In this article, we explore the pressing issues surrounding food production and the climate crisis, highlighting the intricate relationship between agricultural practices and climate change. A recent piece from The Wire for World Food Day encapsulates a crucial aspect often overlooked:
The issue isn’t that food is lacking; rather, it’s about its uneven distribution. Systemic inequities, disjointed supply chains, ineffective public distribution networks, speculative markets, and profit-driven trade frequently obstruct access, creating a paradox where abundance exists alongside deprivation. What inhibits access is power—who governs food, how it is distributed, and who benefits from it. Climate change, conflict, and trade dynamics that favor speculation and corporate dominance exacerbate these contradictions. Smallholder farmers, who cultivate a significant portion of the world’s food, often confront dislocation, escalating debts, and marginalization.
At the core of every famine or food emergency lies a battle for sovereignty: the right of individuals and communities to grow, harvest, and share food autonomously. When farmers lose their land, when fishing territories are militarized, or when access to seeds and water is controlled by external entities, they forfeit more than just food—they lose their autonomy. Thus, hunger transcends empty plates; it revolves around who determines the contents of those plates.
By Michael Svoboda, books editor at Yale Climate Connections. He teaches in the University Writing Program at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Originally published at Yale Climate Connections.
Three recently released books grapple with a troubling reality: agriculture is responsible for one-third of global climate emissions.
This alarming statistic motivated Michael Grunwald, a former Washington Post reporter turned independent journalist and author, to delve into the research for his book, “We Are Eating the Earth”.
Grunwald encountered this statistic through Tim Searchinger, an environmental attorney with a knack for identifying discrepancies and a passion for validating his intuitions. Their joint exploration of agriculture and climate change culminated in Grunwald’s compelling book.
In upcoming publications, we will feature interviews with authors Kesley Timmerman, who penned “Regenerating Earth,” and Mark Easter, the author of “The Blue Plate: A Food Lover’s Guide to Climate Chaos.”
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Yale Climate Connections: Thank you for joining us, Mike. Why should we be concerned about agriculture in the context of climate change?
Michael Grunwald: In brief, agriculture is a significant contributor to climate change. It accounts for a third of the problem and consumes 70% of our freshwater resources. It leads to deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water contamination. If environmental preservation matters to you, food and agriculture should be top of mind.
Several years ago, I had a conversation with Tim about the environmental impact of meat. His response confirmed its severe effects. It occurred to me, if I was unaware of these implications, then others likely are as well.
YCC: Your book emphasizes land use as a pivotal issue. Before getting into specifics, can you tell us more about Tim Searchinger and his findings on land use?
Grunwald: When I first met Tim, he was a wetlands attorney advocating for conservation in the Mississippi Valley. His interest in corn ethanol arose from concerns that increased corn production due to a new ethanol mandate would diminish wetlands, allowing more fertilizer to contaminate the Mississippi River and worsening the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
He came across a climate study indicating that producing ethanol was exceedingly inefficient—that it required almost as much fossil fuel as it replaced. However, the study claimed that ethanol was 20% better than gasoline, as burning ethanol emits carbon, which is reabsorbed when growing subsequent corn crops.
Tim realized that prioritizing fuel over food would necessitate additional land for food production, likely resulting in deforestation or wetland disruption that had stored significant amounts of carbon.
His key insight was that land is a finite resource, yet many studies have treated it as if it were readily available. When Tim factored in emissions from land-use changes, he determined that corn ethanol is actually twice as harmful to the climate as gasoline.
YCC: It’s essential to highlight key points here. Climate scientists have recognized the emissions caused by land use change. Deforestation for agriculture certainly heightens emissions.
Grunwald: Correct. At that time, Tim was simply a perceptive reader, not a practicing scientist.
YCC: His realization of indirect consequences—that if agricultural land is repurposed for non-food production, it mandates sourcing food from alternative locations—how surprised was he by this oversight?
Grunwald: He was shocked, yet not entirely. This scenario encapsulates a pervasive narrative in my book: the overwhelming influence of groupthink and established norms in both political and scientific arenas.
I detail examples of scientists and public officials who initially championed bioenergy’s climate benefits, only to concede their errors upon learning of Tim’s insights. However, such accountability isn’t common; humans aren’t generally good at admitting mistakes.
YCC: Unfortunately, biofuel policies are enshrined in American legislation due to early misunderstandings by scientists and the political enthusiasm from agricultural senators, particularly ahead of the Iowa primaries.
Yet the consequences of mismanaged land extend beyond biofuels, particularly when it comes to meat production. What major concerns exist regarding meat production?
Grunwald: Currently, we utilize land equivalent to both Asia and Europe for food production, with three-quarters allocated for crops and pastures fed to livestock. Deforestation—especially of rainforests—drives agricultural emissions, predominantly linked to meat production.
