The era of cheap, abundant energy is over

That was the message from Chris Huhne in DECC’s annual energy statement last week. The statement was about big choices and big trade offs to ensure the future of our energy supply - and agriculture and land use was very much part of the mix. Sensible debates such as reducing demand and investing in efficiency vs. investing in generation capacity and nuclear vs. scaling up renewables are all there, but what are the choices regarding agriculture and land use?

It’s complicated. This is the line that the Government is towing (quite rightly), saying that changes needed to be considered in a global context as we don’t want to give the problem to someone else less able. We want to stop cutting down rainforests but we don’t have the technology or the know-how to control the biological processes that produce the majority of GHG emissions from farming. So, the Government is turning to you, the farming experts, for answers. 

Just because it’s complicated doesn’t mean we can brush it under the carpet. Without any abatement in emissions, by 2050 the sector could be contributing over 30% of the UK’s permitted emissions, because other sectors are better placed to make the appropriate cuts. Given the sector currently only emits 8% of UK emissions (and emissions have been declining since 1990 anyway), this is clearly not a viable option.

The pathways assume that the sector meets its current 11% target by 2020 through efficiency gains and focuses primarily on the 2020-2050 period. Four possible policy pathways for agriculture regarding energy and emissions are proposed if we are to meet our 80% emissions target by 2050:

a) Business as usual -  continuation of today’s trends and drivers
b) A policy focus on increasing food production
c) A policy focus on reducing GHG emissions through technology and knowledge transfer
d) A policy focus on domestic bioenergy production and carbon sequestration

Pathway C provides the greatest possible reduction of 27% (~12MTCO2e) below the 2007 baseline of 43MTCO2e, while Pathway B gave the least. This illustrates a) just how difficult it is to reduce emissions from this sector and b) we need to learn a huge amount more about the processes that control these emissions. So investment R&D is certainly needed.

The pathways also contain some macro-level trends that are worth contemplating and may steer the investment decisions many farmers are currently weighing up. Firstly, the area of cropland will broadly remain constant (although some will be given over to bioenergy), secondly, the area of grassland will decline (by up to 4 million hectares in pathway D) and finally the area of woodland will increase (by up to 1.4 million hectares in Pathway D).

The pathways raise some challenging choices at a time when concerns over food (Russia have just stopped all grain exports due to drought) and energy security are at their highest and we need to get on track to meet emissions targets. Many are calling for increased R&D to boost food production, but does this sit well with increasing bioenergy generation and carbon sequestration? Feed the world or save the planet? It’s tough - so how do we strike the balance?

That’s what DECC’s new online calculator is there for. It certainly simplifies many complex choices and provides a great way to get your head round the challenges at hand. Take a look, have a go and let us know what you come up with. We need a more meaningful discussion about reducing emissions from agriculture and this may just be the way to start it.

Tell us what you think. Leave a comment on this blog, or write a new one for us.

Will Frazer is the Research and Information Officer for Farming Futures