Search

Food systems contribute 23–42% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing food system emissions is an essential component of climate change mitigation, and a system-wide approach, including production, processing, trade and demand-side transformations, will be needed. Long-term analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of food supply is crucial for informing this transformation, and understanding the processes contributing to existing trends can reveal opportunities for future mitigation strategies. To address these needs we used data on food supply, trade and emission intensity to quantify changes in GHG emissions between 1986 and 2017 resulting from food supply in the United Kingdom (UK). Uniquely, the relative contributions of supply-side and demand-side changes to historical trends in food emissions were assessed, and the gap between current UK food consumption and EAT-Lancet recommended diets was used to estimate the additional GHG emission reductions that could be achieved by shifting to the Planetary Health Diet (PHD). It was estimated that in the UK, per-capita GHG emissions from food fell by 32% (from 4.6 tCO 2 eq/capita to 3.1 tCO 2 eq/capita) between 1986 and 2017. Of this 32% reduction, 21% was due to supply-side changes (a fall in emission intensity per unit of production due to increased efficiency of farming practices), 10% was due to demand-side changes (including dietary change and waste reduction), and 2% was due to changing trade patterns. Relative to the PHD, however, the average UK citizen still greatly over-consumes beef, lamb and pork, tubers and starchy vegetables and dairy products, and under-consumes vegetables, nuts, and legumes. It was estimated that by adopting the PHD, UK per capita food emissions could be reduced by a further 42% to 1.8 tCO 2 eq/capita. These results expose the historic contributions of both supply- and demand-side changes to reductions in GHG emissions from food, and highlight the underutilised potential of dietary change in contributing to mitigation of GHG emissions from food. [Display omitted] • UK per-capita food emissions fell by 32% between 1986 and 2017. • Supply and demand-side changes contributed to this reduction. • Adopting the Planetary Health Diet could reduce emissions of UK food supply by 42%. • This reveals the underutilised potential of dietary change as a mitigation strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Waste-related methane (CH 4) emissions could account for 31% of total UK CH 4 emissions. Waste management strategies in the UK have recently changed as more waste is diverted from landfills to anaerobic digesters (AD) and composting facilities, which can be significant sources of CH 4. In this study, we combined mobile CH 4 emissions data from waste treatment facilities to perform a life cycle assessment of current biowaste treatment and potential future mitigation, including AD, in-vessel composting, incineration, and landfilling scenarios. We found that diverting biowaste from landfill to AD is an effective strategy, but it is not enough to eliminate emissions. The fugitive CH 4 emissions from anaerobic digesters have a significant impact on the environmental sustainability of waste management strategies, with upgrading the biogas into biomethane being the best option for climate change mitigation, in the case where natural gas is replaced. A change in the biowaste strategy can also reduce CH 4 emissions from the waste sub-sector analysed, from 58.2 to 30.3 kilotonnes per year, an emissions saving of approximately 52%. However, with these technologies, net-zero emissions is challenging unless the absolute minimum emissions from the treatment technologies is consistently achieved. Therefore, we strongly recommend a focus on mitigating CH 4 emissions from AD to achieve the goal of net-zero waste management. [Display omitted] • The UK's biowaste strategies are evaluated using seven different scenarios. • Anaerobic digestion, in-vessel composting, incineration and landfill considered. • The range of methane emissions affect technology's environmental sustainability. • Biomethane generation from anaerobic digestion provides the greatest GWP saving. • Meeting the Net Zero goal in the waste sector is challenging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is at the interface of biowaste management, energy generation, food production and land-based carbon dioxide removal. Strategic deployment of AD requires careful scoping of interactions with prospective alternative biowaste management, energy generation technologies and land uses to ensure effective delivery of climate neutrality and circularity. There remains a need to assess the greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation efficacy of AD in the context of future alternative (counterfactual) processes associated with differential rates of decarbonisation across energy, waste management and land (including agriculture) sectors. To address this gap, prospective life cycle assessment (LCA) is applied to AD deployment scenarios across three decarbonisation contexts, using the UK as an example. Food waste prevention and diversion to animal feed always achieve more GHG mitigation than AD, even with sustainable intensification of food and feed production. Compared with maize- or grass-biomethane transport fuel, solar electricity generation can avoid 16 times more fossil energy and afforestation can mitigate six times more GHG per hectare of land occupied. Transport biomethane is currently the most effective biogas use for GHG mitigation, but large-scale combustion of biogas for electricity or industrial heat generation is the most effective long-term option as transport is electrified and bioenergy carbon capture & storage (BECCS) is deployed. Prioritising waste prevention and diversion to animal feed (including via insect meal) instead of maximising AD deployment could simultaneously: offset an additional 10–15% of national GHG emissions; meet an additional 2–4% of national energy demand; free enough arable land to provide 20–21% of national recommended protein and kcal intake. However, AD is likely to remain the best option to manage substantial volumes of residual food wastes and manures that will remain available even if ambitious projections on waste prevention and diet change are realised. [Display omitted] • Consequential LCA of anaerobic digestion (AD) in future decarbonisation contexts • GHG mitigation efficacy of AD declines as energy & transport systems decarbonise • AD-crop cultivation is a highly inefficient land use for energy generation and GHG mitigation • Carbon capture & storage could maintain effective mitigation from large-scale biogas use • Sustainable niche for waste-AD alongside waste prevention & diversion to animal feed [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Paris Agreement on climate change has calls for urgent, radical, and transformative actions in mitigation and adaptation, particularly in terms of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emission. There are many terms used to describe the process of reducing GHGs, including decarbonization, low carbon development (LCD) or low carbon transition (LCT). The conceptualization of these terms remains puzzling and there has not been any consensus to explain the meaning and their interrelationship. Clearer definition and conceptual boundaries are necessary to improve the coherence of overarching practices to cut CO 2 emission. The paper aims to review key concepts related to climate change mitigation related to the reduction of CO 2 and efforts toward net-zero emission in the academic literature, by (1) examining progress of the literature over time, (2) identifying geographical locus and sectoral focus of the literature, (3) determining the interrelationships between the key concepts. We use a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) method for data collection by selecting peer-reviewed literature from Scopus and analyzing the data with content analysis and bibliometric analysis. The findings are, firstly, the publications of the literature are influenced by global and national climate change policies and the interest of scholars affiliated to institutions from major emitter countries. Therefore, the literature is mostly originating from countries that emit the most CO 2 while also implement mitigations to reduce CO 2 emission. Secondly, China is the country where studies are mostly focused and also where the authors are affiliated/located. However, publications from the United Kingdom are cited the most. Thirdly, there are three clusters of literature found, namely that LCD and LCT are the terms used to identify visions for climate mitigation, while decarbonization is the actions and processes to achieve either LCD or LCT (as the visions). • The dynamic of climate change policies influence the literature trend. • The literature is mostly originating from major CO 2 emitter. • Low carbon development and low carbon transition are visional terms. • Decarbonization indicates the processes of decoupling CO 2 to achieve the visions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]