Deep sea mining puts $560 billion in land extraction at risk — report
Even in optimal scenarios, the activity would generate only $6.25 million in tax revenue for countries involved, says Planet Tracker.
Replacing 50% of animal products with alternative proteins by 2050 could free up enough agricultural land to generate renewable energy equivalent in volume to today’s coal-generated power while simultaneously removing substantial CO2 from the atmosphere.
A recent study led by researchers at Leiden University and published in the journal One Earth explores a CO2-removal method known as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which involves cultivating quickly growing crops whose biomass can then be stored permanently in geological formations or used as a feedstock to produce renewable energy.
Most studies of BECCS assume that the land required to grow this biomass would threaten food security or be attained via agricultural expansion into regions of natural vegetation, which has negative implications for biodiversity, but the researchers of the new study had another idea: to combine BECCS with a dietary shift.
“Animal-source foods use resources inefficiently because animals consume more food than they provide, and feeding the animals requires considerable land and water,” the paper reads. “We show that a protein transition could free up extensive resources for BECCS to achieve substantial energy and carbon-removal potentials.”
To test how a dietary shift might augment carbon removal, the researchers estimated how much land would be freed up if humans replaced 10% to 100% of animal protein with plant-based or other alternative proteins. Then, they estimated the potential for using this land for biomass production while keeping sufficient land and water available to sustain ecosystems and meet global food and water needs.
“Our results show that replacing animal products can help unlock vast energy and negative emission potentials via BECCS while avoiding agricultural expansion and securing water supply for people and ecosystems,” the researchers write. “Even modest adoption levels of alternative proteins could free up large agricultural areas.”
Their model suggested that even a 30% reduction in animal-product consumption would enable significant carbon removal and renewable energy production. If 30% of animal products were replaced by alternative proteins, it would free up enough area to generate between 15.8 and 29.1 EJelec per year and remove 3.5–7.2 Gt of CO2 per year.
For comparison, the scientists note that currently, coal power generates 35 EJelec per year and results in 10 Gt of CO2 emissions.
The team also analyzed global geographical locations for their potential for biomass production and CO2 storage. They found that most countries have the geological potential to sequester CO2 from BECCS within their borders. In particular, the US, Europe, and China stand out for their considerable sequestration potential.
They also demonstrated that planting biomass crops for BECCS on freed-up agricultural land would be more effective at carbon removal than natural revegetation. If 100% of animal products were replaced by alternatives, using those areas for BECCS for around 60 years could remove 700 Gt more CO2 than the natural revegetation of those same areas. After that period, the researchers say, the areas could revert to natural vegetation.
“On the one hand, BECCS could use a fraction of the freed-up land to boost climate mitigation while producing renewable energy,” lead author Oscar Rueda said. “On the other hand, natural revegetation could be preferable in many areas, especially those that may be close to their natural state.”
The researchers say that a protein transition is feasible, but it’s uncertain what this transition would look like and whether it would be dominated by traditional plant-based proteins or lab-based alternatives.
“Market research shows that alternative proteins, from sources such as plants, microorganisms, and tissue culture, could replace 10%–30% of animal products in 2030 and 30%–70% in 2050,” the paper states. “Emerging research on novel alternative proteins can further clarify uncertainties of adoption and impacts.”
Since different alternative proteins would have different footprints, further research will need to examine these various scenarios. Examining how sociopolitical factors might impact the proposed dietary shift and the adoption of BECCS will also require further study.
4 Comments
Ed
You will eat zee bugs and be happy!
LW
Interesting that my comment has not been posted concerning this “study”????? I wonder why??? Because it does not follow the idiotic climate change narrative???? From a famous Wendy’s Hamburger chain commercial from the 80’s – WHERE’s THE BEEF!!!! As for eating zee bugs and be happy – I don’t think so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LW
Shoot – my bad – maybe my first comment was not submitted correctly. An edited version… Ever since the beginning of time there has been climate change. As recent as 10,000 years ago we were in an ice age. Could it be that we are now at the end of the ice age? There have always been climate cycles, so what makes today different from yesterday? Politics??? To all of you “experts” sounding the “alarm” – what is the ideal temperature of the earth supposed to be? What is the ideal environment of the earth supposed to be? How does the earth accommodate/sustain a population of 8 billion plus and growing? You have “models” that predict ????????. I was taught early in my career – GIGO – garbage in, garbage out. As for me, I don’t buy it. The only real climate change is winter, spring, summer, and fall!
Jbama
As a former mining engineer who returned to my roots of ranching, I would like to offer my two cents. All of the land that has been included in the many studies that have been done on this subject have the same common problem; they all assume we can grow crops instead of grazing animals. Much of the land that is in my area of the northern plains, was farmed to fulfill requirements of the Homestead Act. This was done by settlers coming from eastern farms because that is what they knew. The 1930’s cleaned many of these folks out and the ones who survived began raising livestock and planted farmland back to grass. My family, originally from Pennsylvania, also went through this. I can say with personal experience that no land that we ranch looks anything like the above picture or the many stock photos I see in these green studies. We create food from land that cannot be profitably farmed and since the 1950’s beef production per cow has increased by 250% in the USA. The dribble in the studies outlined above assume that all land can raise forage in far larger quantities than reality. This is a typical central government planning tactic that usually involves an all-knowing government agency or university, located in a coastal city far from the land they study.