Climate policies that achieved major emission reductions(science.org)
science.org
Climate policies that achieved major emission reductions
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adl6547
54 comments
Emission is only one of many problems with animal agriculture. Others include:
- Land use (over-grazing, deforestation for pastures and feed crops, most of crops grown are for farmed animals, etc.)
- Water use
- Inefficient feed -> food conversion
- Nutrient runoff leading to eutrophication
- Increasing risk of zoonotic diseases and antibiotic resistance
- Bioaccumulation (of PFAS, pesticides, heavy metals, microplastics, etc.)
- Land use (over-grazing, deforestation for pastures and feed crops, most of crops grown are for farmed animals, etc.)
- Water use
- Inefficient feed -> food conversion
- Nutrient runoff leading to eutrophication
- Increasing risk of zoonotic diseases and antibiotic resistance
- Bioaccumulation (of PFAS, pesticides, heavy metals, microplastics, etc.)
These are the most important, by far, as they are existential threats:
1. Pandemic evolution
2. Antibiotic resistance
A distant third is GHGs / climate change, and then the other issues that matter only if we stay alive.
1. Pandemic evolution
2. Antibiotic resistance
A distant third is GHGs / climate change, and then the other issues that matter only if we stay alive.
It should be said that, whether these are really problems depends heavily on how animal agriculture is done.
In many cases animals graze on marginal land that can’t be used to grow human food directly. In these cases the alternative ways to get the same protein production could imply cutting down land in other countries to grow protein rich crops for humans.
Water use doesn’t have to be high. In the US it’s a product of industrialised animal agriculture, bad subsidies and free water rights that farmers are forced to use unless they want to use those rights.
Animals can convert food that humans can’t eat into food that we can eat. In some cases they eat the part of the plant that we don’t.
EU has prohibited all routine use of antibiotics in farming. Other countries should follow.
And there are upsides of animal agriculture as well. They are often a critical to do regenerative agriculture. In the best case they eat grass from land that we can’t grow stuff on, eat parts of the plants that we can’t eat ourselves, and give us high quality fertiliser that greatly improves soil quality. There’s a reason farm animals have been with us for millennia.
That said we should absolutely eliminate all heavily industrialised animal agriculture, which means we have to reduce meat consumption. It would be interesting to know how much meat we could eat if all meat production was sustainable.
In many cases animals graze on marginal land that can’t be used to grow human food directly. In these cases the alternative ways to get the same protein production could imply cutting down land in other countries to grow protein rich crops for humans.
Water use doesn’t have to be high. In the US it’s a product of industrialised animal agriculture, bad subsidies and free water rights that farmers are forced to use unless they want to use those rights.
Animals can convert food that humans can’t eat into food that we can eat. In some cases they eat the part of the plant that we don’t.
EU has prohibited all routine use of antibiotics in farming. Other countries should follow.
And there are upsides of animal agriculture as well. They are often a critical to do regenerative agriculture. In the best case they eat grass from land that we can’t grow stuff on, eat parts of the plants that we can’t eat ourselves, and give us high quality fertiliser that greatly improves soil quality. There’s a reason farm animals have been with us for millennia.
That said we should absolutely eliminate all heavily industrialised animal agriculture, which means we have to reduce meat consumption. It would be interesting to know how much meat we could eat if all meat production was sustainable.
> In many cases animals graze on marginal land that can’t be used to grow human food directly. In these cases the alternative ways to get the same protein production could imply cutting down land in other countries to grow protein rich crops for humans.
Just to make the implicit explicit: the current reality of meat production is feeding livestock with protein rich crops grown on cut down land in other countries. An alternative’s model scalability and economic viability has not been shown yet.
So the hope of such a thing existing in the future should probably not influence how you choose to nourished yourself today
Just to make the implicit explicit: the current reality of meat production is feeding livestock with protein rich crops grown on cut down land in other countries. An alternative’s model scalability and economic viability has not been shown yet.
