The European elections this year and the subsequent formation of a new EU Commission will also decide the fate of the European Green Deal – an excellent opportunity to take stock. The scientific community has just done this, and lo and behold, the EU legislation on Europe’s path to net zero by 2050 has some gaps, writes Lukas Scheid. One thing is also clear: Everything has to happen faster.
The issue is still somewhat deadlocked in Germany following the farmers’ protests and the current Green Week. In our interview, Agriculture Minister Özdemir explains how agriculture ministers around the world plan to deal with the issue. And in a pro and con debate, a biodiversity expert and a Bayer executive discuss how agriculture in Africa can react to the climate crisis.
How time flies by when you’re having fun at work is something the Climate.Table editorial team has also realized: Because next week, we’ll be publishing our 100th issue! We’ll celebrate a little and then get to work on the next 1,000 issues.
The efforts of the EU member states to achieve their ambitious climate targets have not yet been sufficient. This is not only revealed by the inadequate national energy and climate plans of the EU member states (NECP), which show gaping holes, particularly in measures against transport and building emissions, to achieve the 2030 targets. Now, the European Science Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC) has also criticized shortcomings in existing and planned legislation relating to the EU’s climate neutrality targets for 2050.
To achieve the EU’s climate targets, greater efforts are needed in all sectors, particularly in the areas of buildings, transport, agriculture and forestry, according to the report published on Thursday. “To stay on track, we need to ensure that today’s measures are in line with our long-term goals and prepare for even greater reductions after 2030″, analyzes the Chairman of the Advisory Board and environmental economist Ottmar Edenhofer.
Specifically, the committee makes 13 key recommendations, both short-term and long-term. Among them are:
For economist Edenhofer, the expansion and further revision of European CO2 pricing in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) plays a crucial role. A comprehensive system for CO2 pricing would also leave fewer loopholes for the unsustainable excessive use of biomass, for example, he explains. In addition to the agricultural and land use sector, the ETS must also be expanded to include so-called diffuse emissions from the use of fossil fuels. Extending the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to fossil fuel imports would also provide incentives for more climate protection abroad and open up revenue opportunities for the EU.
Edenhofer also emphasizes that compensation measures are urgently needed for the increased cost of living due to rising CO2 prices, especially if extended to the agricultural sector. A just and fair transition is necessary to maintain public support for climate protection measures. To ensure that people on low incomes are not burdened more, revenue from carbon pricing must be used to make low-emission alternatives affordable, the report states – in other words, a kind of climate fund. The scientists also call for revenues from the CBAM to be explicitly reserved for climate protection measures.
The Social Climate Fund, which is fed by revenue from ETS 2, is already an instrument for cushioning price increases in the transport and building sectors. However, it is still completely unclear whether the resources are even sufficient for the fund’s current targets (around €87 billion) – let alone if the ETS is expanded. The researchers see a need for rapid clarification here.
The role of technological CO₂ removal and its storage or use must also be clarified quickly, writes the expert panel. Until 2050, CCU/CCS will only play a limited role in the energy supply, as the technologies are less efficient than renewable energies and pose higher risks. An EU definition for unavoidable residual emissions, for example, from the agricultural sector or industry, for which CO₂ capture is necessary, is therefore needed as soon as possible.
At the beginning of February, the EU Commission presented its proposal for the EU’s 2040 climate target and a strategy for dealing with industrial emissions to close the legal loopholes for CCS. A draft of this industrial carbon management strategy available to Table.Media shows that the EU must capture at least 50 million tons of CO₂ per year by 2030 and up to 450 million tons by 2050 in order to be climate-neutral by 2050.
Creating a “cross-border, freely accessible CO2 transport network” is intended to create an internal market for captured carbon, which will then either be stored underground or processed industrially. The details of the necessary investment sums and pipeline kilometers are still open in the draft.
The EU is planning to use the Net Zero Industry Act to store 50 million tons of CO2 underground annually from 2030. According to the draft, however, the Commission apparently expects to be able to capture 80 million tons of CO2 annually. To this end, it plans to provide additional economic incentives for identifying and constructing further storage capacities.
This could be done by either integrating CO2 removal credits into the ETS or by creating a separate trading mechanism that would be directly or indirectly linked to the ETS. Finally, the draft strategy states that at least 200 million tons of CO2 should be stored annually by 2040.
After the election victory of China-critical William Lai of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Taiwan is likely to continue its current energy and climate policy path. The DPP, which has governed the country for eight years, intends to expand green energy significantly. After all, dependence on foreign countries in this area is high and problematic. However, after the DPP lost the majority in parliament, governing is set to become more difficult.
Fossil energy is Taiwan’s Achilles heel. Imports cover more than 97 percent of its energy demand. More than 80 percent of its electricity comes from fossil fuels. The crux of the matter: The island is forced to import its coal, oil and gas by sea via the Taiwan Strait. Experts agree that this makes it particularly susceptible to disruptions.
In 2022, Taiwan imported 63.6 million tons of coal, mainly from Australia and Indonesia. According to the statistical annual handbook, considerable quantities of coal and gas also come from Russia – a country that would probably side with China in the event of an acute crisis and possible blockade. The People’s Republic regards the island off its southern coast as a breakaway province that must be reunited with the mainland – with military intervention if necessary.
