P\u00f6rtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. P\u00e9an, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield, Eds. (IPCC, 2018), pp. 2SM-1\u20132SM-50.{/ref}",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    },
                    {
                        "type": "text",
                        "value": [
                            {
                                "text": "In the business-as-usual scenario the authors expect the world to emit around 1356 billion tonnes of CO",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "2",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-subscript"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": "-we by 2100. This would take us well beyond the carbon budget for 1.5\u00b0C \u2013 we would emit two to three times more. Let\u2019s be clear on what this means: if we stopped burning fossil fuels ",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "tomorrow",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-italic"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": " and eliminated all other emissions, food production alone would take us past our 1.5\u00b0C target by mid-century.",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    },
                    {
                        "type": "text",
                        "value": [
                            {
                                "text": "What about 2\u00b0C? There we have a bit more room in our budget. But, food emissions would consume nearly all of it. To have a 67% chance of staying below 2\u00b0C, we have to keep cumulative emissions below 1405 billion tonnes. After food emissions, there would be only 49 billion tonnes left to share between all non-food sectors. That\u2019s not 49 billion tonnes per year; that\u2019s 49 billion tonnes ",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "split over 80 years",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-italic"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": ". This is equal to just over one year of current fossil fuels emissions. If we wanted to meet our target we would have one year to move to a zero-carbon energy system.",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    },
                    {
                        "type": "text",
                        "value": [
                            {
                                "text": "If we wanted to give ourselves a bit more room, and hope for a 50% chance of keeping below 2\u00b0C, we would have to reduce all non-food emissions to zero within 10 to 12 years.{ref}The remaining budget for a 50% chance of 2\u00b0C is 1816 billion tonnes. After food emissions (1356 billion tonnes), this would leave 460 billion tonnes for non-food sectors. This is equal to around 12 years of current CO",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "2",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-subscript"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": " emissions from fossil fuels (460 billion / 36 billion = 12). This figure will be a bit less than 12 years \u2013 closer to 10 years \u2013 once we include non-CO",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "2",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-subscript"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": " emissions.{/ref}",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    },
                    {
                        "type": "text",
                        "value": [
                            {
                                "text": "Ignoring food emissions is simply not an option if we want to get close to our international climate targets. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow \u2013 an impossibility \u2013 we would still go well beyond our 1.5\u00b0C target, and nearly miss our 2\u00b0C one.",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    }
                ],
                "type": "sticky-right",
                "right": [
                    {
                        "alt": "",
                        "size": "wide",
                        "type": "image",
                        "filename": "Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits.png",
                        "parseErrors": []
                    }
                ],
                "parseErrors": []
            },
            {
                "text": [
                    {
                        "text": "How can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food production?",
                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                    }
                ],
                "type": "heading",
                "level": 2,
                "parseErrors": []
            },
            {
                "left": [
                    {
                        "type": "text",
                        "value": [
                            {
                                "text": "If we\u2019re serious about tackling climate change we need to reduce emissions from food production. What can we do?",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    },
                    {
                        "type": "text",
                        "value": [
                            {
                                "text": "We have a number of options \u2013 some fall on the shoulders of consumers; some on producers. Importantly, the options on both sides can be incentivized and driven by better policies, legislation and investment. Alongside their projections of business-as-usual, Clark et al. (2020) also looked at the impact of five interventions for reducing emissions. This helps us see which changes could have the biggest impact, and how close they might take us towards the climate targets.",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    },
                    {
                        "type": "text",
                        "value": [
                            {
                                "text": "In the chart we see the cumulative emissions from food between 2020 and 2100 under the following reduction scenarios:",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    },
                    {
                        "type": "numbered-list",
                        "items": [
                            {
                                "type": "text",
                                "value": [
                                    {
                                        "children": [
                                            {
                                                "text": "High yields",
                                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                            }
                                        ],
                                        "spanType": "span-bold"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "text": ". This scenario is one in which all countries close existing yield gaps, but also extend the yields that we can currently achieve through improved crop genetics and management practices. Note that the business-as-usual scenario already assumes that crop yields will increase 30% by 2050; and 68% by 2100. This scenario assumes that yields increase 150% above current potential yields. This would require significant progress in bioengineering and crop genetics.",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "spanType": "span-newline"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "parseErrors": []
                            },
                            {
                                "type": "text",
                                "value": [
                                    {
                                        "children": [
                                            {
                                                "text": "Halve food waste and losses",
                                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                            }
                                        ],
                                        "spanType": "span-bold"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "text": ". What we ",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "children": [
                                            {
                                                "text": "don\u2019t",
                                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                            }
                                        ],
                                        "spanType": "span-italic"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "text": " eat can be just as important as what we do eat. At least 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions ",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/food-waste-emissions",
                                        "children": [
                                            {
                                                "text": "come from wasted food",
                                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                            }
                                        ],
                                        "spanType": "span-link"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "text": " \u2013 that\u2019s three times the emissions from aviation. If food waste was a country it would be the third largest emitter, beaten only by China and the US. One-quarter of food-related emissions comes from food waste by consumers, or losses in supply chains due to spoilage, lack of refrigeration etc. This scenario assumes that global food wastage and losses are halved.",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "spanType": "span-newline"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "parseErrors": []
                            },
                            {
                                "type": "text",
                                "value": [
                                    {
                                        "children": [
                                            {
                                                "text": "Healthy calories.",
                                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                            }
                                        ],
                                        "spanType": "span-bold"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "text": " Many eat more food than is needed to maintain a healthy weight (13% of ",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/obesity",
                                        "children": [
                                            {
                                                "text": "adults are obese",