Plant-based diets are significantly more sustainable than feeding crops to livestock for consumption. Cattle, for instance, are highly inefficient food converters. In the U.S., half of agricultural land is dedicated to beef production, yielding only 3% of our caloric intake. While all agriculture impacts the earth, meat exacerbates the issue.
YCC: You indicate that reducing beef consumption is one of the most meaningful dietary changes individuals can make. It can lead to substantial environmental benefits.
Grunwald: Indeed. Transitioning to a vegan diet is the most impactful choice you can make for the planet. Yet many resist such drastic changes. However, just cutting down on beef and lamb is nearly as beneficial as adopting a vegetarian diet, given that cattle require ten times more land and produce ten times more emissions than chicken or pork.
Additionally, we need to address food waste, as roughly one-quarter of all food produced is discarded. When food goes to waste, it also wastes the resources—land, fertilizer, and water—used in its production. Presently, we occupy a landmass the size of China just to cultivate waste.
YCC: Having vividly illustrated this problem, you explore potential alternatives in your book. One promising approach to mitigate the negative impacts of meat consumption is the development of alternative protein sources.
Grunwald: Correct. The first half of the book focuses on the “eating the Earth” dilemma, while the latter half discusses potential solutions. Given that meat is a primary factor in this crisis, I address its alternatives early on. For example, plant-based or cultivated meat could reduce land use and emissions by up to 90%. These innovations could provide significant solutions.
I began my research for this book in 2019 at the Good Food Institute Conference. This was a vibrant time, as Beyond Meat launched the most significant initial public offering of the 21st century, showcasing innovative biotech burgers far superior to traditional veggie options. However, these products were still pricier and less appealing than actual meat, which hindered their widespread adoption.
By 2023, however, the mood had soured. There’s a misconception that alternative meat options have failed; in reality, traditional meat production is well-established, while substitutes are still maturing. However, as time progresses, we can expect these alternatives to improve, become more cost-effective, and potentially healthier.
YCC: Turning to regenerative agriculture, what does Tim Searchinger perceive as both positive and negative aspects?
Grunwald: There’s a widely held belief in various sectors—from cinema to the UN—that “carbon farming” will magically sequester atmospheric carbon back into the soil simply through better soil management. Frankly, I find this notion largely misleading.
Tim has taken the lead in exposing this. Most discussions focus on the challenges of measuring soil carbon and ensuring its permanence. Moreover, science indicates that boosting soil carbon levels often necessitates increased nitrogen, which poses its own set of pollution problems.
Thus, instituting carbon markets that profit individuals claiming to sequester carbon is ill-advised.
YCC: Nonetheless, Tim recognizes that adopting more diverse farming practices could be beneficial, potentially including agroforestry.
Grunwald: While I’m neither an agronomist nor a scientist, I can assess the situation mathematically. By 2050, we will need to generate significantly more food with fewer resources and reduced emissions. That’s my foundation for addressing the “eating the Earth” problem.
Writers like Michael Pollan beautifully portray organic farming, emphasizing the warmth of small farms where animals have names. However, lower yields on these farms require more land, leading to a greater environmental footprint.
This sets the stage for my analysis, which can be upsetting for some: factory farms—despite their ethical shortcomings—efficaciously provide large quantities of affordable food.
YCC: Ultimately, your message is clear: we must produce more food sustainably and efficiently.
Grunwald: Precisely. We need to increase food production while minimizing waste and environmental damage.
YCC: What innovations may facilitate this objective?
Grunwald: On the demand side, alternative proteins show promising potential. Additionally, technology is evolving to help mitigate food waste through methods that preserve the freshness of produce and through apps that alert consumers to discounted items nearing expiration.
On the supply side, groundbreaking innovations are also emerging. I explored how scientists are gene-editing microbes to harness atmospheric fertilizer for crops and employing mRNA technology to devise innovative pesticides. Techniques like biological nitrification inhibition and enhanced manure management are also gaining traction.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) hold possibilities for cultivating drought-, flood-, and heat-resistant crops that can thrive in a warming climate, delivering higher yields to farmers and more food to consumers—without evidence of any associated health or environmental risks.
However, for these advancements to succeed, we must invest substantially in research and implementation to determine effective strategies.
YCC: Isn’t it equally essential to rethink our agricultural governance?
Grunwald: Yes, this presents a complex issue. The agricultural lobby wields substantial influence globally. Consequently, the world annually allocates $600 billion toward agricultural subsidies, with $300 billion going directly to farmers. All agricultural practices need improvements, but accountability is crucial.
Legislation recently passed by Republican lawmakers ignores land-use factors in biofuel evaluations, a maneuver that favors corn and soybean farmers, showcasing the prevailing political challenges.
I authored an opinion piece in The New York Times emphasizing the absurdity of Democratic support for these agricultural provisions, as it clashes with traditional voting norms.
YCC: It seems a discerning vigilance will be imperative in this context.
Grunwald: Indeed. Like Tim Searchinger—who has published extensively in leading journals despite lacking a formal scientific background—it’s crucial to identify credible voices from those who spread misinformation.