Even China’s naval exercises around Taiwan “can functionally compromise or cut off Taiwan’s supply lines for a limited period,” writes Eugene Chausovsky, analyst at the US think tank New Lines Institute, in Foreign Policy magazine. Even a temporary blockade of the Taiwan Strait could be devastating for the island, Chausovsky writes. The Energy Authority, part of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, has calculated that current natural gas reserves only last for eleven days and coal for 39 days. For oil, it is 146 days.
The country’s growing hunger for energy is likely to exacerbate the situation. The important chip industry is already complaining about blackouts. The largest semiconductor company TSMC alone accounts for more than six percent of the country’s total energy consumption.
The government in Taipei has recognized its dependence on fossil fuels and the geopolitical threat it poses. But green power alone is hardly enough. The expansion of solar and wind power is behind schedule. The share of renewables in the electricity mix was actually supposed to increase to 20 percent by 2025. However, according to a Ministry of Economic Affairs report, renewables are only expected to generate around 15 percent of electricity by then. Only 8.9 percent had been achieved by the end of 2023.
There are many reasons for the slow energy transition. Sites for wind turbines or solar plants are disputed. Sometimes, the obstacles are concerns from fishers or the environmental risks of offshore wind turbines. On land, conflicts over agricultural land usually prevent ground-mounted photovoltaics. In one case, it was the territorial claims of indigenous people who had not been consulted before the start of the project.
According to energy consultant Raoul Kubitschek at engineering firm Niras, the transition faces further hurdles: “Too low electricity prices and poorly insulated, heavily air-conditioned housing.” Some foreign investors also see the danger of a possible Chinese attack.
Kubitschek heads Niras’ Taipei office, which helps foreign energy companies invest in Taiwan. “100 percent renewables are unrealistic under Taiwan’s conditions,” he says. “Taiwan has very good wind conditions due to the Taiwan Strait. Currently, 5.5 gigawatts have already been approved by 2025.” However, onshore and offshore wind and solar power alone will not be enough to meet demand. “It’s about establishing a basic supply. That means gas-fired power plants must continue to be used.”
The semiconductor industry calls for the use of nuclear power. The phase-out by 2025 is definite. Nuclear energy still accounts for 6.3 percent of electricity generation. The more pro-China national party, KMT, campaigned for the construction of new nuclear power plants to cover the country’s energy demand.
The ruling party, DPP, on the other hand, rejects this. They say that fuel rods would also have to be imported. This would not help Taiwan’s independent energy supply. And the issue of final storage is also unresolved in Taiwan. Kubitschek believes that the nuclear phase-out cannot be reversed anyway. Provincial politicians would refuse the construction of new nuclear power plants.
All that remains is for Taiwan to invest all its efforts in renewables. After all, the economy is also coming under increasing indirect pressure. At China’s insistence, Taiwan is not part of international climate treaties as it is not recognized as a separate state in the UN. However, Western companies want their supply chains to be supplied with green electricity. Apple calls on its suppliers to be climate-neutral by 2030. As a key chip customer, the company is undoubtedly raising the industry’s need for transformation, says Kubitschek.
Kubitschek hopes Taiwan will “learn from mistakes,” such as in past tenders. There is a lot of potential in grid expansion, as well as in the offshore wind sector, he says.
The research for this article was conducted as part of a press trip to Taiwan by Journalist Network e.V.
Mr. Özdemir, your ministry is inviting international agricultural policy-makers to the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture (GFFA) in Berlin this week. Over the last 30 years, agricultural losses caused by droughts and floods have increased to 3.8 trillion dollars. How much awareness is there that climate change renders the global food supply insecure?
One in ten people worldwide suffers from hunger – an alarming figure. In the 2030 Agenda, the international community promised to end global hunger. We must deliver on this. The climate crisis is the biggest threat to agriculture, in Germany and worldwide. There is no awareness problem here. In conversations with my colleagues from the Global South, I notice that the air is burning – and unfortunately, not just figuratively. In some places, the grain is withering on the stalk.
Do you see enough support for this from your colleagues?
If we still want good harvests in 10, 20, and 50 years, we need to make our agricultural and food systems climate-resilient, with practical solutions for farmers. We agriculture ministers are meeting in Berlin knowing we can only master the fight against hunger and the climate crisis together. In times when conflicts are intensifying and our world threatens to break up into camps, we are building bridges with agricultural policy. Here in Berlin, we gather as comrades-in-arms, not opponents.
However, agriculture and food are not only affected by climate change, but also generate greenhouse gases, especially through livestock farming. How willing are governments to reduce animal husbandry and promote a plant-based diet?
How we eat impacts the environment and the climate – there’s no doubt about it. And what we want on our plates here can also have an impact on life chances elsewhere. We use a lot of land around the world to keep or feed animals. Where once there was valuable rainforest, soy is now grown or cattle are reared – in the last 20 years, global meat production has increased by around half. This is not good for the environment or the global climate. But we must not forget that many people around the world do not have meat on their plates every day. Pointing the finger at the global community is not good for us in the Western world. I am working with the German government’s food strategy to make it easier for us to eat a healthy and sustainable diet – including a more plant-based diet. I want people in our country to have a real choice – everyone then has to decide for themselves.
So far, food transition has hardly played a role in the national climate plans (NDCs): While more than 100 countries have included agriculture in their NDCs, only five NDCs include consumption, all developing countries with low emissions. When would an international food strategy addressing this be conceivable?
