By Dawn Attride for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mark Richardson for Arkansas News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

It's no secret that industrial animal agriculture is draining our planet's resources and is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions - responsible for somewhere between 12 and nearly 20 percent of climate pollution. On a personal level, reducing meat consumption and adapting to a plant-forward diet are one of the most effective forms of climate action. When it comes to more systemic solutions however, lawmakers and development banks have favored interventions that tend to be tech-based, or human manufactured. These solutions, like dairy digesters that convert manure into biogas, or synthetic feed additives that reduce methane emissions from livestock, also tend to be hotly contested by a certain swath of environmentalists.

While such technologies promise to curb emissions, the reality is not so simple - and they also may do little to combat agriculture's stress on water, soils and biodiversity. These strategies often don't address issues like soil health or the deforestation of land - at least not directly.

A new report makes the case that the best way forward may lie in investing in nature-based solutions, rather than technological ones. The findings were published by The Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return Initiative (FAIRR), an investor network covering risks and opportunities in the global food system.

Investing in Nature Take Time, but Benefits Ecosystems

A nature-based solution uses natural techniques and ecosystems to address environmental challenges, such as planting trees or restoring wetlands to capture carbon.

The new FAIRR report is the "first of its kind" in developing a framework to attract investment for long-term climate solutions in a way that considers the whole planet holistically, Sajeev Mohankumar, senior technical specialist of climate and biodiversity at FAIRR, tells Sentient.

"Industrial farming produces more calories and produces more product per unit area because they are so efficient and their only goal is to maximize profit. But what we wanted to emphasize in this report is that that is not the only system of agriculture -- it also has to deliver for the animals in terms of welfare, human health and planetary health. That's where nature-based solutions come into play," he says.

FAIRR evaluated 22 on-farm interventions (12 nature-based, 10 tech-based) often cited to address agriculture's climate and nature risks. They found that nature-based solutions such as hedgerows (rows of shrubs that act as a carbon sink and reduce soil erosion) and silvopasture (integrating trees into grazing pastures) had a greater positive impact collectively on emissions reductions, biodiversity, freshwater use and the flow of nutrients across ecosystems. "Nature-based interventions can deliver 37 percent of the mitigation required to meet 2030 climate targets, along with significant nature co-benefits," the report states.

Nature-based solutions are touted as offering more holistic rewards, but can take time to show impact, which can be difficult to sell to investors. "I think there is a lack of knowledge in terms of connecting some of the financial returns to environmental outcomes," Mohankumar says. "This involves changing the behavior of farmers and tying them into a long-term contract...it takes a long time to yield benefits."

For example, technology like synthetic animal feed additives reduce methane emissions from livestock by roughly 10-30 percent, but offer few co-benefits for nature. Hedgerows, by comparison, reduce emissions but also have positive environmental benefits, such as reducing soil erosion and curbing nutrient runoff into water. On the other hand, hedgerows need to be planted in large quantities, and require a long timescale of up to 10 years to sequester significant amounts of carbon.

A Ticking Climate Clock Requires Thoughtful Solutions

Nature-based solutions have another added benefit: they tend to boost climate resilience, often in a more cost-effective way, according to a recent review of over 100 peer-reviewed articles. Sixty-five percent of studies found that nature-based solutions were better at reducing disaster risk, and 71 percent of studies found that they were more cost-effective than tech-based ones.

Currently, the majority of on-farm intervention investment flows toward technological advances, which, FAIRR says is "concerning." This is because tech-based climate interventions "are more likely to be aligned with intensive livestock production practices, and lead only to incremental emissions reductions relative to the long-term systemic changes from implementing nature-based interventions." In other words, these solutions cut down on emissions a little, without addressing the problems caused by industrial food systems, like poor animal welfare or water pollution.

Not every climate researcher sees a clear preference for technology or nature-based solutions. Sentient asked Richard Waite, director for Agriculture Initiatives, Food, Land and Water Program at the World Resources Institute (WRI), to take a look at FAIRR's research, with which he was not involved. Waite was a co-author of a 2019 report from WRI that recommended a suite of solutions to meet the challenge of feeding even more people on the planet - 9.7 billion by 2050 - without draining natural resources and driving up global temperatures to an unhealthy degree.

"This report looks at many interventions that are commonly cited when talking about reducing agriculture's impacts on climate and nature. It recommends more investment in nature-based solutions, while also noting that such interventions may lower food production," Waite tells Sentient.

"In our world of increasing food demand linked to agricultural expansion and deforestation," says Waite, "we must be very careful to assess any tradeoffs related to shifting to agricultural systems or practices that produce less food and require more land."

When it comes to food systems, tradeoffs can have significant consequences. For instance, shifting a factory farm to a regenerative beef operation could mean more space for farm animals to roam. That sounds like a better scenario for farm animals. But research has also shown that regenerative cattle ranches use twice as much land to produce the same amount of food. If Americans and other Global North populations were to continue to eat meat at even close to the same levels they do now, there is simply not enough farmland to shift all industrial farms to regenerative operations. And trying to make that shift would undoubtedly result in more emissions and more deforestation.

