The world has reached its first catastrophic tipping point, with warm water coral reefs now facing widespread dieback. This tragic milestone comes as negotiations for the EU’s climate pathway are in full swing. The science is clear: reaching climate neutrality requires deep emission cuts, across all sectors. Yet one sector limps behind the rest, refusing to pull its weight whilst policymakers bleat about the ‘complexity’ of its emissions. But a new report says otherwise. We are of course talking about the agri-food sector.
Agriculture is a significant source of greenhouse gases, accounting for 12% of total EU greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from animal rearing and fertilisers. This figure increases to 17% if emissions from drained peatlands are included – and, as peatlands are mostly drained for agricultural use, they should be.
Despite its contribution to the climate crisis, policymakers are reluctant to tackle agricultural emissions, with certain voices labelling them as too “complex”, “natural”, “hard to abate”, and… “residual”. Residual emissions are the greenhouse gases that remain after all feasible efforts have been made to reduce them. Labelling agricultural emissions as such, intentionally or not, creates the impression that emissions cannot be addressed, or at least not to any serious degree. But this is not the case.
Beyond labels
To look beyond these labels, a new report by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) explores the emission reduction potential for our agri-food sector by comparing the most pertinent scenarios and models. There are several paths the EU could take, each with a different conclusion, as residual emission levels are determined by what, and how, we produce and consume. Together, the scenarios help to paint a picture of what’s possible, and as you’ll see, a large part of today’s emissions is far from “residual”.
Beyond climate
Not only does the report show that significant reductions are possible – with scenarios illustrating that a 25 to 59% reduction is achievable – but by carefully considering what to tackle and how we do it, the EU would enjoy several additional benefits, including for nature and our health.
Tackling the two main greenhouse gases in agriculture – methane and nitrous oxide – is key, as they are not only major climate polluters but also influence the quality of the air we breathe. Choosing how we address them also makes a difference. If we choose only to apply technical tweaks, such as feed additives, to our current production system – which is making Europe sick – we may see some benefits for the climate but would miss out on the multiple environmental and health benefits that an alternative system would bring.
Tackling what we eat is also important. If we choose to eat more plant proteins instead of animal proteins, and adjust production accordingly, we will reduce emissions much further, align better with recommended dietary guidelines, support a shift to more sustainable farming systems, and reduce our reliance on land, resources, and products from abroad. A win-win-win scenario!
Change by design, or by force
Just because something is challenging, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. Ultimately, as we reach tipping point after tipping point, the facade of choice will fade as we’re forced to counter the impacts of the climate crisis. Our farming sector is one of the first victims of climate breakdown. Ever increasing extreme weather events are leading to reduced yields and failed harvests, endangering livelihoods. IEEP’s analysis reveals how research into potential pathways for the sector often fail to factor this in, even going as far as to project increasing yields. This is not realistic. By shifting to more sustainable practices, that work with natural systems and not against them, Europe’s farms would reduce their emissions and build resilience against the impacts of the climate crisis.
Leadership, not loopholes
This report shows that choosing to reduce agricultural emissions is as much a societal and political one, as it is technical. Scientists have laid out the pathway for climate neutrality in Europe, now we need policy to follow. However, rather than follow scientific advice, policymakers are getting creative with “flexibilities”, weakening EU climate action with loopholes and accounting tricks. By choosing political convenience over scientific integrity, environmental safety, and societal responsibility, policymakers are not only putting EU climate action at risk but missing a crucial opportunity to drive meaningful change for the health and wellbeing of people and our natural environment.
Agriculture offers an untapped source of emission reductions. Voluntary initiatives have been around for a long time, but have had little impact. While they can sometimes trigger the right type of action, they are no match for the industrial polluters fuelled by a steady stream of public and private funds. Eliminating harmful public subsidies and holding the private sector accountable for its impacts is key. While nearly all other sectors are or soon will be covered by emission pricing systems (where polluters pay for their emissions), agricultural emissions and their impacts remain unaccounted for. This omission needs to be addressed. Emission pricing, or other regulatory policy instruments, are needed to effectively drive emissions down to an agreed target. To support EU food and farming in its efforts, policymakers need a coherent vision for land, food, nature, and climate – ensuring there is alignment across policy areas.
Tipping or turning point?
Rather than cling to an outdated system, that requires us to fudge the numbers and cosplay climate action with unproven and partial techno-fixes, the EU should focus on real, effective change that results in a positive future for farming and wider society. This future won’t materialise spontaneously. Powerful corporate actors benefit greatly from the current system and would like to keep it that way, pressuring decision makers to continue down a path that benefits only a few. This report shows us that there are multiple alternative paths to take, some with more benefits than others.
Giving the agricultural sector a hall pass is not an option. We need deep emissions cuts across all sectors. By supporting farmers to shift to practices grounded in nature and providing people with healthy, sustainable choices, Europe can reach climate goals whilst ensuring a fair and resilient agri-food system for farmers, consumers, and nature.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider buying the author a coffee.
Cover photo: Field in Poland by Marcin Jozwiak on Unsplash