If we cut global food waste and wastage by half, everyone in the world could have more than enough to eat. The FAO has calculated this. At the World Climate Conference in Dubai, Germany and 158 other countries stated in the Emirates Declaration that food systems play a vital role in the climate crisis alongside agriculture. We should use this momentum further to develop national climate contributions under the Paris Climate Agreement. To do this, we need an international exchange of ideas.
Meaning?
In many Asian and African countries, more than 90 percent of all food waste occurs during production, after harvest and during trade. Every ton of wheat that is produced and not lost secures nutrition. At the GFFA, we, therefore, also want a commitment to halving global food waste by 2030. This requires knowledge transfer and investment in storage facilities and processing capacities. We can only achieve this together. We have an interest in strengthening food security locally. Helping people help themselves – in other words: Building grain silos instead of delivering sacks of grain.
What outcome of the negotiations in the final communiqué of the international AMK would you be pleased with as a Green politician?
We sent out an ambitious negotiation paper in the run-up to the conference. I would like the communiqué to become a ‘call for action’ for everyone. This means more climate action and climate adaptation in agriculture, halting deforestation, preserving biodiversity, and more careful and efficient use of pesticides and fertilizers. In doing so, we are focusing, in particular, on the indigenous population and smallholder farmers. Smallholder agriculture feeds half the world – we must preserve and make greater use of this potential. Sustainability also requires functioning structures. This means strengthening good governance as well as the role of women in agriculture.
You are putting a lot of things on your colleagues’ to-do lists.
Part of the truth is, of course, that it is not just the agriculture ministers making decisions. We need broad political and social alliances. Our communiqué will also appeal to our governments to work together to achieve everyone’s right to food.
The extreme cold temperatures currently affecting the US Midwest are caused by cold polar air traveling further south than usual. This phenomenon is caused by disturbances in the so-called polar vortex. The polar vortex is an air current in the stratosphere that holds the cold polar air. If the vortex is weakened, the so-called rubber band effect occurs: cold air flows southwards and warmer air flows northwards to other regions.
According to climate scientists such as Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), “there are plausible mechanisms that link this increasing polar vortex instability to Arctic warming and sea ice loss.” In the long term, winter temperatures may be getting warmer, but the occasional bursts of cold polar air have been occurring more frequently in recent years. Some climate scientists question this connection, but the theory is gaining support. When asked whether polar air outflows are a consequence of climate change, Rahmstorf wrote on the short message service X that it is probable, “but not yet settled science.” nib
Last year, 50 percent less area was deforested in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest compared to 2022, but deforestation in the Cerrado, a tropical wet savannah important for ecology and the climate, increased by 43 percent in the same period. This was reported by several media outlets citing the Brazilian space agency INPE. The Cerrado, which covers large parts of the country, is a vital ecosystem for storing water and CO2 and is also significant for biodiversity.
In absolute terms, deforestation in the Amazon region decreased from around 10,300 square kilometers in 2022 to about 5,200 square kilometers. In the Cerrado, it increased from just under 5,500 to 7,800 square kilometers. The 2023 data covers the period from Jan. 1 to Dec. 29.
President Lula has pledged to bring deforestation across Brazil down to zero by 2030. As the Financial Times (FT) reports, his government’s crackdown “on the numerous criminal rainforest interest groups” in the Amazon region is proving successful, but meanwhile, more and more land in the Cerrado is being lost to agriculture. “The Cerrado savannah is being massively overlooked in Brazil and by the global community,” Alex Wijeratna, Senior Director at campaign group Mighty Earth, told the FT.
As the FT further reports, stricter nature conservation regulations also apply to the Amazon rainforest. André Lima, Secretary for Deforestation Control at the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment, says: “Legal deforestation is much more difficult to control because the law allows it.” However, Lima vows that curbing the destruction of the Cerrado would be a “top priority” in 2024. ae
There is widespread global consensus that the global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss. Unless we tackle our food systems, biodiversity loss will accelerate, as will the destruction of ecosystems and habitats, threatening the planet’s ability to sustain human populations.
In the past 50 years alone, vertebrate wildlife populations have shrunk by almost 70 percent, and around one million species are threatened with extinction. Agriculture alone uses 80 percent of the world’s extracted freshwater, and 80 percent of global farmland is used to raise animals, with farmed poultry representing 70 percent of all bird species, and wild birds making up only 30 percent. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species lists agriculture as the main threat to 24,000 of the 28,000 species it has assessed so far, and overfishing is the largest driver of biodiversity loss in ocean ecosystems.
The global industrial corporate food regime is a huge contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. This refers to the way food is produced, processed, packaged, shipped, and used for biofuels and as animal feed, including overconsumption and food wastage, etc. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Climate Change and Land, the food system globally emits between 21 percent and 37 percent of overall emissions per year. Additionally, it is a wholly inequitable system, in its impacts on farmers, farm workers, rural communities, consumers, food workers, and the urban and rural poor communities.
The agribusiness response to the climate and ecological crises is the vociferous promotion of climate-smart agriculture (CSA), an agribusiness-led vision of high-tech, high-surveillance, data-driven “farmerless farming.” Some of CSA’s biggest promoters include Bayer, McDonald’s, and Walmart.
CSA was given a boost with the launch of the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate (AIM4C) in Glasgow at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP26 in 2021. Its promoters claim they can more “efficiently” deploy industrial fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.
These petrochemicals are destructive to local ecosystems and communities. Their use involves a tremendous amount of energy consumption, as well as risky and patented genetically modified/genome-edited seed, and data capture to field robotics. They also contribute significantly to total agricultural carbon emissions, accounting for 1,250 MT of CO2 in 2018, roughly 21.5 percent of annual direct emissions from agriculture. For context, global emissions from commercial aviation in the same year were 900 MT of CO2.
