Integrating degrowth and efficiency perspectives enables an emission-neutral food system by 2100.
Journal
Nature food
ISSN: 2662-1355
Titre abrégé: Nat Food
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101761102
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2022
05 2022
Historique:
received:
16
09
2021
accepted:
31
03
2022
medline:
1
5
2023
pubmed:
29
4
2023
entrez:
28
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Degrowth proponents advocate reducing ecologically destructive forms of production and resource throughput in wealthy economies to achieve environmental goals, while transforming production to focus on human well-being. Here we present a quantitative model to test degrowth principles in the food and land system. Our results confirm that reducing and redistributing income alone, within current development paradigms, leads to limited greenhouse gas (GHG) emission mitigation from agriculture and land-use change, as the nutrition transition towards unsustainable diets already occurs at relatively low income levels. Instead, we show that a structural, qualitative food system transformation can achieve a steady-state food system economy that is net GHG-neutral by 2100 while improving nutritional outcomes. This sustainable transformation reduces material throughput via a convergence towards a needs-based food system, is enabled by a more equitable income distribution and includes efficient resource allocation through the pricing of GHG emissions as a complementary strategy. It thereby integrates degrowth and efficiency perspectives.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37117564
doi: 10.1038/s43016-022-00500-3
pii: 10.1038/s43016-022-00500-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
341-348Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust (Wellcome)
ID : 221362/Z/20/Z
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Schneider, F., Kallis, G. & Martinez-Alier, J. Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 511–518 (2010).
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.014
Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).
pubmed: 19779433
doi: 10.1038/461472a
Hickel, J. et al. Urgent need for post-growth climate mitigation scenarios. Nat. Energy 6, 766–768 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41560-021-00884-9
Hickel, J. What does degrowth mean? A few points of clarification. Globalizations 18, 1105–1111 (2021).
doi: 10.1080/14747731.2020.1812222
Xue, J., Arler, F. & Næss, P. Is the degrowth debate relevant to China? Environ. Dev. Sustain 14, 85–109 (2012).
doi: 10.1007/s10668-011-9310-z
Victor, P. A. Growth, degrowth and climate change: a scenario analysis. Ecol. Econ. 84, 206–212 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.013
Kallis, G. et al. Research on degrowth. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43, 291–316 (2018).
doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025941
D’Alisa, G., Demaria, F. & Kallis, G. Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era (Routledge, 2014).
Otero, I. et al. Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12713 (2020).
pubmed: 32999687
pmcid: 7507775
doi: 10.1111/conl.12713
Keyßer, L. T. & Lenzen, M. 1.5 °C degrowth scenarios suggest the need for new mitigation pathways. Nat. Commun. 12, 2676 (2021).
pubmed: 33976156
pmcid: 8113441
doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-22884-9
Nieto, J., Carpintero, Ó., Miguel, L. J. & de Blas, I. Macroeconomic modelling under energy constraints: global low carbon transition scenarios. Energy Policy 137, 111090 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111090
Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831674
Rockström, J., Edenhofer, O., Gaertner, J. & DeClerck, F. Planet-proofing the global food system. Nat. Food 1, 3–5 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s43016-019-0010-4
Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2, 198–209 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9
Clark, M. A. et al. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2 °C climate change targets. Science 370, 705–708 (2020).
pubmed: 33154139
doi: 10.1126/science.aba7357
Cosme, I., Santos, R. & O’Neill, D. W. Assessing the degrowth discourse: a review and analysis of academic degrowth policy proposals. J. Clean. Prod. 149, 321–334 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.016
Daly, H. E. Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an economics that is efficient, just, and sustainable. Ecol. Econ. 6, 185–193 (1992).
doi: 10.1016/0921-8009(92)90024-M
Dietrich, J. P. et al. MAgPIE 4—a modular open-source framework for modeling global land systems. Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 1299–1317 (2019).
doi: 10.5194/gmd-12-1299-2019
Leclère, D. et al. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585, 551–556 (2020).
pubmed: 32908312
doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2705-y
Bodirsky, B. L. et al. Reactive nitrogen requirements to feed the world in 2050 and potential to mitigate nitrogen pollution. Nat. Commun. 5, 3858 (2014).
pubmed: 24819889
doi: 10.1038/ncomms4858
Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018).
pubmed: 30305731
doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0
Soergel, B. et al. A sustainable development pathway for climate action within the UN 2030 Agenda. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 656–664 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01098-3
Bodirsky, B. L. et al. The ongoing nutrition transition thwarts long-term targets for food security, public health and environmental protection. Sci Rep. 10, 19778 (2020).