                                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                            }
                                        ],
                                        "spanType": "span-link"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "text": "; 39% are overweight). In this scenario, everyone eats a diet that would maintain an average body mass index of 22.5 (the middle of the \u2018healthy\u2019 range).{ref}This caloric intake will be different for everyone, and is calculated based on population demographics and activity rates.{/ref} This also means that people who are currently undernourished would eat more, in line with a calorie-sufficient diet.",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "spanType": "span-newline"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "parseErrors": []
                            },
                            {
                                "type": "text",
                                "value": [
                                    {
                                        "children": [
                                            {
                                                "text": "Best farm practices",
                                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                            }
                                        ],
                                        "spanType": "span-bold"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "text": ". We know that there are ",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat",
                                        "children": [
                                            {
                                                "text": "large differences in food emissions",
                                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                            }
                                        ],
                                        "spanType": "span-link"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "text": " for a given food product depending on where and how it is produced. This is true for crops and livestock. Clearly farming practices matter. This scenario is one in which the average emissions intensity (emissions per unit of food) falls by 40% through improved practices (e.g. fertilizer management) and technology improvements (e.g. targeted fertilizers or additives to cattle feed).",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "parseErrors": []
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    },
                    {
                        "type": "numbered-list",
                        "items": [
                            {
                                "type": "text",
                                "value": [
                                    {
                                        "children": [
                                            {
                                                "text": "Plant-rich diet",
                                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                            }
                                        ],
                                        "spanType": "span-bold"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "text": ". Eating less meat and dairy \u2013 especially beef and lamb \u2013 is one of the biggest ways that we can reduce our carbon footprint ",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "children": [
                                            {
                                                "text": "[I\u2019ve shown this previous work ",
                                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                            }
                                        ],
                                        "spanType": "span-italic"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local",
                                        "children": [
                                            {
                                                "children": [
                                                    {
                                                        "children": [
                                                            {
                                                                "text": "here",
                                                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                                            }
                                                        ],
                                                        "spanType": "span-italic"
                                                    }
                                                ],
                                                "spanType": "span-bold"
                                            }
                                        ],
                                        "spanType": "span-link"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "children": [
                                            {
                                                "children": [
                                                    {
                                                        "text": "]",
                                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                                    }
                                                ],
                                                "spanType": "span-italic"
                                            }
                                        ],
                                        "spanType": "span-bold"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "text": ". In this scenario, everyone shifts towards a plant-rich (but not vegan) diet. For most people in rich and middle-income countries, this would mean a reduction in meat and dairy consumption, but it does not eliminate all animal products completely. For many low-income countries, where meat consumption is low, this would actually mean an increase. It\u2019s based on the EAT-Lancet diet, which aims to balance the goals of healthy nutrition and environmental sustainability for a global population.{ref}The EAT-Lancet diet was designed by a group of researchers in nutrition, health, sustainability and policy to balance and improve both human and environmental health.",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "spanType": "span-newline"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "spanType": "span-newline"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "text": "Willett, W., Rockstr\u00f6m, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., \u2026 & Murray, C. J. (2019). ",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "url": "https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4/fulltext",
                                        "children": [
                                            {
                                                "text": "Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT\u2013Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems",
                                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                            }
                                        ],
                                        "spanType": "span-link"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "text": ". ",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "children": [
                                            {
                                                "text": "The Lancet",
                                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                            }
                                        ],
                                        "spanType": "span-italic"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "text": ", 393(10170), 447-492.{/ref}",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "spanType": "span-newline"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "spanType": "span-newline"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "text": "Diets vary a lot across the world \u2013 often with local cultural food choices. So, this diet does not imply that everyone in the world should eat exactly the same food. Instead, it recommends quantities within a broad food group. For example, a certain amount of cereals, without specifying whether this should be wheat, rice, or cassava; or a certain amount of fruit without specifying whether this should be bananas, apples, papayas or watermelon.",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "spanType": "span-newline"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "spanType": "span-newline"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "text": "You can understand what this diet looks like in comparison to current diets across the world in our ",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/eat-lancet-diet-comparison?country=USA~GBR~EAT-Lancet~IND~KEN",
                                        "children": [
                                            {
                                                "text": "interactive chart",
                                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                            }
                                        ],
                                        "spanType": "span-link"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "text": ". Most of the climate benefits in this diet come from a reduction of meat, dairy and seafood. In this ",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/eat-lancet-diet-animal-products?country=EAT-Lancet~USA~ETH~IND~BRA~GBR~CHN",
                                        "children": [
                                            {
                                                "text": "interactive chart",
                                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                            }
                                        ],
                                        "spanType": "span-link"
                                    },
                                    {
                                        "text": " you can see how the consumption of animal products in the EAT-Lancet diet compares to current consumption patterns across countries.",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "parseErrors": []
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    },
                    {
                        "type": "text",
                        "value": [
                            {
