Seamus Murphy: Exploring net zero and agriculture
Seamus Murphy operating a drone.
Although net zero is generally an economy wide target, there is a common misconception that every business or sector must reach net zero individually, when in reality it is a broader societal target. In agriculture, it seems, this misunderstanding is deeply ingrained.
In light of the recent publication of the Climate Change Committee's (CCC) Seventh Carbon budget, two questions have resurfaced in my mind: is net zero in agriculture in the UK possible by 2050 and is it ultimately necessary to meet our climate goals? These are questions I have mulled over for nearly a decade working as a sustainability consultant at SAC Consulting, working in the food and drink sector.
The CCC’s most recent Carbon budget has outlined what the UK needs to do to achieve net zero by 2050 across every sector of the economy. Much of the requirements are around electrification of transport and energy through increased renewable capacity, driving the electrification of transport, and switching from gas boilers to heat pumps alongside hydrogen and other fossil fuel alternatives. The transitions of transport and energy is truly essential given that, in 2022, it was estimated that 80% of the UK’s emissions were derived from direct CO2 emissions. These were predominantly from the burning of fossil fuels but also included natural sources such as degraded peatlands.
For agriculture, the focus is predominantly on methane and nitrous oxide emissions, as agriculture is one of the greatest contributors of these greenhouse gases in the UK. Agriculture must reduce its emissions of methane and nitrous oxide to reduce our contribution to the climate crisis and to lead the way globally towards a lower carbon agricultural industry.
Can we balance emissions and removals in agriculture and land use?
The CCC combine agriculture and land-use to describe a pathway to net zero including emissions reductions and land related sequestration and has described ways in which this could be achieved by 2050. This combined view therefore includes peatland emissions and woodland sequestration in the same sector as agriculture. It has put forward measures to improve the efficiency of agricultural livestock and the sustainable use of soils alongside the decarbonisation of machinery which would see a reduction in agricultural emissions of 35% and peatland restoration, reducing the total emissions from land use by a further 17% by 2040. This is a more than 50% emissions reduction in 15 years, alongside increased woodland planting to deliver another 15% of removals by 2050.
However, by far the greatest impact will come from two linked measures: a reduction in meat consumption and conversely a reduction in livestock numbers. It is estimated that a 35% reduction in meat and 20% reduction in dairy consumption resulting in a 38% reduction in cattle and sheep numbers required to achieve net zero. It is on this point that the possible becomes improbable in my opinion.
Consumption of red meat and dairy in the UK has been steadily reducing in the past few decades and since the cost-of-living crisis there has been a considerable steep reduction in red meat consumption. However, overall, the existing trends in reduced consumption do not align with the required reductions under the CCC’s pathway. Similarly, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have estimated that global meat and dairy consumption is set to increase considerably through to 2033. In parallel with reduced consumption of red meat and dairy, there have been steady reductions in the numbers of livestock in the UK since the 1990s and this is likely to continue regardless of additional pressure from Government.
It is clear the consequences of a Government policy that sets out to accelerate or exacerbate a reduction in livestock numbers for the purpose of achieving a net-zero agricultural industry could be hugely detrimental to many farm businesses and increase the hostility in agriculture towards climate and nature policy.
If we are being truly honest, if current trends continue, a day of reckoning may come (or is already here) for some farm businesses as multiple pressure points converge making agriculture a difficult industry to make a living in. As such, Government policy should not seek to exacerbate the situation without a clear plan for a Just Transition. This is highlighted by the CCC’s citizen panel but not expanded upon. Policy focused on supporting improved efficiency and productivity alongside a more holistic approach to agricultural production which considers nature and climate at its core, would deliver a significant contribution to the UK’s climate ambitions without damaging farm businesses and, crucially, could maintain the trust of rural communities. At the end of the day, if we are going to restore nature and effectively tackle the climate crisis, we need the 209,000 farms managing around 70% of the UK land area on our side.
What contribution to net zero is necessary in agriculture?
I recently carried out some work for a farmer where I produced a pathway to emissions reduction over the next ten years. I modelled different scenarios where the farm applied different management changes that would likely improve efficiency and therefore reduce the carbon intensity of the product they produce. With little additional operating costs and no significant capital costs, we predicted the farm could reduce the emissions per tonne of product sold by 25% of their current emissions by 2035. I enthusiastically presented this to the farmer and in return received a disappointed sigh, followed by the plea: ‘So how am I going to achieve net zero?’.