CSA is among a range of false climate solutions on offer, which do not meaningfully contribute to long-term emission reductions. In addition, they are inherently unsustainable and continue to entrench global inequalities.
Worldwide, a growing movement is championing agroecology as a powerful climate solution and alternative to the industrial food system. This movement is made up of frontline farming communities and grassroots groups, supported by a formidable body of academics and scientists
Agroecology is a practice, science, and movement that uses ecological and social concepts and principles in the design and management of sustainable agricultural ecosystems. It implicitly entails the decentralization and democratization of food production and, crucially, drastically reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
Agroecology has the potential to reduce 490 gigatons of CO2 by 2050. Agroecological solutions already show benefits, including:
Shifts in global, regional, and national policies and funding that support agroecology will go a long way towards breaking the stranglehold of catastrophic market-based solutions and achieving multiple climate change, ecological, nutritional, and social justice objectives. Indeed, such shifts are indispensable if we are going to have any future on this planet.
Mariam Mayet is Executive Director of the African Center for Biodiversity (ACB) in Johannesburg, South Africa
Humanity’s survival has always depended on whether the population or agricultural productivity grows faster. In most parts of the world, agricultural productivity has increased faster over the past 100 years. This is one of the main reasons we can feed eight billion people today. However, population growth is far exceeding agricultural productivity on the African continent. Many countries are trying to compensate for this by importing food. But this is not a viable long-term model.
The causes of this situation are diverse. The lack of productivity resulting from outdated practices is just as much a factor as the limited possibilities for irrigation or financing. The situation is dramatically exacerbated by the massive impact of climate change in the form of droughts, heavy rainfall and increasing pest pressure.
A recent survey of farmers conducted by Bayer revealed that 87 percent of Kenyan farmers experience significantly more heat and drought than in the past. A whopping 97 percent confirm that climate change is already having a significant impact on their fields, including crop failure. People feel the effects of all this in the form of rapidly rising food prices. Food prices in Ethiopia and Nigeria have increased by more than 100 percent since 2020 and in Sudan by over 1,000 percent.
In order for African agriculture to overcome climate change, it needs better access to know-how and technologies, as well as investment. This is why development policy and business must work more closely together.
Bayer supports the VACS initiative led by the US Department of State for breeding climate-adapted plant varieties. We have also been involved from the start in the AIM for Climate Initiative launched by the United Arab Emirates and the United States, which already mobilized more than 17 billion US dollars for green agriculture. The German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development has now also joined this initiative, perhaps a first step towards a strategic change that focuses on innovations that enable sustainability and intensification at the same time.
What specific technologies does Africa need? There should be no doubt that we need to improve access to modern conventional seeds, including for indigenous plants on the continent. In addition, we need biotechnology, given the rate of climate change and population growth. With this technology, plants can be made more resistant to the aforementioned effects of climate change.
The USA has recognized this, as has China. The EU Commission is also working on a new set of regulations for gene editing. The intention is for plants bred using new genomic techniques such as CRISPR/Cas to be treated practically like conventionally bred plants in the EU.
In Africa itself, Kenya recently decided to introduce genetically modified seeds. In early January, Nigeria passed a landmark decision approving the commercial release of transgenic, insect-resistant and drought-tolerant maize varieties known as TELA maize. This approval of TELA maize creates essential conditions for Nigerian smallholder farmers to operate profitably and a secure food supply for more people in Nigeria.
A rethink is taking place, from which Africa can benefit considerably. Above all, the advantages of biotechnology in tropical regions are significant for Africa. In 2020, Bayer decided to give the poorest smallholder farmers free access to our patented seeds to improve access for African farmers.
However, not everyone has recognized this opportunity. There are still voices that want to delight the African continent with methods from the ideological arsenal of agroecology. However, the fact is that we cannot feed a growing world population with such approaches or even purely organic farming due to insufficient productivity. Agroecology alone will not close the productivity gap in African agriculture.
The amount of space required for purely agroecological agriculture is far too high. We cannot afford the accompanying deforestation. This applies above all to the tropical rainforests, but also to many other regions. More land consumption means further biodiversity loss, which we must avoid. We need to produce more on less land, not less on more land. The IPCC also advocates sustainable intensification.
In an interview, the pioneer of organic farming, Urs Niggli, once again emphasized that we urgently need to move away from the polarization of “organic versus conventional farming.” He is correct. If we want to fight climate change while conserving biodiversity on as much additional land as possible, we need to produce more food on less land. This is only possible with biotechnology.
Another major factor in African agriculture’s fight against climate change is effective and safe crop protection products. Without them, many harvests could be destroyed by growing pest infestations. The most recent examples are the spread of the fall armyworm or the locust plague a few years back. As Bayer, we have set ourselves high standards in this regard. Since 2012, we have no longer sold any crop protection products classified as particularly toxic (hazard category Tox 1) by the World Health Organisation. Furthermore, we only sell active ingredients that are approved in at least one OECD country.
In summary, Africa needs the full technological and science-based spectrum to close the gap between population growth and agricultural productivity. This is an expectation shared by African farmers I speak to. It is an expectation of all of us.
Matthias Berninger is Global Head of Public Affairs, Science, Sustainability, Health, Safety & Environment at Bayer AG.
