The Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO) explains in a recent publication to a wider audience the difference between the short and long carbon cycle. For the long - 'wrong' - cycle RVO used the image of a cow. But it's not right.
Because the burning of wood is faster than the growth, the use of biomass is now controversial. In principle, however, it does belong to the short cycle: carbon is burned and reabsorbed into the growth of new crops. That is why RVO placed biomass in the short - good - cycle. For the long - 'wrong' - cycle RVO used the image of a cow. But it's not right.
Use carbon in circulation
According to RVO, agriculture, illustrated by the cow, falls under the long cycle. At that time this long discussion on Foodlog may not have fully arrived in society yet. It states that agriculture uses CO2 from the atmosphere to grow plants. In other words, agriculture does not use carbon that was stored long ago in the form of oil or gas, but uses the carbon that is already in circulation and cannot be a cause of climate change. Not for nothing Microsoft is offsetting its carbon emissions with cow farmers' grass production† That company is not stupid and knows very well where Abraham gets the carbon credits.
Meanwhile, RVO . has taken note of criticism and the service will adjust the explanation. According to RVO, it was not entirely wrong, because, for example, making fertilizer for agriculture uses a lot of fossil energy. That's right, of course. But you don't put fertilizer in a cow. The animal eats plant material that needs additional fertilizers, because we humans want to be able to eat more than nature itself can supply. That and not the cow is the reason that more carbon comes into circulation through agriculture.
Plant is said to be 'good'
It's not the cow, it's the plant. In the simplified scheme, this could have been a better symbol for the 'wrong' long cycle. But nobody would have understood that, because eating plants is said to be 'good'. Don't think the cow is sacred again, because she can better make room for pigs and chickens† The large beast eats grass in places where it is better not to.
Does food have a major impact on CO02 emissions? Yes, for example, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) said in 2017† That was also before agriculture was seen as a user of C02 that is in circulation and when everything drove and did a little less economically. The share of emissions in the world's richest and overly animal protein-eating economy was then calculated at 13,6% of the country's total emissions. With changes in the diet - if we want to take climate and the environment seriously - these emissions can be reduced by no less than three quarters.
Dent in the package of climate butter
Milieucentrum already let it go years ago We see that limiting emissions by changing food production and adapting our eating behavior only makes a limited contribution to less climate change. The really limiting dent in the package of climate butter must mainly come from the reduction of our travel and transport behaviour. That leaves this one clear graphics showed clearly. Even though the agriculture hopelessly inefficient in terms of energy use and yield, it ruins the climate less than other sectors of the economy.
The above shows that the complexity of agriculture is not easy to capture and that even professionals have started to look cross-eyed. But - because that is clear - if agriculture does not play as large a part in climate change as the public and even policy makers have come to think, then it is apparently time to look in the mirror: why are we giving this 'wrong' agriculture Why don't you just want to blame climate change?
This article is part of the content collaboration between Boerenbusiness en foodlog.
© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.