                                "text": "We see that all of these individual interventions would reduce emissions. The biggest reduction would come from the adoption of plant-rich diets. Emissions would be halved compared to business-as-usual. Each of the five options takes us some of the way there, but none of them can do it alone. If we want to meet our targets we\u2019d need to adopt several.",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    },
                    {
                        "type": "text",
                        "value": [
                            {
                                "text": "At the bottom of the chart we see two additional scenarios: these assume that we combine all of the five options and achieve them either partially or fully. Achieving them \u2018partially\u2019 means we would implement 50% of each scenario: we would reduce food waste by only one-quarter rather than half; we would still reduce meat and dairy consumption, but we\u2019d be eating more than the EAT-Lancet recommendations; we would see a 20% reduction in emissions intensity of food production, rather than 40% etc.",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    },
                    {
                        "type": "text",
                        "value": [
                            {
                                "text": "If we partially adopted all of these options we would reduce emissions by 63%. Almost two-thirds. Achieving each of them partially would be much more impactful than any individual one fully.",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    },
                    {
                        "type": "text",
                        "value": [
                            {
                                "text": "If we ",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "fully",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-italic"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": " adopted all of them by 2050 we would actually see ",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "net negative ",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-italic"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": "emissions. A greater than 100% reduction. How can this be? As I covered in a ",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food",
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "children": [
                                            {
                                                "text": "related article",
                                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                            }
                                        ],
                                        "spanType": "span-bold"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-link"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": ", when we reduce meat and dairy consumption and increase crop yields we need less agricultural land; forests and natural habitats can regrow on this abandoned farmland. This sequesters carbon \u2013 it\u2019s like ",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            },
                            {
                                "url": "https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change",
                                "children": [
                                    {
                                        "text": "negative emissions",
                                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                                    }
                                ],
                                "spanType": "span-link"
                            },
                            {
                                "text": ". So while we would still be producing emissions from fertilizers; methane from cattle and rice etc., these would be offset by increased carbon uptake in regrowing vegetation. On balance we would end up with negative emissions.",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    },
                    {
                        "type": "text",
                        "value": [
                            {
                                "text": "Each of these options on their own gets us part of the way there, but to make a real difference we\u2019re going to need to combine them. Combined, they shift us towards a global food system that is more productive, has a lower environmental impact, and provides a healthy, nutritious diet for everyone.",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "parseErrors": []
                    }
                ],
                "type": "sticky-right",
                "right": [
                    {
                        "alt": "",
                        "size": "wide",
                        "type": "image",
                        "filename": "Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al..png",
                        "parseErrors": []
                    }
                ],
                "parseErrors": []
            },
            {
                "text": [
                    {
                        "text": "A false dichotomy: we need to reduce emissions from food ",
                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                    },
                    {
                        "children": [
                            {
                                "text": "and",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "spanType": "span-italic"
                    },
                    {
                        "text": " energy",
                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                    }
                ],
                "type": "heading",
                "level": 2,
                "parseErrors": []
            },
            {
                "type": "text",
                "value": [
                    {
                        "text": "Rather than working in opposition to one another, the contribution of food and energy to emissions reductions go hand-in-hand. They need to work together. If we don\u2019t act on one, we need to act faster and earlier on the other. Higher emissions from food means we need lower emissions from other sectors, and vice versa.\u00a0",
                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                    }
                ],
                "parseErrors": []
            },
            {
                "type": "text",
                "value": [
                    {
                        "text": "If we can make changes to what we eat, and how we produce this food, we would not only reduce emissions but also have the potential to achieve ",
                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                    },
                    {
                        "children": [
                            {
                                "text": "net negative",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "spanType": "span-italic"
                    },
                    {
                        "text": " emissions.",
                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                    }
                ],
                "parseErrors": []
            },
            {
                "text": [
                    {
                        "text": "Continue reading at ",
                        "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                    },
                    {
                        "children": [
                            {
                                "text": "Our World in Data...",
                                "spanType": "span-simple-text"
                            }
                        ],
                        "spanType": "span-italic"
                    }
                ],
                "type": "heading",
                "level": 3,
                "parseErrors": []
            },
            {
                "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-price",
                "type": "prominent-link",
                "title": "The argument for a carbon price",
                "description": "",
                "parseErrors": []
            },
            {
                "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local",
                "type": "prominent-link",
                "title": "You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local",
                "description": "",
                "parseErrors": []
            }
        ],
        "type": "article",
        "title": "Emissions from food alone could use up all of our budget for 1.5\u00b0C or 2\u00b0C \u2013 but we have a range of opportunities to avoid this",
        "authors": [
            "Hannah Ritchie"
        ],
        "excerpt": "If we want to meet our global climate targets we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food. What options do we have?",
        "dateline": "June 10, 2021",
        "subtitle": "If we want to meet our global climate targets we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food. What options do we have?",
        "sidebar-toc": false,
        "featured-image": "food-budgets-thumbnail.png"
    },
    "createdAt": "2021-06-07T15:41:43.000Z",
    "published": false,
    "updatedAt": "2021-06-10T14:59:55.000Z",
    "revisionId": null,
    "publishedAt": "2021-06-10T10:00:00.000Z",
    "relatedCharts": [],
    "publicationContext": "listed"
}

{
    "errors": [
        {
            "name": "unexpected wp component tag",
            "details": "Found unhandled wp:comment tag image"
        },
        {
            "name": "unexpected wp component tag",
            "details": "Found unhandled wp:comment tag list"
        },
        {
            "name": "unexpected wp component tag",
            "details": "Found unhandled wp:comment tag list"
        },
        {
            "name": "unexpected wp component tag",
            "details": "Found unhandled wp:comment tag image"
        },
        {
            "name": "unhandled html tag found",
            "details": "Encountered the unhandled tag hr"
        },
        {
            "name": "unexpected wp component tag",
            "details": "Found unhandled wp:comment tag separator"
        }
    ],
    "numBlocks": 17,
    "numErrors": 6,
    "wpTagCounts": {
        "html": 1,
        "list": 2,
        "image": 2,
        "column": 4,
        "columns": 2,
        "heading": 4,
        "paragraph": 25,
        "separator": 1,
        "owid/summary": 1,
        "owid/prominent-link": 2
    },
    "htmlTagCounts": {
        "p": 27,
        "h3": 3,
        "h4": 1,
        "hr": 1,
        "ol": 2,
        "div": 7,
        "figure": 2
    }
}

2021-06-10 10:00:00

2024-02-16 14:22:51

19p4tSTPrgmFJa71iWPGUds8q4H7UUDHzcln6xTMcbw8

[
    "Hannah Ritchie"
]

If we want to meet our global climate targets we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food. What options do we have?