So the hope of such a thing existing in the future should probably not influence how you choose to nourished yourself today
Agree broadly with what you're saying, especially ending industrial animal agriculture and reducing meat consumption.
As you implied, continuing current levels of meat consumption for 8 billion humans, even with regenerative techniques, will still result in substantial increases in land/water use and other negative impacts. We should be sceptical of regenerative grazing claims as well, as they are often pushed by the industry, without sufficient evidence.
I'm hesitant to say just because we've been farming animals for thousands of years is good justification for continuing it (at least at this scale on non-marginal lands). After all, it did lead directly to the problems we face today, as people clung on to traditional methods without thinking even as they migrated and new technologies/knowledge became available. For example, European colonists brought hard-hoofed cows, sheep, goats, horses, and deer to Australia, despite the country's native fauna all being soft-footed, leading to soil compaction and many resultant ecological issues. Now almost 50% of Australia's land surface area is used for red meat farming, and it is the leading cause of deforestation in many parts of the country.
On plant parts that humans can't eat, perhaps it's fine to let wild animals eat them, further improving biodiversity (after all we need a healthy biosphere of many species providing ecosystem services for long-term human survival), or we can compost or process into other products. I'd be looking into stock-free organic farming and precision fermentation as new promising approaches as well.
As you implied, continuing current levels of meat consumption for 8 billion humans, even with regenerative techniques, will still result in substantial increases in land/water use and other negative impacts. We should be sceptical of regenerative grazing claims as well, as they are often pushed by the industry, without sufficient evidence.
I'm hesitant to say just because we've been farming animals for thousands of years is good justification for continuing it (at least at this scale on non-marginal lands). After all, it did lead directly to the problems we face today, as people clung on to traditional methods without thinking even as they migrated and new technologies/knowledge became available. For example, European colonists brought hard-hoofed cows, sheep, goats, horses, and deer to Australia, despite the country's native fauna all being soft-footed, leading to soil compaction and many resultant ecological issues. Now almost 50% of Australia's land surface area is used for red meat farming, and it is the leading cause of deforestation in many parts of the country.
On plant parts that humans can't eat, perhaps it's fine to let wild animals eat them, further improving biodiversity (after all we need a healthy biosphere of many species providing ecosystem services for long-term human survival), or we can compost or process into other products. I'd be looking into stock-free organic farming and precision fermentation as new promising approaches as well.
Is the seaweed actually in use beyond some test farms or research herds?
Apparently it has been commercially available to cattle growers since 2022 but not sure on uptake https://www.future-feed.com/buy-asparagopsis
I wonder if "low carbon cattle" exists in the grocery stores. I'd actually pay a premium for this.
Thanks for that. However, I would agree with those against that labelling. "beef producers to market their meat as low-carbon. Producers who can prove that their cattle are raised in a way that emits 10 percent less greenhouse gases than an industry baseline"
10% is nothing.
10% is nothing.
Me as well. There is a lot of hype around 'regenerative' agriculture and livestock now as well, but one really needs to see detailed life cycle analyses to know the full footprint of a food choice
>meat consumption (or at least beef) may have to be phased out.
Subject to the realities of global politics, it's the habitability of the equator and the low incidence of tropical diseases in the Southern US that would have been phased out.
Subject to the realities of global politics, it's the habitability of the equator and the low incidence of tropical diseases in the Southern US that would have been phased out.
The Asparagopsis supplements I think you are referring to are arguably clever, but
> Before these were invented we were looking at a situation where meat consumption (or at least beef) may have to be phased out.
They haven't really changed the game, at least not yet. But assuming optimistically they can reduce cow methane emissions and downsides can be avoided [1], the magnitude of the reduction [2] probably will not make or break the continuation of the cattle industry.
[1] https://www.murdoch.edu.au/news/articles/seaweed-might-not-b... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/13/seaweed-...