For Waite and WRI, a mix of solutions is key. "Our own research suggests that both tech-based and nature-based solutions will be essential to feeding 10 billion people by 2050, while protecting nature and the climate."

The Bottom Line

Fierce debates over climate solutions seem to be going strong, yet global temperatures - and food system emissions - continue to be heading in the wrong direction. If countries are serious about meeting their climate goals, they will likely need to consider comprehensive solutions that account for impacts to both climate and nature.


Dawn Attride wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

On Tuesday, 20 Colorado officials sent a letter to the state's congressional delegation protesting six cuts to public lands management in the new tax and spending bill signed into law by President Donald Trump.

John Clark, mayor of Ridgway, said the elimination of river and climate data programs, which are essential to managing the Colorado River Basin and forecasting drought, will put additional burdens on food producers.

"If our farmers and ranchers don't have accurate data about exactly what the situation is with the snow pack and what's happening with the climate, how can they be prepared for each growing season?" Clark asked.

Five active wildfires have burned more than 22,000 acres on Colorado's Western Slope. The letter urged state representatives to reject any additional cuts to the U.S. Forest Service's Community Wildfire Defense Grant Program or other mitigation efforts. Republicans have argued cutting the size of government is necessary to eliminate waste, fraud and expenditures they claim are unsustainable.

Officials are also calling out a provision in the new law they believe undermines local decision-making by forcing oil and gas leasing on public lands. In addition, the law creates new barriers for clean energy leases on public lands, a move Clark worries will lead to the loss of good-paying jobs.

"If we discourage clean energy on public lands, that's going to severely impact our alternative energy workforce," Clark pointed out. "If we can't do wind and solar on public lands, it disincentivizes clean energy all across the state."

Officials are also asking members of Congress to fully fund the National Park Service to ensure proper staffing and maintenance. Clark argued standing up for lands owned by all Americans is essential to preserving Colorado's iconic natural landscapes and rural economies.

"Our economy is hugely dependent on people coming in to visit us and eat at our restaurants and experience these beautiful outdoor environments," Clark emphasized.


get more stories like this via email

A Wisconsin nonprofit is working with farmers in Southeast Wisconsin to educate communities about the importance of agroforestry, with plans to establish its first urban site in Milwaukee.

The Michael Fields Agricultural Institute has planted more than 400 trees across three sites this year, in partnership with the Savannah Institute. The sites include a community garden and two farms.

Iris Lee, owner of Lee Hemp Farms in Burlington, said agroforestry collaboration is breathing life back into her nearly 50-year-old organic family farm.

"You plant and design things that go together," Lee explained. "That will help not only humans but the animals and nature and bugs."

Agroforestry integrates trees, shrubs and perennial plants into crop and livestock systems. Lee noted one of the project's goals is to raise awareness of the practices and their larger connection to food systems, climate change and communities. The sites will also be used for educational demonstrations.

Community members and project participants helped Lee plant a trail of more than 100 trees in April, from hazelnut and elderberry, to Juneberry and pawpaw trees. They have already grown two to three feet, and she anticipates the berry trees will yield results first. Lee added she even loves talking to her trees and emphasized the physical and mental health benefits of agroforestry.

"Growing something is therapeutic," Lee observed. "To be one with nature -- meaning you know where things come from that you put in your body -- anybody that is concerned about the food and their health, to grow something is to build upon a better human being."

Nolan Burkard, research technician for the nonprofit Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, said diversifying food systems in this way is a growing area of interest for small farmers. Through agroforestry, they can also improve soil health and local climate resilience.

Burkard emphasized it requires long-term investment to get there.

"It takes quite a while for trees to grow up and start fruiting or provide their benefit," Burkard acknowledged. "That's why this project is so important because it is such an investment to plant trees."

Burkard added the institute is accepting applications until July 26 for an urban site in Milwaukee. The selected site will receive $15,000 and planning support to aid in designing it.

Despite the elimination of a handful of alternative energy tax incentives in the new federal budget, Iowa corn farmers will benefit from one that was extended.

Tax breaks and rebates encouraging investment in solar and wind power in Iowa were eliminated in the federal spending plan. However, the Trump administration extended an incentive enabling farmers in Iowa to produce more corn. The Hawkeye State is the nation's top corn producer, much of which is used to produce ethanol.

Chris Bliley, senior vice president of regulatory affairs for the biofuel trade organization Growth Energy, said grain-based fuels burn cleaner and are more environmentally friendly.

"The credit actually goes for production of lower carbon fuels that are used for transportation," Bliley explained. "It includes on-road fuels as well as sustainable aviation fuel. And so, the lower in carbon, the higher the credit."

The Trump administration has made efforts to extract more fossil fuels, which it said will move the U.S. toward energy independence.

Lawmakers in Iowa and neighboring Midwest states have introduced their own tax incentives for biodegradable jet fuel, which Bliley noted will create economic benefits for ag producers.

"To remain competitive, plants in Iowa and Nebraska and throughout the Midwest are investing in some of these key projects to lower their carbon intensity," Bliley observed.

The commercial airline industry is aiming for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, according to the International Air Transport Association, which could continue to benefit Iowa farmers who provide corn for ethanol production.


get more stories like this via email