2021-06-07 15:41:43

2021-06-10 14:59:55

https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/food-budgets-thumbnail.png

{}

Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world’s largest problems. This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on **[Environmental impacts of food production](https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food)**. Many thanks to Michael Clark and Jason Hill for their feedback on this article. <Callout title="Summary"/> To address global climate change we need to rapidly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. This often raises debate of where our attention should be: do we focus on energy or food; fossil fuels or meat? But this is a false dichotomy. If we don’t achieve large changes to both, then we stand little chance of coming close to our climate targets. We don’t have the option of neglecting one or the other. Energy [accounts for](https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector) two-thirds to three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions. Getting off of [fossil fuels](http://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels) should be our top priority. But equally, as we will see in this article, even if we reduce non-food emissions to zero tomorrow, emissions from food production alone could hinder our chances of keeping temperature rise below 1.5°C or 2°C by the end of the century. Ignoring food emissions is also not an option. In this article I take a look at projections of emissions from food over the coming century, and what options we have to reduce them. ## In a business-as-usual scenario emissions from food production alone could use up all of our 1.5°C or 2°C carbon budget One-quarter to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from our food systems (I’ve discussed the range and sources of these emissions in an [earlier article](https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food)).{ref}In my article [**here**](https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food)** **I take a look at comparisons at numerous estimates of global food emissions and where some of the differences come from. Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. _Science_, 360(6392), 987-992. Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. _Nature Food_ (2021).{/ref} These emissions come from various sources: deforestation and land use change; emissions from fertilizers and manure; methane from cattle; methane from rice production; energy use on the farm; supply chain emissions from food processing, refrigeration; and transport. In a paper published in _Science_, Michael Clark and his colleagues looked at how food emissions might evolve over the coming century, and they studied whether these would be compatible with our global climate targets.{ref}Clark, Michael A., Nina GG Domingo, Kimberly Colgan, Sumil K. Thakrar, David Tilman, John Lynch, Inês L. Azevedo, and Jason D. Hill. "[Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2° C climate change targets.](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6517/705)" _Science_ 370, no. 6517 (2020): 705-708.{/ref} Let’s consider the scenario that we continue along a similar pathway to the past: their business-as-usual projection. This assumes that [global population](http://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth) increases in line with the UN’s medium fertility scenario; per capita diets change as people around the world [get richer](https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-economic-growth) (shifting towards more diverse diets with more meat and dairy); [crop yields](http://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields) continue to increase in line with historical improvements; and rates of food loss and the emissions intensity of food production remain constant. In the chart we see estimates of the _cumulative_ emissions from food from 2020 through to 2100 under this scenario. Emissions here are calculated based on a metric called “global warming potential CO2 warming-equivalents (CO2-we)”. This accounts for the range of greenhouse gases, not just CO2 but also others such as methane and nitrous oxide.{ref}The other metric that is commonly used is carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq) based on the warming potential of each gas over 100 years (GWP100). If you are interested in the differences in these metrics, I cover them in the context of food emissions in this [**related article**](https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane).{/ref} This is shown in comparison to our total carbon budgets for 1.5°C or 2°C. The budgets are based on the thresholds set in the IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C to have a 67% and 50% chance of meeting our 1.5°C and 2°C targets.{ref}P. Forster, D. Huppmann, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca, C. Smith, J. Rogelj, R. Séférian, in Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield, Eds. (IPCC, 2018), pp. 2SM-1–2SM-50.{/ref} In the business-as-usual scenario the authors expect the world to emit around 1356 billion tonnes of CO2-we by 2100. This would take us well beyond the carbon budget for 1.5°C – we would emit two to three times more. Let’s be clear on what this means: if we stopped burning fossil fuels _tomorrow_ and eliminated all other emissions, food production alone would take us past our 1.5°C target by mid-century. What about 2°C? There we have a bit more room in our budget. But, food emissions would consume nearly all of it. To have a 67% chance of staying below 2°C, we have to keep cumulative emissions below 1405 billion tonnes. After food emissions, there would be only 49 billion tonnes left to share between all non-food sectors. That’s not 49 billion tonnes per year; that’s 49 billion tonnes _split over 80 years_. This is equal to just over one year of current fossil fuels emissions. If we wanted to meet our target we would have one year to move to a zero-carbon energy system. If we wanted to give ourselves a bit more room, and hope for a 50% chance of keeping below 2°C, we would have to reduce all non-food emissions to zero within 10 to 12 years.{ref}The remaining budget for a 50% chance of 2°C is 1816 billion tonnes. After food emissions (1356 billion tonnes), this would leave 460 billion tonnes for non-food sectors. This is equal to around 12 years of current CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (460 billion / 36 billion = 12). This figure will be a bit less than 12 years – closer to 10 years – once we include non-CO2 emissions.{/ref} Ignoring food emissions is simply not an option if we want to get close to our international climate targets. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow – an impossibility – we would still go well beyond our 1.5°C target, and nearly miss our 2°C one. <Image filename="Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits.png" alt=""/> ## How can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food production? If we’re serious about tackling climate change we need to reduce emissions from food production. What can we do? We have a number of options – some fall on the shoulders of consumers; some on producers. Importantly, the options on both sides can be incentivized and driven by better policies, legislation and investment. Alongside their projections of business-as-usual, Clark et al. (2020) also looked at the impact of five interventions for reducing emissions. This helps us see which changes could have the biggest impact, and how close they might take us towards the climate targets. In the chart we see the cumulative emissions from food between 2020 and 2100 under the following reduction scenarios: 0. **High yields**. This scenario is one in which all countries close existing yield gaps, but also extend the yields that we can currently achieve through improved crop genetics and management practices. Note that the business-as-usual scenario already assumes that crop yields will increase 30% by 2050; and 68% by 2100. This scenario assumes that yields increase 150% above current potential yields. This would require significant progress in bioengineering and crop genetics. 