The European elections this year and the subsequent formation of a new EU Commission will also decide the fate of the European Green Deal – an excellent opportunity to take stock. The scientific community has just done this, and lo and behold, the EU legislation on Europe’s path to net zero by 2050 has some gaps, writes Lukas Scheid. One thing is also clear: Everything has to happen faster.
The issue is still somewhat deadlocked in Germany following the farmers’ protests and the current Green Week. In our interview, Agriculture Minister Özdemir explains how agriculture ministers around the world plan to deal with the issue. And in a pro and con debate, a biodiversity expert and a Bayer executive discuss how agriculture in Africa can react to the climate crisis.
How time flies by when you’re having fun at work is something the Climate.Table editorial team has also realized: Because next week, we’ll be publishing our 100th issue! We’ll celebrate a little and then get to work on the next 1,000 issues.
The efforts of the EU member states to achieve their ambitious climate targets have not yet been sufficient. This is not only revealed by the inadequate national energy and climate plans of the EU member states (NECP), which show gaping holes, particularly in measures against transport and building emissions, to achieve the 2030 targets. Now, the European Science Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC) has also criticized shortcomings in existing and planned legislation relating to the EU’s climate neutrality targets for 2050.
To achieve the EU’s climate targets, greater efforts are needed in all sectors, particularly in the areas of buildings, transport, agriculture and forestry, according to the report published on Thursday. “To stay on track, we need to ensure that today’s measures are in line with our long-term goals and prepare for even greater reductions after 2030″, analyzes the Chairman of the Advisory Board and environmental economist Ottmar Edenhofer.
Specifically, the committee makes 13 key recommendations, both short-term and long-term. Among them are:
For economist Edenhofer, the expansion and further revision of European CO2 pricing in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) plays a crucial role. A comprehensive system for CO2 pricing would also leave fewer loopholes for the unsustainable excessive use of biomass, for example, he explains. In addition to the agricultural and land use sector, the ETS must also be expanded to include so-called diffuse emissions from the use of fossil fuels. Extending the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to fossil fuel imports would also provide incentives for more climate protection abroad and open up revenue opportunities for the EU.
Edenhofer also emphasizes that compensation measures are urgently needed for the increased cost of living due to rising CO2 prices, especially if extended to the agricultural sector. A just and fair transition is necessary to maintain public support for climate protection measures. To ensure that people on low incomes are not burdened more, revenue from carbon pricing must be used to make low-emission alternatives affordable, the report states – in other words, a kind of climate fund. The scientists also call for revenues from the CBAM to be explicitly reserved for climate protection measures.
The Social Climate Fund, which is fed by revenue from ETS 2, is already an instrument for cushioning price increases in the transport and building sectors. However, it is still completely unclear whether the resources are even sufficient for the fund’s current targets (around €87 billion) – let alone if the ETS is expanded. The researchers see a need for rapid clarification here.
The role of technological CO₂ removal and its storage or use must also be clarified quickly, writes the expert panel. Until 2050, CCU/CCS will only play a limited role in the energy supply, as the technologies are less efficient than renewable energies and pose higher risks. An EU definition for unavoidable residual emissions, for example, from the agricultural sector or industry, for which CO₂ capture is necessary, is therefore needed as soon as possible.
At the beginning of February, the EU Commission presented its proposal for the EU’s 2040 climate target and a strategy for dealing with industrial emissions to close the legal loopholes for CCS. A draft of this industrial carbon management strategy available to Table.Media shows that the EU must capture at least 50 million tons of CO₂ per year by 2030 and up to 450 million tons by 2050 in order to be climate-neutral by 2050.
Creating a “cross-border, freely accessible CO2 transport network” is intended to create an internal market for captured carbon, which will then either be stored underground or processed industrially. The details of the necessary investment sums and pipeline kilometers are still open in the draft.
The EU is planning to use the Net Zero Industry Act to store 50 million tons of CO2 underground annually from 2030. According to the draft, however, the Commission apparently expects to be able to capture 80 million tons of CO2 annually. To this end, it plans to provide additional economic incentives for identifying and constructing further storage capacities.
This could be done by either integrating CO2 removal credits into the ETS or by creating a separate trading mechanism that would be directly or indirectly linked to the ETS. Finally, the draft strategy states that at least 200 million tons of CO2 should be stored annually by 2040.
After the election victory of China-critical William Lai of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Taiwan is likely to continue its current energy and climate policy path. The DPP, which has governed the country for eight years, intends to expand green energy significantly. After all, dependence on foreign countries in this area is high and problematic. However, after the DPP lost the majority in parliament, governing is set to become more difficult.
Fossil energy is Taiwan’s Achilles heel. Imports cover more than 97 percent of its energy demand. More than 80 percent of its electricity comes from fossil fuels. The crux of the matter: The island is forced to import its coal, oil and gas by sea via the Taiwan Strait. Experts agree that this makes it particularly susceptible to disruptions.
In 2022, Taiwan imported 63.6 million tons of coal, mainly from Australia and Indonesia. According to the statistical annual handbook, considerable quantities of coal and gas also come from Russia – a country that would probably side with China in the event of an acute crisis and possible blockade. The People’s Republic regards the island off its southern coast as a breakaway province that must be reunited with the mainland – with military intervention if necessary.