pubmed: 33208751
pmcid: 7676250
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75213-3
Stevanović, M. et al. The impact of high-end climate change on agricultural welfare. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501452 (2016).
pubmed: 27574700
pmcid: 4996644
doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1501452
Masters, W. A. et al. The nutrition transition and agricultural transformation: a Preston curve approach. Agric. Econ. 47, 97–114 (2016).
doi: 10.1111/agec.12303
Hubacek, K., Baiocchi, G., Feng, K. & Patwardhan, A. Poverty eradication in a carbon constrained world. Nat. Commun. 8, 912 (2017).
pubmed: 29066777
pmcid: 5783954
doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-00919-4
Popkin, B. M., Corvalan, C. & Grummer-Strawn, L. M. Dynamics of the double burden of malnutrition and the changing nutrition reality. Lancet 395, 65–74 (2020).
pubmed: 31852602
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32497-3
Springmann, M., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M. & Scarborough, P. Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4146–4151 (2016).
pubmed: 27001851
pmcid: 4839446
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1523119113
Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009
Jakob, M., Lamb, W. F., Steckel, J. C., Flachsland, C. & Edenhofer, O. Understanding different perspectives on economic growth and climate policy. WIREs Clim. Change 11, e677 (2020).
doi: 10.1002/wcc.677
Daly, H. Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development: Selected Essays (Edward Elgar, 2008).
Tubb, C. & Seba, T. Rethinking food and agriculture 2020–2030: the second domestication of plants and animals, the disruption of the cow, and the collapse of industrial livestock farming. Ind. Biotechnol. 17, 57––72 (2021).
doi: 10.1089/ind.2021.29240.ctu
Yi, J. et al. Post-farmgate food value chains make up most of consumer food expenditures globally. Nat. Food 2, 417–425 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00279-9
Latka, C. et al. Paying the price for environmentally sustainable and healthy EU diets. Glob. Food Secur 28, 100437 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100437
O’Neill, D. W. Measuring progress in the degrowth transition to a steady state economy. Ecol. Econ. 84, 221–231 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.05.020
Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019).
pubmed: 30660336
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4
Hawkes, C. et al. Smart food policies for obesity prevention. Lancet 385, 2410–2421 (2015).
pubmed: 25703109
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61745-1
Swinburn, B. et al. Monitoring and benchmarking government policies and actions to improve the healthiness of food environments: a proposed Government Healthy Food Environment Policy Index. Obes. Rev. 14, 24–37 (2013).
pubmed: 24074208
doi: 10.1111/obr.12073
Campos, S., Doxey, J. & Hammond, D. Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr. 14, 1496–1506 (2011).
pubmed: 21241532
doi: 10.1017/S1368980010003290
Magnus, A., Haby, M. M., Carter, R. & Swinburn, B. The cost-effectiveness of removing television advertising of high-fat and/or high-sugar food and beverages to Australian children. Int. J. Obes. 2005 33, 1094–1102 (2009).
Girard, A. W. & Olude, O. Nutrition education and counselling provided during pregnancy: effects on maternal, neonatal and child health outcomes. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 26, 191–204 (2012).
pubmed: 22742611
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2012.01278.x
Cook, S. L., Nasser, R., Comfort, B. L. Webster & Larsen, D. K. Effect of nutrition counselling on client perceptions and eating behaviour. Can. J. Diet. Pract. Res. 67, 171–177 (2006).
pubmed: 17150138
doi: 10.3148/67.4.2006.171
Taber, D. R., Chriqui, J. F., Powell, L. & Chaloupka, F. J. Association between state laws governing school meal nutrition content and student weight status: implications for new USDA school meal standards. JAMA Pediatr. 167, 513–519 (2013).
pubmed: 23567869
pmcid: 4147666
doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.399
Allais, O. & Nichèle, V. Capturing structural changes in French meat and fish demand over the period 1991–2002. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 34, 517–538 (2007).
doi: 10.1093/erae/jbm033
Witt, U. in Demand, Complexity, and Long-run Economic Evolution (eds Chai, A. & Baum, C. M.) 117–139 (Springer, 2019); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02423-9_7
Fankhauser, S., Tol, R. S. J. & Pearce, D. W. The aggregation of climate change damages: a welfare theoretic approach. Environ. Resour. Econ 10, 249–266 (1997).
doi: 10.1023/A:1026420425961
OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being (OECD, 2013).
