Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture: Avoiding trivial solutions to a global problem

Three steps are required to successfully and efficiently reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture: (i) identification of the most GHG polluting farms, (ii) determining appropriate mitigation options for these farms, and (iii) selection between these options on the basis of their cost effectiveness. Carbon footprints of a sample of farms together with an analysis of the Kyoto Protocol show the difficulties encountered at each step. These difficulties are caused by: (i) failure to agree which functional unit to use to measure GHG emissions and pollution swapping; (ii) weaknesses in the Kyoto Protocol's territorial/production based accounting methodology, and (iii) lack of cost-effectiveness data. One consequence is that farmers may adopt mitigation activities that reduce their farm's, the UK agriculture sector's and the UK's emissions whilst inadvertently increasing global emissions: a trivial solution because it fails to address GHG emissions as a global problem. These difficulties, together with estimated agriculture sector marginal abatement cost curves that suggests emission reduction from all cost effective mitigation activities will not deliver targeted GHG emission reductions, means policy focus must be on demand rather than supply-side measures: the benefits and disadvantages of cap and trade mechanisms and carbon taxes are briefly discussed within an agricultural context.

► This research identifies problems delivering greenhouse gas emission reductions from UK agriculture. ► This is because a functional unit must be used to identify the worst GHG emitting farms. ► The Kyoto Protocol's auditing methodology fails to take account of all emissions related to farmer business decisions. ► Agricultural sector marginal abatement cost curves indicate supply measures alone will be insufficient to reduce emissions. ► Carbon tax appears more suitable that cap-and-trade to change consumer's diets.