Even China’s naval exercises around Taiwan “can functionally compromise or cut off Taiwan’s supply lines for a limited period,” writes Eugene Chausovsky, analyst at the US think tank New Lines Institute, in Foreign Policy magazine. Even a temporary blockade of the Taiwan Strait could be devastating for the island, Chausovsky writes. The Energy Authority, part of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, has calculated that current natural gas reserves only last for eleven days and coal for 39 days. For oil, it is 146 days.
The country’s growing hunger for energy is likely to exacerbate the situation. The important chip industry is already complaining about blackouts. The largest semiconductor company TSMC alone accounts for more than six percent of the country’s total energy consumption.
The government in Taipei has recognized its dependence on fossil fuels and the geopolitical threat it poses. But green power alone is hardly enough. The expansion of solar and wind power is behind schedule. The share of renewables in the electricity mix was actually supposed to increase to 20 percent by 2025. However, according to a Ministry of Economic Affairs report, renewables are only expected to generate around 15 percent of electricity by then. Only 8.9 percent had been achieved by the end of 2023.
There are many reasons for the slow energy transition. Sites for wind turbines or solar plants are disputed. Sometimes, the obstacles are concerns from fishers or the environmental risks of offshore wind turbines. On land, conflicts over agricultural land usually prevent ground-mounted photovoltaics. In one case, it was the territorial claims of indigenous people who had not been consulted before the start of the project.
According to energy consultant Raoul Kubitschek at engineering firm Niras, the transition faces further hurdles: “Too low electricity prices and poorly insulated, heavily air-conditioned housing.” Some foreign investors also see the danger of a possible Chinese attack.
Kubitschek heads Niras’ Taipei office, which helps foreign energy companies invest in Taiwan. “100 percent renewables are unrealistic under Taiwan’s conditions,” he says. “Taiwan has very good wind conditions due to the Taiwan Strait. Currently, 5.5 gigawatts have already been approved by 2025.” However, onshore and offshore wind and solar power alone will not be enough to meet demand. “It’s about establishing a basic supply. That means gas-fired power plants must continue to be used.”
The semiconductor industry calls for the use of nuclear power. The phase-out by 2025 is definite. Nuclear energy still accounts for 6.3 percent of electricity generation. The more pro-China national party, KMT, campaigned for the construction of new nuclear power plants to cover the country’s energy demand.
The ruling party, DPP, on the other hand, rejects this. They say that fuel rods would also have to be imported. This would not help Taiwan’s independent energy supply. And the issue of final storage is also unresolved in Taiwan. Kubitschek believes that the nuclear phase-out cannot be reversed anyway. Provincial politicians would refuse the construction of new nuclear power plants.
All that remains is for Taiwan to invest all its efforts in renewables. After all, the economy is also coming under increasing indirect pressure. At China’s insistence, Taiwan is not part of international climate treaties as it is not recognized as a separate state in the UN. However, Western companies want their supply chains to be supplied with green electricity. Apple calls on its suppliers to be climate-neutral by 2030. As a key chip customer, the company is undoubtedly raising the industry’s need for transformation, says Kubitschek.
Kubitschek hopes Taiwan will “learn from mistakes,” such as in past tenders. There is a lot of potential in grid expansion, as well as in the offshore wind sector, he says.
The research for this article was conducted as part of a press trip to Taiwan by Journalist Network e.V.
Mr. Özdemir, your ministry is inviting international agricultural policy-makers to the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture (GFFA) in Berlin this week. Over the last 30 years, agricultural losses caused by droughts and floods have increased to 3.8 trillion dollars. How much awareness is there that climate change renders the global food supply insecure?
One in ten people worldwide suffers from hunger – an alarming figure. In the 2030 Agenda, the international community promised to end global hunger. We must deliver on this. The climate crisis is the biggest threat to agriculture, in Germany and worldwide. There is no awareness problem here. In conversations with my colleagues from the Global South, I notice that the air is burning – and unfortunately, not just figuratively. In some places, the grain is withering on the stalk.
Do you see enough support for this from your colleagues?
If we still want good harvests in 10, 20, and 50 years, we need to make our agricultural and food systems climate-resilient, with practical solutions for farmers. We agriculture ministers are meeting in Berlin knowing we can only master the fight against hunger and the climate crisis together. In times when conflicts are intensifying and our world threatens to break up into camps, we are building bridges with agricultural policy. Here in Berlin, we gather as comrades-in-arms, not opponents.
However, agriculture and food are not only affected by climate change, but also generate greenhouse gases, especially through livestock farming. How willing are governments to reduce animal husbandry and promote a plant-based diet?
How we eat impacts the environment and the climate – there’s no doubt about it. And what we want on our plates here can also have an impact on life chances elsewhere. We use a lot of land around the world to keep or feed animals. Where once there was valuable rainforest, soy is now grown or cattle are reared – in the last 20 years, global meat production has increased by around half. This is not good for the environment or the global climate. But we must not forget that many people around the world do not have meat on their plates every day. Pointing the finger at the global community is not good for us in the Western world. I am working with the German government’s food strategy to make it easier for us to eat a healthy and sustainable diet – including a more plant-based diet. I want people in our country to have a real choice – everyone then has to decide for themselves.
So far, food transition has hardly played a role in the national climate plans (NDCs): While more than 100 countries have included agriculture in their NDCs, only five NDCs include consumption, all developing countries with low emissions. When would an international food strategy addressing this be conceivable?