1. **Halve food waste and losses**. What we _don’t_ eat can be just as important as what we do eat. At least 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions [come from wasted food](https://ourworldindata.org/food-waste-emissions) – that’s three times the emissions from aviation. If food waste was a country it would be the third largest emitter, beaten only by China and the US. One-quarter of food-related emissions comes from food waste by consumers, or losses in supply chains due to spoilage, lack of refrigeration etc. This scenario assumes that global food wastage and losses are halved. 2. **Healthy calories.** Many eat more food than is needed to maintain a healthy weight (13% of [adults are obese](https://ourworldindata.org/obesity); 39% are overweight). In this scenario, everyone eats a diet that would maintain an average body mass index of 22.5 (the middle of the ‘healthy’ range).{ref}This caloric intake will be different for everyone, and is calculated based on population demographics and activity rates.{/ref} This also means that people who are currently undernourished would eat more, in line with a calorie-sufficient diet. 3. **Best farm practices**. We know that there are [large differences in food emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat) for a given food product depending on where and how it is produced. This is true for crops and livestock. Clearly farming practices matter. This scenario is one in which the average emissions intensity (emissions per unit of food) falls by 40% through improved practices (e.g. fertilizer management) and technology improvements (e.g. targeted fertilizers or additives to cattle feed). 0. **Plant-rich diet**. Eating less meat and dairy – especially beef and lamb – is one of the biggest ways that we can reduce our carbon footprint _[I’ve shown this previous work _[**_here_**](https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local)**_]_**. In this scenario, everyone shifts towards a plant-rich (but not vegan) diet. For most people in rich and middle-income countries, this would mean a reduction in meat and dairy consumption, but it does not eliminate all animal products completely. For many low-income countries, where meat consumption is low, this would actually mean an increase. It’s based on the EAT-Lancet diet, which aims to balance the goals of healthy nutrition and environmental sustainability for a global population.{ref}The EAT-Lancet diet was designed by a group of researchers in nutrition, health, sustainability and policy to balance and improve both human and environmental health. Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., … & Murray, C. J. (2019). [Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4/fulltext). _The Lancet_, 393(10170), 447-492.{/ref} Diets vary a lot across the world – often with local cultural food choices. So, this diet does not imply that everyone in the world should eat exactly the same food. Instead, it recommends quantities within a broad food group. For example, a certain amount of cereals, without specifying whether this should be wheat, rice, or cassava; or a certain amount of fruit without specifying whether this should be bananas, apples, papayas or watermelon. You can understand what this diet looks like in comparison to current diets across the world in our [interactive chart](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/eat-lancet-diet-comparison?country=USA~GBR~EAT-Lancet~IND~KEN). Most of the climate benefits in this diet come from a reduction of meat, dairy and seafood. In this [interactive chart](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/eat-lancet-diet-animal-products?country=EAT-Lancet~USA~ETH~IND~BRA~GBR~CHN) you can see how the consumption of animal products in the EAT-Lancet diet compares to current consumption patterns across countries. We see that all of these individual interventions would reduce emissions. The biggest reduction would come from the adoption of plant-rich diets. Emissions would be halved compared to business-as-usual. Each of the five options takes us some of the way there, but none of them can do it alone. If we want to meet our targets we’d need to adopt several. At the bottom of the chart we see two additional scenarios: these assume that we combine all of the five options and achieve them either partially or fully. Achieving them ‘partially’ means we would implement 50% of each scenario: we would reduce food waste by only one-quarter rather than half; we would still reduce meat and dairy consumption, but we’d be eating more than the EAT-Lancet recommendations; we would see a 20% reduction in emissions intensity of food production, rather than 40% etc. If we partially adopted all of these options we would reduce emissions by 63%. Almost two-thirds. Achieving each of them partially would be much more impactful than any individual one fully. If we _fully_ adopted all of them by 2050 we would actually see _net negative _emissions. A greater than 100% reduction. How can this be? As I covered in a [**related article**](https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food), when we reduce meat and dairy consumption and increase crop yields we need less agricultural land; forests and natural habitats can regrow on this abandoned farmland. This sequesters carbon – it’s like [negative emissions](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change). So while we would still be producing emissions from fertilizers; methane from cattle and rice etc., these would be offset by increased carbon uptake in regrowing vegetation. On balance we would end up with negative emissions. Each of these options on their own gets us part of the way there, but to make a real difference we’re going to need to combine them. Combined, they shift us towards a global food system that is more productive, has a lower environmental impact, and provides a healthy, nutritious diet for everyone. <Image filename="Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al..png" alt=""/> ## A false dichotomy: we need to reduce emissions from food _and_ energy Rather than working in opposition to one another, the contribution of food and energy to emissions reductions go hand-in-hand. They need to work together. If we don’t act on one, we need to act faster and earlier on the other. Higher emissions from food means we need lower emissions from other sectors, and vice versa. If we can make changes to what we eat, and how we produce this food, we would not only reduce emissions but also have the potential to achieve _net negative_ emissions. ### Continue reading at _Our World in Data..._ ### The argument for a carbon price https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-price ### You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

{
    "id": 43392,
    "date": "2021-06-10T11:00:00",
    "guid": {
        "rendered": "https://owid.cloud/?p=43392"
    },
    "link": "https://owid.cloud/food-emissions-carbon-budget",
    "meta": {
        "owid_publication_context_meta_field": {
            "latest": true,
            "homepage": true,
            "immediate_newsletter": true
        }
    },
    "slug": "food-emissions-carbon-budget",
    "tags": [],
    "type": "post",
    "title": {
        "rendered": "Emissions from food alone could use up all of our budget for 1.5\u00b0C or 2\u00b0C \u2013 but we have a range of opportunities to avoid this"
    },
    "_links": {
        "self": [
            {
                "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/posts/43392"
            }
        ],
        "about": [
            {
                "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/types/post"
            }
        ],
        "author": [
            {
                "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/users/17",
                "embeddable": true
            }
        ],
        "curies": [
            {
                "href": "https://api.w.org/{rel}",
                "name": "wp",
                "templated": true
            }
        ],
        "replies": [
            {
                "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/comments?post=43392",
                "embeddable": true
            }
        ],
        "wp:term": [
            {
                "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/categories?post=43392",
