Oregon’s land use planning program has protected an estimated 1.2 million acres of forest and agricultural land from development since its inception in 1973. As a result, these resource lands continue to provide forest products and food as well as another unexpected benefit: carbon storage. By keeping forests as forests, land use planning capitalizes on the natural landscape’s ability to sequester atmospheric carbon, a key contributor to climate change. Nationwide, however, forest land is the land type most frequently converted to more developed uses. When this happens, carbon storage opportunities are lost, and the new use, such as a housing development, often becomes a net carbon producer.
Scientists from the Pacific Northwest Research Station and Oregon Department of Forestry quantified the carbon storage maintained by the land use planning program in western Oregon. They found these gains were equivalent to avoiding 1.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually—the amount of carbon that would have been emitted by 395,000 cars in a year. Had the 1.7 million metric tons of stored carbon been released through development, Oregon’s annual increase in CO2 emissions between 1990 and 2000 would have been three times what it actually was. As policymakers look for ways to mitigate climate change, land use planning is a proven tool with measurable results.
Located in
Resources
/
Climate Science Documents
Livestock production impacts air and water quality, ocean health, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on regional to global scales and it is the largest use of land globally. Quantifying the environ- mental impacts of the various livestock categories, mostly arising from feed production, is thus a grand challenge of sustainability science. Here, we quantify land, irrigation water, and reactive nitrogen (Nr) impacts due to feed production, and recast published full life cycle GHG emission estimates, for each of the major animal- based categories in the US diet. Our calculations reveal that the environmental costs per consumed calorie of dairy, poultry, pork, and eggs are mutually comparable (to within a factor of 2), but strikingly lower than the impacts of beef. Beef production requires 28, 11, 5, and 6 times more land, irrigation water, GHG, and Nr, respectively, than the average of the other livestock categories. Preliminary analysis of three staple plant foods shows two- to sixfold lower land, GHG, and Nr requirements than those of the nonbeef animal-derived calories, whereas irrigation requirements are comparable. Our analysis is based on the best data currently available, but follow-up studies are necessary to improve parameter estimates and fill remaining knowledge gaps. Data imperfections notwithstanding, the key conclusion—that beef production demands about 1 order of magnitude more resources than alternative livestock categories—is robust under existing uncertainties. The study thus elu- cidates the multiple environmental benefits of potential, easy-to- implement dietary changes, and highlights the uniquely high re- source demands of beef.
food impact | foodprint | geophysics of agriculture | multimetric analysis
Located in
Resources
/
Climate Science Documents