If we cut global food waste and wastage by half, everyone in the world could have more than enough to eat. The FAO has calculated this. At the World Climate Conference in Dubai, Germany and 158 other countries stated in the Emirates Declaration that food systems play a vital role in the climate crisis alongside agriculture. We should use this momentum further to develop national climate contributions under the Paris Climate Agreement. To do this, we need an international exchange of ideas.
Meaning?
In many Asian and African countries, more than 90 percent of all food waste occurs during production, after harvest and during trade. Every ton of wheat that is produced and not lost secures nutrition. At the GFFA, we, therefore, also want a commitment to halving global food waste by 2030. This requires knowledge transfer and investment in storage facilities and processing capacities. We can only achieve this together. We have an interest in strengthening food security locally. Helping people help themselves – in other words: Building grain silos instead of delivering sacks of grain.
What outcome of the negotiations in the final communiqué of the international AMK would you be pleased with as a Green politician?
We sent out an ambitious negotiation paper in the run-up to the conference. I would like the communiqué to become a ‘call for action’ for everyone. This means more climate action and climate adaptation in agriculture, halting deforestation, preserving biodiversity, and more careful and efficient use of pesticides and fertilizers. In doing so, we are focusing, in particular, on the indigenous population and smallholder farmers. Smallholder agriculture feeds half the world – we must preserve and make greater use of this potential. Sustainability also requires functioning structures. This means strengthening good governance as well as the role of women in agriculture.
You are putting a lot of things on your colleagues’ to-do lists.
Part of the truth is, of course, that it is not just the agriculture ministers making decisions. We need broad political and social alliances. Our communiqué will also appeal to our governments to work together to achieve everyone’s right to food.
The extreme cold temperatures currently affecting the US Midwest are caused by cold polar air traveling further south than usual. This phenomenon is caused by disturbances in the so-called polar vortex. The polar vortex is an air current in the stratosphere that holds the cold polar air. If the vortex is weakened, the so-called rubber band effect occurs: cold air flows southwards and warmer air flows northwards to other regions.
According to climate scientists such as Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), “there are plausible mechanisms that link this increasing polar vortex instability to Arctic warming and sea ice loss.” In the long term, winter temperatures may be getting warmer, but the occasional bursts of cold polar air have been occurring more frequently in recent years. Some climate scientists question this connection, but the theory is gaining support. When asked whether polar air outflows are a consequence of climate change, Rahmstorf wrote on the short message service X that it is probable, “but not yet settled science.” nib
Last year, 50 percent less area was deforested in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest compared to 2022, but deforestation in the Cerrado, a tropical wet savannah important for ecology and the climate, increased by 43 percent in the same period. This was reported by several media outlets citing the Brazilian space agency INPE. The Cerrado, which covers large parts of the country, is a vital ecosystem for storing water and CO2 and is also significant for biodiversity.
In absolute terms, deforestation in the Amazon region decreased from around 10,300 square kilometers in 2022 to about 5,200 square kilometers. In the Cerrado, it increased from just under 5,500 to 7,800 square kilometers. The 2023 data covers the period from Jan. 1 to Dec. 29.
President Lula has pledged to bring deforestation across Brazil down to zero by 2030. As the Financial Times (FT) reports, his government’s crackdown “on the numerous criminal rainforest interest groups” in the Amazon region is proving successful, but meanwhile, more and more land in the Cerrado is being lost to agriculture. “The Cerrado savannah is being massively overlooked in Brazil and by the global community,” Alex Wijeratna, Senior Director at campaign group Mighty Earth, told the FT.
As the FT further reports, stricter nature conservation regulations also apply to the Amazon rainforest. André Lima, Secretary for Deforestation Control at the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment, says: “Legal deforestation is much more difficult to control because the law allows it.” However, Lima vows that curbing the destruction of the Cerrado would be a “top priority” in 2024. ae
There is widespread global consensus that the global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss. Unless we tackle our food systems, biodiversity loss will accelerate, as will the destruction of ecosystems and habitats, threatening the planet’s ability to sustain human populations.
In the past 50 years alone, vertebrate wildlife populations have shrunk by almost 70 percent, and around one million species are threatened with extinction. Agriculture alone uses 80 percent of the world’s extracted freshwater, and 80 percent of global farmland is used to raise animals, with farmed poultry representing 70 percent of all bird species, and wild birds making up only 30 percent. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species lists agriculture as the main threat to 24,000 of the 28,000 species it has assessed so far, and overfishing is the largest driver of biodiversity loss in ocean ecosystems.
The global industrial corporate food regime is a huge contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. This refers to the way food is produced, processed, packaged, shipped, and used for biofuels and as animal feed, including overconsumption and food wastage, etc. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Climate Change and Land, the food system globally emits between 21 percent and 37 percent of overall emissions per year. Additionally, it is a wholly inequitable system, in its impacts on farmers, farm workers, rural communities, consumers, food workers, and the urban and rural poor communities.
The agribusiness response to the climate and ecological crises is the vociferous promotion of climate-smart agriculture (CSA), an agribusiness-led vision of high-tech, high-surveillance, data-driven “farmerless farming.” Some of CSA’s biggest promoters include Bayer, McDonald’s, and Walmart.
CSA was given a boost with the launch of the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate (AIM4C) in Glasgow at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP26 in 2021. Its promoters claim they can more “efficiently” deploy industrial fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.
These petrochemicals are destructive to local ecosystems and communities. Their use involves a tremendous amount of energy consumption, as well as risky and patented genetically modified/genome-edited seed, and data capture to field robotics. They also contribute significantly to total agricultural carbon emissions, accounting for 1,250 MT of CO2 in 2018, roughly 21.5 percent of annual direct emissions from agriculture. For context, global emissions from commercial aviation in the same year were 900 MT of CO2.