> Before these were invented we were looking at a situation where meat consumption (or at least beef) may have to be phased out.
They haven't really changed the game, at least not yet. But assuming optimistically they can reduce cow methane emissions and downsides can be avoided [1], the magnitude of the reduction [2] probably will not make or break the continuation of the cattle industry.
[1] https://www.murdoch.edu.au/news/articles/seaweed-might-not-b... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/13/seaweed-...
or you just dont aitravel in one year and can eat meat for ten
The turtle will catch Zeno any day now. Those savings in decades are not in the same order than all the fossil carbon that was extracted each single year on them. In fact, neither is with how much we increased the extraction, for most of the single years of that period.
And I am talking about fossil carbon, something deeply buried for millions of years, and added to the cycle, not circulating differently the carbon that already was in it. Most of that new carbon was extracted in less than a century and burned, staying for a couple of centuries more.
And speaking of recycling carbon, it is not even in the order of carbon emitted by positive feedback loops, what is emitted by permafrost thawing, what was emitted just last year in Canada fires is all orders over the effort of decades.
There is a big elephant in the room. While it is there, all effort will be mostly meaningless.
And I am talking about fossil carbon, something deeply buried for millions of years, and added to the cycle, not circulating differently the carbon that already was in it. Most of that new carbon was extracted in less than a century and burned, staying for a couple of centuries more.
And speaking of recycling carbon, it is not even in the order of carbon emitted by positive feedback loops, what is emitted by permafrost thawing, what was emitted just last year in Canada fires is all orders over the effort of decades.
There is a big elephant in the room. While it is there, all effort will be mostly meaningless.
Let's have a look at France's emissions :
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/france
Somehow, from 1973 they went from 10t C02 per capita to 4.8 t per capita in 2022.
Their GDP at the same went from 264 Bn to ~2779 Bn
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/FRA/fra...
Whatever mysterious method of C02 reduction they used should be investigated.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/france
Somehow, from 1973 they went from 10t C02 per capita to 4.8 t per capita in 2022.
Their GDP at the same went from 264 Bn to ~2779 Bn
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/FRA/fra...
Whatever mysterious method of C02 reduction they used should be investigated.
> These figures reflect ‘production-based’ emissions, so do not correct for traded goods.
moving manufacturing overseas
moving manufacturing overseas
> moving manufacturing overseas
At least per the available data from 1990, France has lowered its consumption-based CO₂ emissions in absolute terms:
* https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-emissions...
And given the population has also risen since 1990:
* https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population?time=1990..lat...
even if total emissions had stayed the same, per capita numbers would have gone down.
The same if often said of the US, and it is not true either:
* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/no-the-us-didnt-outsource-our-...
At least per the available data from 1990, France has lowered its consumption-based CO₂ emissions in absolute terms:
* https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-emissions...
And given the population has also risen since 1990:
* https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population?time=1990..lat...
even if total emissions had stayed the same, per capita numbers would have gone down.
The same if often said of the US, and it is not true either:
* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/no-the-us-didnt-outsource-our-...
Anything that starts with "no..xyz" is always bullshit IMO written for an audience of morons.
This^^^
I'm tired of: "The EU doesn't emit as much as China does". Let's account for all the garbage we let China produce and then look at the numbers again.
I'm tired of: "The EU doesn't emit as much as China does". Let's account for all the garbage we let China produce and then look at the numbers again.
The great enemy of supply side environment regulation is simple arbitrage with overseas manufacturing to the lowest common denominator of controls
Which sadly is usually absolutely no controls
Which sadly is usually absolutely no controls
Everyone knows how environmentally friendly shipping everything 8000 miles is. Climate policy just makes stuff nicer for people who live in rich countries because the pollution is further away from their personal bubble.
Nuclear power.
Can't be everything. Electrical power is like 20-35% or so of total power used in most countries. I just checked some statistics of the Umweltbundesamt, the German ~environment protection office. The electrical fraction is suprisingly low! Though it's supposed to increase because most renewable energy production is electric.