Hirvonen, K., Bai, Y., Headey, D. & Masters, W. A. Affordability of the EAT–Lancet reference diet: a global analysis. Lancet Glob. Health 8, e59–e66 (2020).
pubmed: 31708415
doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30447-4
Soergel, B. et al. Combining ambitious climate policies with efforts to eradicate poverty. Nat. Commun. 12, 2342 (2021).
pubmed: 33907192
pmcid: 8079366
doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-22315-9
Murray, B. & Rivers, N. British Columbia’s revenue-neutral carbon tax: a review of the latest ‘grand experiment’ in environmental policy. Energy Policy 86, 674–683 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.011
Pacheco, F. A. L., Sanches Fernandes, L. F., Valle Junior, R. F., Valera, C. A. & Pissarra, T. C. T. Land degradation: multiple environmental consequences and routes to neutrality. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 5, 79–86 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.coesh.2018.07.002
World Social Report 2020: Inequality in a Rapidly Changing World (UN, 2020); https://doi.org/10.18356/7f5d0efc-en
Bauer, N. et al. Shared Socio-Economic Pathways of the energy sector—quantifying the narratives. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 316–330 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.07.006
Gerten, D. et al. Feeding ten billion people is possible within four terrestrial planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain 3, 200–208 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0465-1
Gaupp, F. et al. Food system development pathways for healthy, nature-positive and inclusive food systems. Nat. Food 2, 928–934 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00421-7
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C. & Sonesson, U. Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention. Study Conducted for the International Congress Save Food! at Interpack 2011, Düsseldorf, Germany (FAO, 2011).
Weindl, I. et al. Livestock and human use of land: productivity trends and dietary choices as drivers of future land and carbon dynamics. Glob. Planet. Change 159, 1–10 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.10.002
Wang, X. et al. Beyond land-use intensity: assessing future global crop productivity growth under different socioeconomic pathways. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 160, 120208 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120208
Dietrich, J. P., Schmitz, C., Lotze-Campen, H., Popp, A. & Müller, C. Forecasting technological change in agriculture—an endogenous implementation in a global land use model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 81, 236–249 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.02.003
Pikaar, I. et al. Decoupling livestock from land use through industrial feed production pathways. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 7351–7359 (2018).
pubmed: 29923399
doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b00216
Schmitz, C. et al. Agricultural trade and tropical deforestation: interactions and related policy options. Reg. Environ. Change 15, 1757–1772 (2015).
doi: 10.1007/s10113-014-0700-2
Popp, A. et al. Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options. Clim. Change 123, 495–509 (2014).
doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0926-x
Strefler, J. et al. Carbon dioxide removal technologies are not born equal. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 074021 (2021).
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac0a11
Hurtt, G. C. et al. Harmonization of global land use change and management for the period 850–2100 (LUH2) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 5425–5464 (2020).
doi: 10.5194/gmd-13-5425-2020
Windisch, M. G., Davin, E. L. & Seneviratne, S. I. Prioritizing forestation based on biogeochemical and local biogeophysical impacts. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 867–871 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01161-z
Kreidenweis, U. et al. Afforestation to mitigate climate change: impacts on food prices under consideration of albedo effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 085001 (2016).
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/085001
Windisch, M. G. et al. Accounting for local temperature effect substantially alters afforestation patterns. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 024030 (2022).
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac4f0e
IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, 2006); https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories/
Lucas, P. L., van Vuuren, D. P., Olivier, J. G. J. & den Elzen, M. G. J. Long-term reduction potential of non-CO
doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.007
Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.002
The World Bank Group A to Z 2016 83b–83b, ‘High-Income Countries’ (World Bank, 2015); https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0484-7_high_income_countries
Jackson, T. Prosperity without Growth: Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow (Routledge, 2016).
Kubiszewski, I. & Costanza, R. in The Sustainability Practitioner’s Guide to Social Analysis and Assessment (eds Murray, J., McBain, D. & Wiedmann, T.) 44–51 (Common Ground Publishing, 2015).
Kriegler, E. et al. Fossil-fueled development (SSP5): an energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 297–315 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.015
Luderer, G. et al. Description of the REMIND Model (Version 1.6) https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2697070 (2015).
Hickel, J. The sustainable development index: measuring the ecological efficiency of human development in the anthropocene. Ecol. Econ. 167, 106331 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.011
Alexander, S. Planned economic contraction: the emerging case for degrowth. Environ. Polit. 21, 349–368 (2012).
doi: 10.1080/09644016.2012.671569
Infante Amate, J. & González de Molina, M. ‘Sustainable de-growth’ in agriculture and food: an agro-ecological perspective on Spain’s agri-food system (year 2000). J. Clean. Prod. 38, 27–35 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.03.018