Net zero is a term that has come to dominate corporate sustainability conversations and Government climate policy. Net zero is a target that countries (and sometimes individual companies) set to try to achieve a balance of emissions reduction and emissions removals which results in zero additional emissions associated with a company’s operations or country’s production. Net zero targets are the anchor point to which decarbonising the global economy is tied to. It is seen as an essential journey we must go on to limit the catastrophic impacts of climate change.
However, individual farm business should not be concerned about achieving net zero for their business. The term net zero, and the great concern that some farmers have around achieving net zero, is – in my opinion – resulting in an ‘analysis paralysis’ for those who are engaged. They are spending too much time trying to work out how they will achieve net zero as opposed to focusing on actions that will reduce emissions, and complete disinterest or, worse, active denial from those who are not engaged. This to me is one of the greatest failings of the net zero approach in agriculture and food and drink.
In most industries, a net zero target is an invaluable tool to help companies and governments understand, reduce and be accountable for their contribution to the climate crisis. However, agriculture is not like other industries when we are considering its GHG emissions. The emissions associated with transport, for example, are predominantly from the burning of fossil fuels directly producing carbon dioxide which is contributing to warming the planet. The proposed solution has broadly been the roll-out of electric cars and alternative fuels such as hydrogen for larger vehicles. This solution is difficult and will require significant investment in infrastructure and increased renewable capacity to deal with the additional electricity demand etc. It is by no means an easy journey for the transport sector, but there is an existing solution that could – and likely will – one day remove GHGs from transport entirely. This is true for many of the big-emitting industries.
In agriculture, as things stand, there is no such ‘off-the-shelf’ solution. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture are our biggest emitters and are the result of the biological processes within livestock, which produces methane, or soil biological processes producing nitrous oxide. If we accept that we are going to continue to farm livestock and grow crops utilising nitrogen (organic or inorganic forms), we must accept that there will be residual emissions associated with that production process. There are some within the agricultural industry which claim the biological process within agriculture that produce most of our emissions are ‘natural’ and therefore should not count, however, there is nothing natural about our manipulation of the environment to produce food through agriculture, and as such we should not try to use this as a get-out-of-jail-free card. However, perhaps a different approach or perspective is required at a corporate and government policy level when considering agricultural emissions.
As humans we heavily influence the scale and make-up of emissions from agriculture and therefore it is right that farmers should be responsible for limiting those emissions as much as possible. However, in my opinion expecting and insisting on net zero from agriculture serves only in the alienation of farmers who, broadly speaking, would agree with many of the efficiency improvements required to reduce emissions. If the focus of climate policy was purely on efficiencies, getting more product for every pound invested in the farm business, embracing technology and optimising nature restoration where it is right to do so, I am sure that most farmers would buy in and soon forget about the fraught phrase ‘net zero’.
In 2022 agriculture contributed 12% of the UKs overall emission. The CCC estimated by 2040, under low carbon ag measures, that could be reduced to 7.8% by 2040. If all other industries achieve their net zero targets and agriculture achieves that 7.8%, I am confident we would look back on that as a huge achievement for the industry. To achieve this a shift in mindset and opposition to climate and environmental-related issues is needed in agriculture, this could come from more realistic achievable targets for the industry that farmers can buy into.
The CCC has delivered an incredibly detailed report that highlights how we as a society and a government should tackle the climate crisis. However, It is difficult to fairly compare industries where most emissions are from the burning of fossil fuels with an industry where the bulk of emissions are biogenic. Agriculture can only achieve net zero by relying heavily on removals, while other industries can reduce most of their emissions while having limited need for removals. Perhaps a new approach should be taken that identifies an acceptable level of biogenic emissions for agriculture. This approach should still set ambitious targets for emissions reductions in the agricultural sector and this article is certainly not calling for an easing of pressure on agriculture to reduce emissions. On the contrary, this article is intended to focus farmers and the wider food and drink industry on what they can control - a shift to farming in a more efficient, more productive, low-carbon way.
To find out more contact Seamus.Murphy@sac.co.uk.
Posted by Seamus Murphy, SAC Consulting on 21/03/2025
