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]

Highlights: [•] Presents time series of embodied emissions in UK construction from 1997 to 2011. [•] Contends that mitigation requires greater focus on material efficiency. [•] Identifies barriers to uptake of alternative materials, technologies and practices. [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]

• Timing of ecosystem restoration can influence its resilience to climate change. • This study quantifies the opportunity cost of delaying restoration-based GHG mitigation. • Delaying mitigation substantially decreases the economic benefits of peatland restoration. • Climate change beliefs explain variation in benefits of increased peatland resilience. • Results provide economic arguments for early investments in nature-based solutions. Ecosystem restoration and, in particular, peatland restoration, are considered a promising greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation strategy to move towards net zero emissions. To remain within acceptable limits for projected warming scenarios, inaction with respect to GHG mitigation in the short term implies a need for even larger removals of GHGs in the longer term, which can be conceptualized as a 'mitigation debt'. This paper explores the economic implications of delaying GHG mitigation through ecosystem restoration using data of a large survey (N = 1377) that included a choice experiment to elicit the public's willingness to pay (WTP) for peatland restoration in Scotland, UK. The valuation specifically considers the interaction between the timing of restoration action and long-term ecosystem resilience. We find that respondents have a substantial WTP for peatland restoration. Importantly, we find considerable benefits for early restoration action (up to £191 million annually in our case study), which is linked to an increased resilience of peatlands under future climate change. This demonstrates that delaying restoration and thus accumulating a mitigation debt has an important opportunity cost that substantially decreases the related economic benefits. Attitudes towards climate change and climate change beliefs are found to explain variation in the public's WTP. Our research strengthens the economic argument for not delaying climate change mitigation through ecosystem restoration, demonstrating that the mitigation debt also translates into a welfare loss. To fully realise the potential benefits associated with immediate mitigation using peatland restoration, however, more needs to be understood about the mechanisms that facilitate large-scale implementation in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]