Political leaders, policymakers, environmental advocates and philanthropists are gathered for the COP28 climate summit in Dubai, and food systems are high on the agenda for the first time. Given that the food sector accounts for one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions, its inclusion is long overdue.
Yet this welcome breakthrough risks being offset by COP28 being hosted by a petrostate, and presided over by the leader of that petrostate’s oil company. This is particularly concerning as averting catastrophic climate scenarios requires that fossil fuels are phased out and food systems are transformed with equal urgency.
Fortunately, these two challenges need not compete for attention, because transforming food systems is also a powerful way to reduce global dependency on fossil fuels. As the Global Alliance for the Future of Food shows in a new report, Power Shift: Why We Need to Wean Our Industrial Food Systems Off Fossil Fuels, food systems, from farm to plate to landfill, account for at least 15 percent of annual global fossil fuel use — equal to that of the EU and Russia combined.
If the current approach to industrial food production continues, that figure is expected to increase significantly.
Today’s industrial food system is increasingly fossil fuel intensive. Fossil fuels go into synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, as well as the plastics that are used in everything from the coatings for those pesticides and fertilizers to most food packaging.
Moreover, most packaging is needed to store ultra-processed foods — from meat and dairy to sweets and sugary drinks — all of which require highly energy-intensive manufacturing and petrochemicals in the form of plastics.
Worryingly, the energy sector views the food system as a promising growth market. Food-related plastics and synthetic fertilizers account for approximately 40 percent of all petrochemical products, and the International Energy Association predicts that petrochemicals are to drive nearly half the growth in oil demand by 2050, outstripping sectors such as aviation and shipping.
Similarly, research from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) has shown that fossil-fuel companies are banking on the expansion of these markets.
The industry “is eyeing the food system, from inputs like pesticides and fertilizers to production and processing, as a dangerous escape hatch,” CIEL agrochemicals and fossil fuels campaigner Lisa Tostado said.
Finally, there is also evidence of a push to use more agricultural land for incredibly inefficient energy production. The US already dedicates about 40 percent of its corn harvest to ethanol fuels, which are estimated to be “at least 24 percent more carbon intensive than gasoline.”
Given increased marketing of and demand for energy-intensive food, decoupling food production from fossil fuels is essential to meet climate goals. Even if all governments delivered on their 2030 climate pledges, fossil fuel use in the food system alone would consume the remaining 1.5°C carbon budget by 2037.
Fortunately, there are many ways to phase out fossil fuels in food systems. These include strategies to end the use of fossil fuel-based fertilizers and pesticides, and to move away from input-dependent crop-based energy systems such as corn ethanol, such as by shifting to renewable energy for processing, cooling and drying food; supporting minimally processed, less energy-intensive foods and encouraging plant-rich diets; and encouraging the uptake of seasonal, locally grown food.
Shifting away from industrial methods toward more sustainable ways of farming would not only protect the planet. It would also create jobs, improve health, protect biodiversity and help address the roots of hunger.
Evidence from around the world shows that approaches such as agroecology and regenerative agriculture are effective in driving a shift away from fossil-fuel dependency. With these strategies, yields remain steady or improve, while emissions fall, farm workers’ health improves and biodiversity is protected.
There is no technical barrier to shifting from dependence on synthetic inputs toward agroecological and regenerative food production, or to replacing fossil fuel energy with renewable sources.
However, many governments offer very few subsidies to support these transitions, and many more incentivize business as usual.
Every year from 2019 to 2021, public funds totaling US$528 billion were channeled to agricultural and food production practices that are generally bad for the climate, the environment and human health, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has said.
Now that there is an understanding of just how endemic fossil fuel usage is across the world’s economies, pains must be taken to ensure that all sectors are included in the transition to a fossil-fuel-free future.
Despite COP28’s dubious staging in a petrostate, it is pleasing to see food finally taking center stage, but that discussion must not be isolated from the one about ending the use of fossil fuels as fast as possible. There will be no food systems transformation without phasing out fossil fuels, and there will be no phasing out fossil fuels without food systems transformation.
Anna Lappe is executive director of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food. Patty Fong, program director of climate, health and well-being at the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, is lead on the Power Shift report.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
About 6.1 million couples tied the knot last year, down from 7.28 million in 2023 — a drop of more than 20 percent, data from the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs showed. That is more serious than the precipitous drop of 12.2 percent in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the saying goes, a single leaf reveals an entire autumn. The decline in marriages reveals problems in China’s economic development, painting a dismal picture of the nation’s future. A giant question mark hangs over economic data that Beijing releases due to a lack of clarity, freedom of the press
RSS