One major flaw of environmental footprint calculators is something we need to be aware of

Are you among the growing number of people trying to reduce the environmental damage caused by the production of the food we eat? You might consider the “environmental footprint” method when deciding what product to buy.

Environmental footprintsThe environmental damage caused by a product during its lifetime is measured. For food, this includes the effects of growing crops and livestock and the manufacturing of the inputs like fertilisers. It can also include transport and packaging.

Unfortunately, environmental footprints don’t always tell the whole story. Consumers will switch to a food that is more environmentally friendly. Its production can increase at the expense of other foods. This can have consequences that environmental footprints do not consider.

These calculators can be a promise that they will help consumers live a more sustainable life. They may encourage people to make choices that do not benefit the environment.

A problem assumption

We are experts at assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of climate change mitigation for agricultural system. We provide regular policy advice to governments and other organizations, including the United Nations.

International guidelines guide the design of calculators for environmental footprint. Organisations that promote standardsPolicymakers, including the European Union. This tool is often found on the websites and blogs of environmental groups, government agencies, businesses, and other organizations.

Calculators are designed to help consumers make informed choices by assessing the environmental impacts of current production. This is a problem.

This assumes that the product’s footprint will remain constant no matter how production is increased or decreased. However, this is often not true. The demand for a product can change, which can have knock-on effects on the environment. It could lead to more land being needed, or the use of river water to irrigate different crops.

Below we will examine three possible ways that environmental footprints may mislead us about a product’s true impacts.

1. Land use

The largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions is agriculture. This is primarily due to animal belches, but also because of the production and use synthetic fertilisers.

Organic farming can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in part because it does not use synthetic fertiliser. Some research suggests that organic farming may increase greenhouse gas emissions.

One StudyEngland and Wales compared what would happen if all food production were converted to organic. It was discovered that global greenhouse gas emissions from food production could rise by approximately 12%. About 60%.

This was due to organic systems producing lower yields. Therefore, more livestock and crop production would be required overseas to make up the difference. This would require the clearing of vegetation, which releases carbon dioxide as it decays.

When grasslands are converted into cropland, soil organic matter is also lost. However, organic farming can help offset a small portion of the higher international emissions.

It is important to take into account the effects of switching from one food type to another when deciding on the best agricultural land.

Australia is home to 325 million hectares. raise cattleTo produce red meat. This land is often used to produce red meat. Can’t be usedIt’s difficult to grow crops if it’s too steep, dry, vegetated, or rocky.

Consumers will switch to plant-based diets if they stop eating red meat. This would require more land in Australia and overseas to grow crops to produce alternative proteins like legumes and plant-based meals.

Australia’s existing arable land is being used to supply crops to both domestic and international markets. The new land would need to either be cleared of trees or grazed. You could also increase crop production by using more fertiliser and other inputs.

These emissions are not included in the carbon footprints of plant-based proteins production.

2. Water

It’s often called “The Common Sense of the Word”. AssumedA product that has a smaller footprint can help to replenish the environment and increase water flow in rivers. In Australia, however, water use is determined by policy and markets.

It is possible to trade irrigation water between users. The farmer can either trade the water with another farmer or use it to grow another water-intensive crop, such as rice. In this scenario, water is not returned to the environment.

The same goes for a decrease in red meat production. However, this does not necessarily mean that water for the environment will be more plentiful.

Farmers whose land borders a stream or other water body can be considered farmers It is allowed to takeWater for livestock to drink. A smaller number of livestock would mean more water in rivers. ResearchAustralia suggests that this water would be extracted for domestic use, especially in dry years.

3. Products that are made together

Many agricultural products can be combined with other products. A cow that is slaughtered for red meat can also produce hide, meat meal, and tallow. A sheep can also produce wool while alive and other products when it is slaughtered.

Consumers could also avoid red meat due to its high carbon emissions. This would have negative environmental effects.

Demand for oil will likely rise if synthetic materials replace wool and hides. Cropland demand will also increase if wool is replaced by biobased products like hemp and cotton.

As a way of reducing livestock emissions, increasing milk production per cow and keeping fewer cows has been considered. But ResearchIt may not achieve the desired result.

A smaller number of cows would result in fewer calves which are used to make veal. Research showed that less veal would mean more red meat must be produced elsewhere, which would result in no overall reduction of emissions.

It is possible to assume that there will be more red meat. While beef consumption per capita is decreasing in some countries, it is still rising in others. Western countriesGlobal beef demand is expected to rise. 2030As wealth in developing countries rises, so does the global population.

For a healthier planet

We and other experts are constantly trying to Sensitize the publicYou can find the SimplicityNature is the source of our environmental footprints.

It is important that we recognize the limitations of our current methods and develop tools that fully assess the consequences for consumers’ decisions.

These tools will be developed. challengingBecause of the many uncertainties involved, it will require significant research investment.

It will result in a better environmental policy, fewer unintended effects, and a healthier planet.

This article has been republished from The ConversationUnder a Creative Commons License Read the Original article.