CSA is among a range of false climate solutions on offer, which do not meaningfully contribute to long-term emission reductions. In addition, they are inherently unsustainable and continue to entrench global inequalities.
Worldwide, a growing movement is championing agroecology as a powerful climate solution and alternative to the industrial food system. This movement is made up of frontline farming communities and grassroots groups, supported by a formidable body of academics and scientists
Agroecology is a practice, science, and movement that uses ecological and social concepts and principles in the design and management of sustainable agricultural ecosystems. It implicitly entails the decentralization and democratization of food production and, crucially, drastically reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
Agroecology has the potential to reduce 490 gigatons of CO2 by 2050. Agroecological solutions already show benefits, including:
Shifts in global, regional, and national policies and funding that support agroecology will go a long way towards breaking the stranglehold of catastrophic market-based solutions and achieving multiple climate change, ecological, nutritional, and social justice objectives. Indeed, such shifts are indispensable if we are going to have any future on this planet.
Mariam Mayet is Executive Director of the African Center for Biodiversity (ACB) in Johannesburg, South Africa
Humanity’s survival has always depended on whether the population or agricultural productivity grows faster. In most parts of the world, agricultural productivity has increased faster over the past 100 years. This is one of the main reasons we can feed eight billion people today. However, population growth is far exceeding agricultural productivity on the African continent. Many countries are trying to compensate for this by importing food. But this is not a viable long-term model.
The causes of this situation are diverse. The lack of productivity resulting from outdated practices is just as much a factor as the limited possibilities for irrigation or financing. The situation is dramatically exacerbated by the massive impact of climate change in the form of droughts, heavy rainfall and increasing pest pressure.
A recent survey of farmers conducted by Bayer revealed that 87 percent of Kenyan farmers experience significantly more heat and drought than in the past. A whopping 97 percent confirm that climate change is already having a significant impact on their fields, including crop failure. People feel the effects of all this in the form of rapidly rising food prices. Food prices in Ethiopia and Nigeria have increased by more than 100 percent since 2020 and in Sudan by over 1,000 percent.
In order for African agriculture to overcome climate change, it needs better access to know-how and technologies, as well as investment. This is why development policy and business must work more closely together.
Bayer supports the VACS initiative led by the US Department of State for breeding climate-adapted plant varieties. We have also been involved from the start in the AIM for Climate Initiative launched by the United Arab Emirates and the United States, which already mobilized more than 17 billion US dollars for green agriculture. The German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development has now also joined this initiative, perhaps a first step towards a strategic change that focuses on innovations that enable sustainability and intensification at the same time.
What specific technologies does Africa need? There should be no doubt that we need to improve access to modern conventional seeds, including for indigenous plants on the continent. In addition, we need biotechnology, given the rate of climate change and population growth. With this technology, plants can be made more resistant to the aforementioned effects of climate change.
The USA has recognized this, as has China. The EU Commission is also working on a new set of regulations for gene editing. The intention is for plants bred using new genomic techniques such as CRISPR/Cas to be treated practically like conventionally bred plants in the EU.
In Africa itself, Kenya recently decided to introduce genetically modified seeds. In early January, Nigeria passed a landmark decision approving the commercial release of transgenic, insect-resistant and drought-tolerant maize varieties known as TELA maize. This approval of TELA maize creates essential conditions for Nigerian smallholder farmers to operate profitably and a secure food supply for more people in Nigeria.
A rethink is taking place, from which Africa can benefit considerably. Above all, the advantages of biotechnology in tropical regions are significant for Africa. In 2020, Bayer decided to give the poorest smallholder farmers free access to our patented seeds to improve access for African farmers.
However, not everyone has recognized this opportunity. There are still voices that want to delight the African continent with methods from the ideological arsenal of agroecology. However, the fact is that we cannot feed a growing world population with such approaches or even purely organic farming due to insufficient productivity. Agroecology alone will not close the productivity gap in African agriculture.
The amount of space required for purely agroecological agriculture is far too high. We cannot afford the accompanying deforestation. This applies above all to the tropical rainforests, but also to many other regions. More land consumption means further biodiversity loss, which we must avoid. We need to produce more on less land, not less on more land. The IPCC also advocates sustainable intensification.
In an interview, the pioneer of organic farming, Urs Niggli, once again emphasized that we urgently need to move away from the polarization of “organic versus conventional farming.” He is correct. If we want to fight climate change while conserving biodiversity on as much additional land as possible, we need to produce more food on less land. This is only possible with biotechnology.
Another major factor in African agriculture’s fight against climate change is effective and safe crop protection products. Without them, many harvests could be destroyed by growing pest infestations. The most recent examples are the spread of the fall armyworm or the locust plague a few years back. As Bayer, we have set ourselves high standards in this regard. Since 2012, we have no longer sold any crop protection products classified as particularly toxic (hazard category Tox 1) by the World Health Organisation. Furthermore, we only sell active ingredients that are approved in at least one OECD country.
In summary, Africa needs the full technological and science-based spectrum to close the gap between population growth and agricultural productivity. This is an expectation shared by African farmers I speak to. It is an expectation of all of us.
Matthias Berninger is Global Head of Public Affairs, Science, Sustainability, Health, Safety & Environment at Bayer AG.