My guess is nuclear energy, more efficient cars, better insulated houses, and less heavy industry.
My guess is nuclear energy, more efficient cars, better insulated houses, and less heavy industry.
You have the cause and effect backwards. German homes are electric heated at a rate of around 5%[1], French at around 30%[2] (page 7).
As electricity prices are lowered (e.g. by state investment in nuclear) various things that use fossil fuels will shift over to electric.
1. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/heating-40-millio...
2. https://heatpumpingtechnologies.org/annex46/wp-content/uploa...
3. https://strom-report.com/electricity-prices-europe/
As electricity prices are lowered (e.g. by state investment in nuclear) various things that use fossil fuels will shift over to electric.
1. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/heating-40-millio...
2. https://heatpumpingtechnologies.org/annex46/wp-content/uploa...
3. https://strom-report.com/electricity-prices-europe/
If you have a price competitive modular rapidly approved and scaled meltdown proof plant design that can be built in a couple years.
Unfortunately, that does not exist in nuclear power. As in, not a single one of those requirements is fulfilled by any commercial design.
Unfortunately, that does not exist in nuclear power. As in, not a single one of those requirements is fulfilled by any commercial design.
One of the interesting things demonstrated there is that you really don't want to be generating most of your electricity from imported oil during a global oil shock.
Too bad neither Europe nor the US seems capable of building reactors at reasonable cost. Even China which is building reactors the fastest is only projected to have nuclear account for single digit percentages of its electric consumption for decades.
Wasn’t there news not long ago that China has been building solar power (peak capacity) with an equivalent power of five nuclear power plants per week? Even accounting for much lower cumulative output, this is far more than they have in the pipeline for nuclear power.
China is building whatever energy sources it can. In amount it can. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-...
Most countries investing in nuclear do so in part to fund a domestic nuclear industry so that they can at least partly privatize the cost of a nuclear arms program. Nuclear is too expensive to be competitive without governmental support.
Germany saved approximately the same 5t/year/capita since then. It went from 14t in the late seventies to about 8t today. Carbon/GDP is pretty much the same for both countries since the mid 90s.
If you add UK, Germany and Denmark to the graph, they all look broadly similar, so I'm guessing "EU style regulations".
Nukes
Pure emissions measures that don't consider waste outputs seem to be woefully inadequate. Having study periods that end in 2020 seems designed to arrive at incorrect outcomes. And finally, leaving out ocean based emissions and total amount of waste and electronic waste generated by new schemes seems thoughtless.
If you're interested in how the authors did the analysis, the fun details – the data sources and analytic/econometric methods – are in the supplementary materials (link at end of article).
Ironically enough, I assume that if they hadn't managed to publish a higher-level article in Science, the actual paper (hypothetically published elsewhere) would have been the 116 (+/- epsilon) pages of detailed measures and methods, result displays, and sensitivity analyses/robustness checks.
If I read the article correctly, they systematically detect when emissions policies are adopted by looking at sudden increases/"breaks" in "stringency indices" of a country's emissions policies (within a particular industrial sector.) The machine learning comes in their automated procedure for identifying these breaks (which is well out of my expertise – my longitudinal analysis training is in good old fashioned multilevel modelling and structural equation modelling.) They then do the standard trick of using a binary before/after "treament" indicator variable. Once that is done, though, it looks like you can choose your method of choice for detecting significant changes in emissions pre-post intervention.
Ironically enough, I assume that if they hadn't managed to publish a higher-level article in Science, the actual paper (hypothetically published elsewhere) would have been the 116 (+/- epsilon) pages of detailed measures and methods, result displays, and sensitivity analyses/robustness checks.