                "taxonomy": "category",
                "embeddable": true
            },
            {
                "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/tags?post=43392",
                "taxonomy": "post_tag",
                "embeddable": true
            }
        ],
        "collection": [
            {
                "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/posts"
            }
        ],
        "wp:attachment": [
            {
                "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/media?parent=43392"
            }
        ],
        "version-history": [
            {
                "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/posts/43392/revisions",
                "count": 5
            }
        ],
        "wp:featuredmedia": [
            {
                "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/media/43414",
                "embeddable": true
            }
        ],
        "predecessor-version": [
            {
                "id": 43436,
                "href": "https://owid.cloud/wp-json/wp/v2/posts/43392/revisions/43436"
            }
        ]
    },
    "author": 17,
    "format": "standard",
    "status": "publish",
    "sticky": false,
    "content": {
        "rendered": "\n<div class=\"blog-info\">\n<p>Our World in Data presents the data and research to make progress against the world\u2019s largest problems.<br>This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on <strong><a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Environmental impacts of food production</a></strong>.</p>\n<p>Many thanks to Michael Clark and Jason Hill for their feedback on this article.</p>\n</div>\n\n\n\t<div class=\"wp-block-owid-summary\">\n\t\t<h2>Summary</h2>\n\t\t\n\n<p>The two big sources of greenhouse gas emissions are energy and food production. It\u2019s sometimes argued that we should focus on one or the other. This is a false dichotomy. We cannot address climate change without moving away from fossil fuels. Equally, as we show in this article, we cannot reach our climate targets without tackling global food production. Even if we stopped emissions from fossil fuels right now, emissions from food production alone would take us well beyond the carbon budget for 1.5\u00b0C, and leave little room to reach our 2\u00b0C target.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>There are a range of options to successfully reduce food emissions: a shift to more plant-based diets; healthy calorie consumption; less food waste; and improvements in crop yields and farming practices. Combined, they shift us towards a global food system that is more productive, has a low climate impact, and provides a healthy, nutritious diet for everyone.</p>\n\n\n\t</div>\n\n\n<p>To address global climate change we need to rapidly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. This often raises debate of where our attention should be: do we focus on energy or food; fossil fuels or meat? But this is a false dichotomy. If we don\u2019t achieve large changes to both, then we stand little chance of coming close to our climate targets. We don\u2019t have the option of neglecting one or the other.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>Energy <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector\">accounts for</a> two-thirds to three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions. Getting off of <a href=\"http://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels\">fossil fuels</a> should be our top priority.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>But equally, as we will see in this article, even if we reduce non-food emissions to zero tomorrow, emissions from food production alone could hinder our chances of keeping temperature rise below 1.5\u00b0C or 2\u00b0C by the end of the century. Ignoring food emissions is also not an option.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>In this article I take a look at projections of emissions from food over the coming century, and what options we have to reduce them.</p>\n\n\n\n<h3>In a business-as-usual scenario emissions from food production alone could use up all of our 1.5\u00b0C or 2\u00b0C carbon budget</h3>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-columns\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-column\">\n<p>One-quarter to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from our food systems (I\u2019ve discussed the range and sources of these emissions in an <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food\">earlier article</a>).{ref}In my article <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food\"><strong>here</strong></a><strong> </strong>I take a look at comparisons at numerous estimates of global food emissions and where some of the differences come from.<br><br>Poore, J., &amp; Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food\u2019s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. <em>Science</em>, 360(6392), 987-992.<br><br>Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. <em>Nature Food</em> (2021).{/ref} These emissions come from various sources: deforestation and land use change; emissions from fertilizers and manure; methane from cattle; methane from rice production; energy use on the farm; supply chain emissions from food processing, refrigeration; and transport.&nbsp;</p>\n\n\n\n<p>In a paper published in <em>Science</em>, Michael Clark and his colleagues looked at how food emissions might evolve over the coming century, and they studied whether these would be compatible with our global climate targets.{ref}Clark, Michael A., Nina GG Domingo, Kimberly Colgan, Sumil K. Thakrar, David Tilman, John Lynch, In\u00eas L. Azevedo, and Jason D. Hill. &#8220;<a href=\"https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6517/705\">Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5\u00b0 and 2\u00b0 C climate change targets.</a>&#8221; <em>Science</em> 370, no. 6517 (2020): 705-708.{/ref}</p>\n\n\n\n<p>Let\u2019s consider the scenario that we continue along a similar pathway to the past: their business-as-usual projection. This assumes that <a href=\"http://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth\">global population</a> increases in line with the UN\u2019s medium fertility scenario; per capita diets change as people around the world <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-economic-growth\">get richer</a> (shifting towards more diverse diets with more meat and dairy); <a href=\"http://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields\">crop yields</a> continue to increase in line with historical improvements; and rates of food loss and the emissions intensity of food production remain constant.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the chart we see estimates of the <em>cumulative</em> emissions from food from 2020 through to 2100 under this scenario. Emissions here are calculated based on a metric called \u201cglobal warming potential CO<sub>2</sub> warming-equivalents (CO<sub>2</sub>-we)\u201d. This accounts for the range of greenhouse gases, not just CO<sub>2</sub> but also others such as methane and nitrous oxide.{ref}The other metric that is commonly used is carbon dioxide equivalents (CO<sub>2</sub>eq) based on the warming potential of each gas over 100 years (GWP<sub>100</sub>). If you are interested in the differences in these metrics, I cover them in the context of food emissions in this <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane\"><strong>related article</strong></a>.{/ref} This is shown in comparison to our total carbon budgets for 1.5\u00b0C or 2\u00b0C. &nbsp;The budgets are based on the thresholds set in the IPCC\u2019s Special Report on Global Warming of&nbsp; 1.5\u00b0C to have a 67% and 50% chance of meeting our 1.5\u00b0C and 2\u00b0C targets.{ref}P. Forster, D. Huppmann, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca, C. Smith, J. Rogelj, R. S\u00e9f\u00e9rian, in Global Warming of 1.5\u00b0C: An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5\u00b0C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. P\u00f6rtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. P\u00e9an, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield, Eds. (IPCC, 2018), pp. 2SM-1\u20132SM-50.