An official website of the United States government
Abstract Meeting ambitious climate targets will require deploying the full suite of mitigation options, including those that indirectly reduce greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. Healthy diets have sustainability co-benefits by directly reducing livestock emissions as well as indirectly reducing land use emissions. Increased crop productivity could indirectly avoid emissions by reducing cropland area. However, there is disagreement on the sustainability of proposed healthy U.S. diets and a lack of clarity on how long-term sustainability benefits may change in response to shifts in the livestock sector. Here, we explore the GHG emissions impacts of seven scenarios that vary U.S. crop yields and healthier diets in the U.S. and overseas. We also examine how impacts vary across assumptions of future ruminant livestock productivity and ruminant stocking density in the U.S. We employ two complementary land use models—the US FABLE Calculator, an agricultural and forestry sector accounting model with high agricultural commodity representation, and GLOBIOM, a spatially explicit partial equilibrium optimization model for global land use systems. Results suggest that healthier U.S. diets that follow the Dietary Guidelines for Americans reduce agricultural and land use greenhouse gas emissions by 25–57% (approx 120–310 MtCO2e/y) and pastureland area by 28–38%. The potential emissions and land sparing benefits of U.S. agricultural productivity growth are modest within the U.S. due to the increasing comparative advantage of U.S. crops. Our findings suggest that healthy U.S. diets can significantly contribute toward meeting U.S. long-term climate goals for the land use sectors.
more »
« less
Assessing Multi‐Dimensional Impacts of Achieving Sustainability Goals by Projecting the Sustainable Agriculture Matrix Into the Future
Abstract The concept of sustainability inherently spans multiple spatial scales, sectors, variables, and time horizons. This study links a recently developed method of assessing present‐day agricultural sustainability across environmental, economic, and social dimensions with a process‐based integrated assessment model, in order to allow forward‐looking analysis of sustainability by region and scenario. The sustainable agriculture matrix estimates present‐day agricultural sustainability at the national level using 18 indicator variables, of which this study estimates nine to the year 2100, using an enhanced version of the Global Change Analysis Model. Scenarios include a reference scenario, and scenarios that apply the following measures, both individually and in combination, that are thought to improve sustainability: yield intensification, transition toward more plant‐based (“flexitarian”) diets, and economy‐wide greenhouse gas emissions mitigation. The scenarios illustrate considerable complexity and tradeoffs inherent to efforts to improve agricultural sustainability in all regions globally. For example, yield intensification typically increases nitrogen pollution, flexitarian diets can reduce agricultural output, and greenhouse gas mitigation efforts may either increase deforestation or crowd out crop and livestock production due to consequent bioenergy demands. However, there is considerable inter‐regional heterogeneity in the responses, and the importance of such secondary responses also differs by region. The analysis and post‐processing methods developed in this study allow quantification and visualization of the absolute and relative magnitude of the tradeoffs between agricultural sustainability indicator variables across regions, time periods, and scenarios.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10492956
- Publisher / Repository:
- DOI PREFIX: 10.1029
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Earth's Future
- Volume:
- 11
- Issue:
- 10
- ISSN:
- 2328-4277
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Estimating realistic potential yields by crop type and region is challenging; such yields depend on both biophysical characteristics (e.g., soil characteristics, climate, etc.), and the crop management practices available in any site or region (e.g., mechanization, irrigation, crop cultivars). A broad body of literature has assessed potential yields for selected crops and regions, using several strategies. In this study we first analyze future potential yields of major crop types globally by two different estimation methods, one of which is based on historical observed yields (“Empirical”), while the other is based on biophysical conditions (“Simulated”). Potential yields by major crop and region are quite different between the two methods; in particular, Simulated potential yields are typically 200% higher than Empirical potential yields in tropical regions for major crops. Applying both of these potential yields in yield gap closure scenarios in a global agro-economic model, GCAM, the two estimates of future potential yields lead to very different outcomes for the agricultural sector globally. In the Simulated potential yield closure scenario, Africa, Asia, and South America see comparatively favorable outcomes for agricultural sustainability over time: low land use change emissions, low crop prices, and high levels of self-sufficiency. In contrast, the Empirical potential yield scenario is characterized by a heavy reliance on production and exports in temperate regions that currently practice industrial agriculture. At the global level, this scenario has comparatively high crop commodity prices, and more land allocated to crop production (and associated land use change emissions) than either the baseline or Simulated potential yield scenarios. This study highlights the importance of the choice of methods of estimating potential yields for agro-economic modeling.