If I read the article correctly, they systematically detect when emissions policies are adopted by looking at sudden increases/"breaks" in "stringency indices" of a country's emissions policies (within a particular industrial sector.) The machine learning comes in their automated procedure for identifying these breaks (which is well out of my expertise – my longitudinal analysis training is in good old fashioned multilevel modelling and structural equation modelling.) They then do the standard trick of using a binary before/after "treament" indicator variable. Once that is done, though, it looks like you can choose your method of choice for detecting significant changes in emissions pre-post intervention.
The article talks about successful interventions. It's problematic that the article doesn't put this in context: no specific events or policies are visible in the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere since records began. It's a smooth up-and-to-the-right line with slowly increasing acceleration.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Things you might intuitively expect to be visible but aren't:
• COVID lockdowns (i.e. aviation shutdown).
• Germany's phaseout of nuclear power and return to lignite.
• The collapse of the USSR.
• Any kind of global climate agreement.
• The explosion of cheap air travel.
• The enormous drop in solar/wind costs in the 2010s.
• Chinese adoption of capitalism and consequent industrialization in the 1990s.
If even global lockdowns had no impact on CO2 levels it's fair to say there are no actual or conceivable government policies that will be successful at reducing emissions any time soon. The authors of this paper aren't going to mention that though, otherwise examining 1500 different government policies might seem a bit pointless and the discussion would have to move to adaptation, which they don't like conceptually.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Things you might intuitively expect to be visible but aren't:
• COVID lockdowns (i.e. aviation shutdown).
• Germany's phaseout of nuclear power and return to lignite.
• The collapse of the USSR.
• Any kind of global climate agreement.
• The explosion of cheap air travel.
• The enormous drop in solar/wind costs in the 2010s.
• Chinese adoption of capitalism and consequent industrialization in the 1990s.
If even global lockdowns had no impact on CO2 levels it's fair to say there are no actual or conceivable government policies that will be successful at reducing emissions any time soon. The authors of this paper aren't going to mention that though, otherwise examining 1500 different government policies might seem a bit pointless and the discussion would have to move to adaptation, which they don't like conceptually.
My takeaways were
1. Developed and developing countries reacted differently to different incentives. This to me is just another point where “the invisible hand” only works in certain limited cases. Markets are identifiable measurable systems. Not magic
2. It’s a mix, it needs careful monitoring and good across the board policy and industrial involvement - yeah. We need good government and good private sector involvement. So there goes the paddle just as we enter the brown looking creek …
3. Loving the graphics - Inwish Incoukd do that with matplotlib
1. Developed and developing countries reacted differently to different incentives. This to me is just another point where “the invisible hand” only works in certain limited cases. Markets are identifiable measurable systems. Not magic
2. It’s a mix, it needs careful monitoring and good across the board policy and industrial involvement - yeah. We need good government and good private sector involvement. So there goes the paddle just as we enter the brown looking creek …
3. Loving the graphics - Inwish Incoukd do that with matplotlib
'This to me is just another point where “the invisible hand” only works in certain limited cases.'
There's a certain amount of irony and despair when referring to the invisible hand of a free market in the context of government and ngo interference therein...
There's a certain amount of irony and despair when referring to the invisible hand of a free market in the context of government and ngo interference therein...
Do you mean “The Invisible Man”?
1) standards
2) subsidies
3) financing
All three which I would argue we are woefully behind on in the US for EVs and solar.
There should be a ten year subsidy on new cars in the range of 10000$ that decreases 10% per year if they are EVs or PHEVs with 40 mile all electric ranges.
There should be a tax on new ice cars that increases by 4% of the retail car cost every year.
Of course we should have a similar increasing tax on gasoline, but that is more regressive.
2) subsidies
3) financing
All three which I would argue we are woefully behind on in the US for EVs and solar.
There should be a ten year subsidy on new cars in the range of 10000$ that decreases 10% per year if they are EVs or PHEVs with 40 mile all electric ranges.
There should be a tax on new ice cars that increases by 4% of the retail car cost every year.