{/ref}</p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the business-as-usual scenario the authors expect the world to emit around 1356 billion tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub>-we by 2100. This would take us well beyond the carbon budget for 1.5\u00b0C \u2013 we would emit two to three times more. Let\u2019s be clear on what this means: if we stopped burning fossil fuels <em>tomorrow</em> and eliminated all other emissions, food production alone would take us past our 1.5\u00b0C target by mid-century.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>What about 2\u00b0C? There we have a bit more room in our budget. But, food emissions would consume nearly all of it. To have a 67% chance of staying below 2\u00b0C, we have to keep cumulative emissions below 1405 billion tonnes. After food emissions, there would be only 49 billion tonnes left to share between all non-food sectors. That\u2019s not 49 billion tonnes per year; that\u2019s 49 billion tonnes <em>split over 80 years</em>. This is equal to just over one year of current fossil fuels emissions. If we wanted to meet our target we would have one year to move to a zero-carbon energy system.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>If we wanted to give ourselves a bit more room, and hope for a 50% chance of keeping below 2\u00b0C, we would have to reduce all non-food emissions to zero within 10 to 12 years.{ref}The remaining budget for a 50% chance of 2\u00b0C is 1816 billion tonnes. After food emissions (1356 billion tonnes), this would leave 460 billion tonnes for non-food sectors. This is equal to around 12 years of current CO<sub>2</sub> emissions from fossil fuels (460 billion / 36 billion = 12). This figure will be a bit less than 12 years \u2013 closer to 10 years \u2013 once we include non-CO<sub>2</sub> emissions.{/ref}</p>\n\n\n\n<p>Ignoring food emissions is simply not an option if we want to get close to our international climate targets. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow \u2013 an impossibility \u2013 we would still go well beyond our 1.5\u00b0C target, and nearly miss our 2\u00b0C one.</p>\n\n\n\n<p></p>\n</div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-column\">\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><img loading=\"lazy\" width=\"1541\" height=\"1004\" src=\"https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-43395\" srcset=\"https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits.png 1541w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits-400x261.png 400w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits-800x521.png 800w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits-150x98.png 150w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits-768x500.png 768w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-vs.-temp-limits-1536x1001.png 1536w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1541px) 100vw, 1541px\" /></figure>\n</div>\n</div>\n\n\n\n<h3>How can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food production?</h3>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-columns\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-column\">\n<p>If we\u2019re serious about tackling climate change we need to reduce emissions from food production. What can we do?</p>\n\n\n\n<p>We have a number of options \u2013 some fall on the shoulders of consumers; some on producers. Importantly, the options on both sides can be incentivized and driven by better policies, legislation and investment. Alongside their projections of business-as-usual, Clark et al. (2020) also looked at the impact of five interventions for reducing emissions. This helps us see which changes could have the biggest impact, and how close they might take us towards the climate targets.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the chart we see the cumulative emissions from food between 2020 and 2100 under the following reduction scenarios:</p>\n\n\n\n<ol><li><strong>High yields</strong>. This scenario is one in which all countries close existing yield gaps, but also extend the yields that we can currently achieve through improved crop genetics and management practices. Note that the business-as-usual scenario already assumes that crop yields will increase 30% by 2050; and 68% by 2100. This scenario assumes that yields increase 150% above current potential yields. This would require significant progress in bioengineering and crop genetics.<br></li><li><strong>Halve food waste and losses</strong>. What we <em>don\u2019t</em> eat can be just as important as what we do eat. At least 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/food-waste-emissions\">come from wasted food</a> \u2013 that\u2019s three times the emissions from aviation. If food waste was a country it would be the third largest emitter, beaten only by China and the US. One-quarter of food-related emissions comes from food waste by consumers, or losses in supply chains due to spoilage, lack of refrigeration etc. This scenario assumes that global food wastage and losses are halved.<br></li><li><strong>Healthy calories.</strong> Many eat more food than is needed to maintain a healthy weight (13% of <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/obesity\">adults are obese</a>; 39% are overweight). In this scenario, everyone eats a diet that would maintain an average body mass index of 22.5 (the middle of the \u2018healthy\u2019 range).{ref}This caloric intake will be different for everyone, and is calculated based on population demographics and activity rates.{/ref} This also means that people who are currently undernourished would eat more, in line with a calorie-sufficient diet.<br></li><li><strong>Best farm practices</strong>. We know that there are <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat\">large differences in food emissions</a> for a given food product depending on where and how it is produced. This is true for crops and livestock. Clearly farming practices matter. This scenario is one in which the average emissions intensity (emissions per unit of food) falls by 40% through improved practices (e.g. fertilizer management) and technology improvements (e.g. targeted fertilizers or additives to cattle feed).</li></ol>\n\n\n\n<ol start=\"5\"><li><strong>Plant-rich diet</strong>. Eating less meat and dairy \u2013 especially beef and lamb \u2013 is one of the biggest ways that we can reduce our carbon footprint <em>[I\u2019ve shown this previous work </em><a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local\"><strong><em>here</em></strong></a><strong><em>]</em></strong>. In this scenario, everyone shifts towards a plant-rich (but not vegan) diet. For most people in rich and middle-income countries, this would mean a reduction in meat and dairy consumption, but it does not eliminate all animal products completely. For many low-income countries, where meat consumption is low, this would actually mean an increase. It\u2019s based on the EAT-Lancet diet, which aims to balance the goals of healthy nutrition and environmental sustainability for a global population.{ref}The EAT-Lancet diet was designed by a group of researchers in nutrition, health, sustainability and policy to balance and improve both human and environmental health.<br><br>Willett, W., Rockstr\u00f6m, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., \u2026 &amp; Murray, C. J. (2019). <a href=\"https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4/fulltext\">Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT\u2013Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems</a>. <em>The Lancet</em>, 393(10170), 447-492.{/ref}<br><br>Diets vary a lot across the world \u2013 often with local cultural food choices. So, this diet does not imply that everyone in the world should eat exactly the same food. Instead, it recommends quantities within a broad food group. For example, a certain amount of cereals, without specifying whether this should be wheat, rice, or cassava; or a certain amount of fruit without specifying whether this should be bananas, apples, papayas or watermelon.