How to keep feeding the world while fighting climate change
Dr Jacqueline Rowarth is an adjunct professor at Lincoln University, and a farmer-elected director of DairyNZ and Ravensdown. OPINION: The latest IPCC report released last week was yet another last warning for humanity. Yet again, the headlines have been designed to create immediate action. And yet again, different groups are pointing the finger at other groups to do something. Whether or not you agree with the scientists who see positive evidence of anthropogenic global warming (Nasa puts the figure as high as 97%), is irrelevant in a globalised world. The Glasgow Climate Pact 2021 was signed by 197 countries, including New Zealand. Our trade deals rely on us doing our part, and the success of New Zealands export economy is determined by the trade deals. READ MORE: * Agriculture tech make the difference to lives, not organic production * Farms can reduce animal numbers, but how much would you like to pay for food? * Eat plants to help the climate, IPCC report suggests We need to do everything we can to bring down the emissions, but without reducing food production. This was in the Paris Accord (2015) and repeated in the latest IPCC report. Science and technology have been making progress. Last year various products were brought into the country for testing in a pasture system, or actually launched. Agriculture is on the right path. Meanwhile, there is increased understanding of the difference in effect of short-lived gases (such as methane) and long-lived gases (such as carbon dioxide). Stabilising the number of ruminant animals and the amount they eat will stabilise the contribution they make to warming after a couple of decades. In addition, improved breeding, feeding and animal welfare globally will reduce methane per unit of food without reducing production. This was pointed out in the United Nations methane report last year. New Zealand already leads the world in this. We have the data. Food security remains at the heart of many reports and considerable research has been done in an attempt to identify the path forward with the least impact on the environment and greatest food availability. The consensus from several research papers released this year is that sustainable intensification, using all the technologies available, is the answer to feeding the global population with least environmental impact. The IPCC report said: Reduction of excess meat consumption is amongst the most effective measures to mitigate [greenhouse gas] emissions, with a high potential for environment, health, food security, biodiversity and animal welfare co-benefits. Lobby groups and NGOs have a different answer and yet again, there has been a call (from Greenpeace) for the government to invest in more plant-based regenerative organic farming, which both reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and adds resilience to the way we grow food. Plant-based agriculture is generally taken to mean plants from which humans can derive nutrition. There are lots, but not many of them and even fewer of the ones that New Zealand can grow at an economic yield are able to produce accessible protein in sufficient quantities for humans (without increasing calorie intake and nitrogen excretion). In contrast, animals do. Regenerative farming has a concept similar to that of organics focus on the soil, minimise synthetic inputs and generally achieve a better outcome. In my assessment, the problem for the world is that the known outcome is reduced food availability at a greater price. This is against the Paris Accord. And per unit of food, the environmental impact is increased. The authors of a global meta-analysis analysing the impact of organic versus conventional production systems concluded that increasing agricultural input efficiency (the amount of food produced per input of fertiliser or feed) would have environmental benefits for both crop and livestock systems. As for resilience,research I have reviewed indicates that organic food production systems are less resilient than others because the technological tools to combat risks are limited. Regenerative agriculture faces similar issues. Delving into statements made by companies producing plant-based meat substitutes reveals that they are economical with their environmental impact data. Many restrict their calculations to the factory or processing plant where their product is made, and dont include the resources that are used in growing the plants that are needed for whatever they are making. The companies creating synthetic proteins using vat fermentation are similarly economical. They need sugar to provide the energy for the micro-organisms doing the synthesis of the proteins. Sugar comes from cane, corn or beet. These are crops that are grown on the land and need fossil fuels to manage in terms of planting, spraying, fertilising and harvesting. Plant-based and synthetic protein have been calculated to have a greater long term greenhouse gas impact than the methane from the meat and milk being replaced because of the fossil fuel use. The latest IPCC report stated that ambitious reductions of methane are complementary to, rather than substitutes for, reductions in carbon dioxide. Globally, and in New Zealand, it is fossil fuel use that has escalated. Why do we feature car or motorbike racing as though it is sensible to drive very fast to nowhere in particular, or simply round and round to get back to where we started? Why do we continue to allow subsidies to the fossil fuel industry? And why are we not acknowledging that population growth and GDP growth per capita remain the strongest drivers of fossil fuel use, and hence carbon dioxide emissions? The IPCC report has the information and it warns that we need to take action. With apologies to all forms of motorised racing, some actions make more sense than others. Jacqueline Rowarth drives a hybrid car and has no children. The analysis and conclusions above are her own.