Of course we should have a similar increasing tax on gasoline, but that is more regressive.
what do you most pollutions come from ?
power generation ? use nuclear & solar.
ships ? use manufacturing that's close to usage centers. not everything needs to be made in china.
wars - too profitable / jobs program. maybe reduce size of gvt
power generation ? use nuclear & solar.
ships ? use manufacturing that's close to usage centers. not everything needs to be made in china.
wars - too profitable / jobs program. maybe reduce size of gvt
Here’s the lead: taxation. Imagine that. People avoid pain more than gain pleasure, and people are sensitive to their wallets.
“By contrast, taxation is a notable exception in effectively causing large emission breaks alone. It stands out as the only policy instrument that achieves near equal or larger effect size as a stand-alone policy across all sectors.“
“By contrast, taxation is a notable exception in effectively causing large emission breaks alone. It stands out as the only policy instrument that achieves near equal or larger effect size as a stand-alone policy across all sectors.“
[deleted]
aresant(1)
Did anyone get the short list in a clear format? That article was the most handwavy, avoid the point, whitepaper I've read in a long time.
I found it highly accessible and to the point.
Courtesy ChatGPT when asked to summarize the final paragraph before the discussion:
## Developed Countries
• Transport Sector:
• Pricing: Most successful individually (20%)
Subsidies: Highly effective when combined with pricing (33%).
• Electricity Sector:
• Pricing: Most effective when used alone (43%).
• Subsidies: Can be a valuable complement to other policies.
• Buildings Sector:
• Subsidies: Slightly dominant, effective both individually and in combinations.
• Variety of Instruments: Broad set of policies can be similarly effective.
## Developing Countries
• Transport Sector:
• Regulation: Most powerful as a stand-alone policy (33%) and in combination with subsidies, pricing, and information (33% each).
• Electricity Sector:
• Subsidies: Most powerful as a stand-alone policy (67%).
• Complementarities: No effective policy combinations detected.
• Industry Sector:
• Pricing: Shows the most synergy with other policies (50%).
• Subsidies: Effective complement in policy mixes.
• Buildings Sector:
• Regulation: Most effective as a stand-alone policy.
• Variety of Instruments: Broad set of policies can be effective, with a slight emphasis on regulation.
## Developed Countries
• Transport Sector:
• Pricing: Most successful individually (20%)
Subsidies: Highly effective when combined with pricing (33%).
• Electricity Sector:
• Regulation: Most effective as a stand-alone policy (33%).
• Pricing: A key component in successful policy mixes (50%).
• Subsidies: Not effective as a stand-alone policy.
• Pricing: Most effective when used alone (43%).
• Subsidies: Can be a valuable complement to other policies.
• Buildings Sector:
• Subsidies: Slightly dominant, effective both individually and in combinations.
• Variety of Instruments: Broad set of policies can be similarly effective.
## Developing Countries
• Transport Sector:
• Regulation: Most powerful as a stand-alone policy (33%) and in combination with subsidies, pricing, and information (33% each).
• Electricity Sector:
• Subsidies: Most powerful as a stand-alone policy (67%).
• Complementarities: No effective policy combinations detected.
• Industry Sector:
• Pricing: Shows the most synergy with other policies (50%).
• Subsidies: Effective complement in policy mixes.
• Buildings Sector:
• Regulation: Most effective as a stand-alone policy.
• Variety of Instruments: Broad set of policies can be effective, with a slight emphasis on regulation.
So I recently learned about the logarithmic saturation phenomena for CO2, as well as the impact on significantly increased food supply with increased CO2 levels.
Are there any studies that prove these policy interventions will have any practical benefit going forward?
Are there any studies that prove these policy interventions will have any practical benefit going forward?
The rapid development of battery technology must be a close second. I remember as a kid in the 1990s it was difficult to get good rechargeable batteries to power a RC toy car. They were often huge battery packs that would over heat, last a few minutes per charge and takes ages to power up. Now we have people carrying cars driving hundreds of kilometres on quick charging batteries.