Fig 1.
2050 food system technologies targeting gross GHG emissions reductions (top) and gross carbon dioxide removal (CDR; bottom). Note the range difference on the y-axis. Rates of adoption are based on global capacity in year 2050 under a ‘business as usual’ scenario. Larger bars indicate greater reductions of greenhouse gases expressed as CO2eq. ‘All technologies’ include the additive effects of each technology at a given level of adoption. Yield gaps are closed, BAU caloric consumption. Values provided in Supplemental Material (Table A and Table B in S1 Text).
Fig 2.
Net food sector GHG emissions from technology adoption scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% adoption) across global dietary transitions from business as usual (top) to 50% (middle) to 100% flexitarian adoption (bottom) with (right) and without (left) reductions in food loss and waste in 2050. All scenarios assume full closure of yield gaps by 2050. Technological adoption rate is based on the global additive effects of all technologies in Fig 1. BAU caloric consumption. Values provided in Supplemental Material (Table C in S1 Text).
Fig 3.
The option space for net GHG emissions from the 2050 food system.
Shaded regions represent net GHG emissions. The isoclines track the shaded regions in increments of 10 billion tons of CO2eq/yr. All scenarios assume closed yield gaps by 2050 and a halving of food loss and waste. Values provided in Supplemental Material (Table D in S1 Text).
Fig 4.
Climate change mitigation potential per capita (tonnes CO2eq/yr) of simultaneously closing yield gaps, halving food loss and waste, transitioning halfway to a flexitarian diet, and implementing all technologies at 50% of their potential adoption rate.
Emissions benefits do not include carbon dioxide removal on pasturelands or in oceans because these are treated as global goods in our model. The map was created in R version 3.6.0. The base layer of the map is the TM-World Borders 3.0 shape file, which is available at https://thematicmapping.org/downloads/world_borders.php. The licensing on the map is CC-BY 3.0 –SA. Values provided in Supplemental Material (Table E in S1 Text).
Fig 5.
Estimated country-level climate change mitigation potential (million tonnes CO2eq/yr) of simultaneously closing yield gaps, halving food loss and waste, transitioning halfway to a flexitarian diet, and implementing all technologies at 50% of their potential adoption rate.
Emissions benefits do not include carbon dioxide removal on pasturelands or in oceans because these are treated as global goods in our model. The map was created in R version 3.6.0. The base layer of the map is the TM-World Borders 3.0 shape file, which is available at https://thematicmapping.org/downloads/world_borders.php. The licensing on the map is CC-BY 3.0 –SA. Values provided in Supplemental Material (Table E in S1 Text).
Table 1.
Brief definitions of the 11 technologies explored in this analysis, and whether they are emission reduction or carbon dioxide removal technologies.
Biochar is listed twice as it was applied in the model as a technology that reduces nitrous oxide emissions and also increases soil carbon. Enteric fermentation is listed twice as we considered two different improved feed technologies for grass and grain fed livestock.
Table 2.
Emission reduction technology land use applications, emissions form, mean emissions reductions (%) and source used in food system model.
Table 3.
Carbon sequestration technology land use applications, mean carbon sequestration (tonnes CO2/ha) and source used in food system model.
Table 4.
Adoption rate scenario (technology, dietary change, and food loss and waste reduction global adoption rate) data generated (gross or net GHG benefit), and assumptions (caloric consumption, yield gaps) organized by figure.
BAU stands for business-as-usual, ER stands for emissions reduction, CDR stands for carbon dioxide removal, and GHG stands for greenhouse gas.