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Intensification of smog episodes, following harvesting of paddy crops in agricultural plains of the Indus basin in the Indian subcontinent, are often attributed to farming practice of burning standing stubble during late autumn (October, November) months. Biomass burning (paddy stubble residual) is a preferred technique to clear farmlands for centuries by farmers in that basin. However, despite stable agricultural landholding and yield, smog is being increasingly associated with burning agricultural biomass, thus creating a paradox. Here, we show that the concentration of smog (NOx, PM2.5, SO2) in the ambient air exceeds the safe threshold limits throughout the entire year in the region. This study argues that agricultural biomass burning is an ephemeral event in the basin that may act as a catalyst to a deteriorated air quality in the entire region. Results further demonstrate that simultaneous saturation of air pollutants along with high ambient moisture content and low wind speeds following the monsoon season are strongly related to aggravated smog events. Findings from this study should help make holistic mitigation and intervention policies to monitor air quality for sustainability of public health in agricultural regions where farming activities are a dominant economic driver for society.more » « less
-
Abstract BackgroundTwo major factors that determine the efficiency of programs designed to mitigate greenhouse gases by encouraging voluntary changes in U.S. agricultural land management are the effect of land use changes on producers’ profitability and the net sequestration those changes create. In this work, we investigate how the interaction of these factors produces spatial heterogeneity in the cost-efficiency of voluntary programs incentivizing tillage reduction and cover-cropping practices. We map county-level predicted rates of adoption for each practice with the greenhouse gas mitigation or carbon sequestration benefits expected from their use. Then, we use these bivariate maps to describe how the cost efficiency of agricultural mitigation efforts is likely to vary spatially in the United States. ResultsOur results suggest the combination of high adoption rates and large reductions in net emissions make reduced tillage programs most cost efficient in the Chesapeake Bay watershed or the Upper Mississippi and Lower Missouri sub-basins of the Mississippi River. For programs aiming to reduce net emissions by incentivizing cover-cropping, we expect cost-efficiency to be greatest in the areas near the main stem of the Mississippi River within its Middle and Lower sections. ConclusionsMany voluntary agricultural conservation programs offer the same incentives across the United States. Yet spatial variation in profitability and efficacy of conservation practices suggest that these uniform approaches are not cost-effective. Spatial targeting of voluntary agricultural conservation programs has the potential to increase the cost-efficiency of these programs due to regional heterogeneity in the profitability and greenhouse gas mitigation benefits of agricultural land management practices across the continental United States. We illustrate how predicted rates of adoption and greenhouse gas sequestration might be used to target regions where efforts to incentivize cover-cropping and reductions in tillage are most likely to be cost -effective.more » « less
-
Abstract Historically, humans have cleared many forests for agriculture. While this substantially reduced ecosystem carbon storage, the impacts of these land cover changes on terrestrial gross primary productivity (GPP) have not been adequately resolved yet. Here, we combine high-resolution datasets of satellite-derived GPP and environmental predictor variables to estimate the potential GPP of forests, grasslands, and croplands around the globe. With a mean GPP of 2.0 kg C m −2 yr −1 forests represent the most productive land cover on two thirds of the total area suitable for any of these land cover types, while grasslands and croplands on average reach 1.5 and 1.8 kg C m −2 yr −1 , respectively. Combining our potential GPP maps with a historical land-use reconstruction indicates a 4.4% reduction in global GPP from agricultural expansion. This land-use-induced GPP reduction is amplified in some future scenarios as a result of ongoing deforestation (e.g., the large-scale bioenergy scenario SSP4-3.4) but partly reversed in other scenarios (e.g., the sustainability scenario SSP1-1.9) due to agricultural abandonment. Comparing our results to simulations from state-of-the-art Earth System Models, we find that all investigated models deviate substantially from our estimates and from each other. Our maps could be used as a benchmark to reduce this inconsistency, thereby improving projections of land-based climate mitigation potentials.more » « less