<br><br>You can understand what this diet looks like in comparison to current diets across the world in our <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/eat-lancet-diet-comparison?country=USA~GBR~EAT-Lancet~IND~KEN\">interactive chart</a>. Most of the climate benefits in this diet come from a reduction of meat, dairy and seafood. In this <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/eat-lancet-diet-animal-products?country=EAT-Lancet~USA~ETH~IND~BRA~GBR~CHN\">interactive chart</a> you can see how the consumption of animal products in the EAT-Lancet diet compares to current consumption patterns across countries.</li></ol>\n\n\n\n<p>We see that all of these individual interventions would reduce emissions. The biggest reduction would come from the adoption of plant-rich diets. Emissions would be halved compared to business-as-usual. Each of the five options takes us some of the way there, but none of them can do it alone. If we want to meet our targets we\u2019d need to adopt several.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>At the bottom of the chart we see two additional scenarios: these assume that we combine all of the five options and achieve them either partially or fully. Achieving them \u2018partially\u2019 means we would implement 50% of each scenario: we would reduce food waste by only one-quarter rather than half; we would still reduce meat and dairy consumption, but we\u2019d be eating more than the EAT-Lancet recommendations; we would see a 20% reduction in emissions intensity of food production, rather than 40% etc.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>If we partially adopted all of these options we would reduce emissions by 63%. Almost two-thirds. Achieving each of them partially would be much more impactful than any individual one fully.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>If we <em>fully</em> adopted all of them by 2050 we would actually see <em>net negative </em>emissions. A greater than 100% reduction. How can this be? As I covered in a <a href=\"https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food\"><strong>related article</strong></a>, when we reduce meat and dairy consumption and increase crop yields we need less agricultural land; forests and natural habitats can regrow on this abandoned farmland. This sequesters carbon \u2013 it\u2019s like <a href=\"https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change\">negative emissions</a>. So while we would still be producing emissions from fertilizers; methane from cattle and rice etc., these would be offset by increased carbon uptake in regrowing vegetation. On balance we would end up with negative emissions.</p>\n\n\n\n<p>Each of these options on their own gets us part of the way there, but to make a real difference we\u2019re going to need to combine them. Combined, they shift us towards a global food system that is more productive, has a lower environmental impact, and provides a healthy, nutritious diet for everyone.</p>\n</div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-column\">\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><img loading=\"lazy\" width=\"1911\" height=\"1534\" src=\"https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al..png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-43396\" srcset=\"https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al..png 1911w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al.-400x321.png 400w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al.-685x550.png 685w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al.-150x120.png 150w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al.-768x616.png 768w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/06/Food-emissions-by-reduction-scenario-Clark-et-al.-1536x1233.png 1536w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1911px) 100vw, 1911px\" /></figure>\n</div>\n</div>\n\n\n\n<h3>A false dichotomy: we need to reduce emissions from food <em>and</em> energy</h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Rather than working in opposition to one another, the contribution of food and energy to emissions reductions go hand-in-hand. They need to work together. If we don\u2019t act on one, we need to act faster and earlier on the other. Higher emissions from food means we need lower emissions from other sectors, and vice versa.&nbsp;</p>\n\n\n\n<p>If we can make changes to what we eat, and how we produce this food, we would not only reduce emissions but also have the potential to achieve <em>net negative</em> emissions.</p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\"/>\n\n\n\n<h4>Continue reading at <em>Our World in Data&#8230;</em></h4>\n\n\n    <block type=\"prominent-link\" style=\"is-style-thin\">\n        <link-url>https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-price</link-url>\n        <title>The argument for a carbon price</title>\n        <content></content>\n        <figure><img width=\"768\" height=\"344\" src=\"https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/05/Screen-Shot-2021-05-31-at-21.19.57-768x344.png\" class=\"attachment-medium_large size-medium_large\" alt=\"\" loading=\"lazy\" srcset=\"https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/05/Screen-Shot-2021-05-31-at-21.19.57-768x344.png 768w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/05/Screen-Shot-2021-05-31-at-21.19.57-400x179.png 400w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/05/Screen-Shot-2021-05-31-at-21.19.57-800x358.png 800w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/05/Screen-Shot-2021-05-31-at-21.19.57-150x67.png 150w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/05/Screen-Shot-2021-05-31-at-21.19.57-1536x688.png 1536w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2021/05/Screen-Shot-2021-05-31-at-21.19.57-2048x917.png 2048w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 768px) 100vw, 768px\" /></figure>\n    </block>\n\n    <block type=\"prominent-link\" style=\"is-style-thin\">\n        <link-url>https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local</link-url>\n        <title>You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local</title>\n        <content></content>\n        <figure><img width=\"768\" height=\"690\" src=\"https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2020/02/Environmental-impact-of-food-by-life-cycle-stage-768x690.png\" class=\"attachment-medium_large size-medium_large\" alt=\"\" loading=\"lazy\" srcset=\"https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2020/02/Environmental-impact-of-food-by-life-cycle-stage-768x690.png 768w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2020/02/Environmental-impact-of-food-by-life-cycle-stage-400x359.png 400w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2020/02/Environmental-impact-of-food-by-life-cycle-stage-612x550.png 612w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2020/02/Environmental-impact-of-food-by-life-cycle-stage-150x135.png 150w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2020/02/Environmental-impact-of-food-by-life-cycle-stage-1536x1380.png 1536w, https://owid.cloud/app/uploads/2020/02/Environmental-impact-of-food-by-life-cycle-stage-2048x1840.png 2048w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 768px) 100vw, 768px\" /></figure>\n    </block>",
        "protected": false
    },
    "excerpt": {
        "rendered": "If we want to meet our global climate targets we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food. What options do we have?",
        "protected": false
    },
    "date_gmt": "2021-06-10T10:00:00",
    "modified": "2021-06-10T15:59:55",
    "template": "",
    "categories": [
        1
    ],
    "ping_status": "closed",
    "authors_name": [
        "Hannah Ritchie"
    ],
    "modified_gmt": "2021-06-10T14:59:55",
    "comment_status": "closed",
    "featured_media": 43414,
    "featured_media_paths": {
        "thumbnail": "/app/uploads/2021/06/food-budgets-thumbnail-150x59.png",
        "medium_large": "/app/uploads/2021/06/food-budgets-thumbnail-768x301.png"
    }
}

Links from other tables

1 row from post_id in post_tags
21 rows from sourceId in posts_links
0 rows from wordpressId in posts_unified
23 rows from postId in post_links
2 rows from postId in post_charts
0 rows from postId in post_broken_chart_links