

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Niklas Höhne, NewClimate Institute: +49 173 715 2279, n.hoehne@newclimate.org , Claire Fyson, Climate Analytics: +49 30 259 22 95 27, claire.fyson@climateanalytics.org , Yvonne Deng, Ecofys: + 44 7788 973 714, y.deng@ecofys.com
A new analysis of agricultural emissions by the Climate Action Tracker shows that reducing emissions through changes in farming practices alone will not be enough to limit global warming to 1.5degC, but changing our diets and reducing food waste could make significant additional reductions, which calls for a much more holistic approach.
Agriculture accounts for roughly 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and as much as 50% of non-CO2 emissions, at 5-6 GtCO2e/year.
A new analysis of agricultural emissions by the Climate Action Tracker shows that reducing emissions through changes in farming practices alone will not be enough to limit global warming to 1.5degC, but changing our diets and reducing food waste could make significant additional reductions, which calls for a much more holistic approach.
Agriculture accounts for roughly 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and as much as 50% of non-CO2 emissions, at 5-6 GtCO2e/year.
To limit warming to 2@C, (1) we need to reduce non-CO2 agricultural emissions by at least 1 GtCO2e/year--an 11%-18% reduction by 2030 (and larger reductions thereafter), compared with a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario. However, to meet the Paris Agreement's 1.5@C warming limit, that reduction would need to more than double to 2.7 GtCO2e/year.
The briefing, as part of the CAT's decarbonisation series, (2) looks at options for mitigating non-CO2 emissions from agriculture from two angles: key areas "on the field," and trends in consumer behaviour. (3) It addresses three main areas of action:
"Changing farm practices could lead to a reduction of 0.6 GtCO2e/year, but when combined with changing diets away from beef and dairy and reducing food waste, we could achieve a reduction of around 3 GtCO2e/year, possibly enough to decarbonise the sector to a 1.5@C pathway," said Niklas Hohne of NewClimate Institute.
"Further research needs to look at the interactions between these areas, to reduce the uncertainty in total reduction potential."
The main sources of non-CO2 emissions--methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)--in agriculture are enteric fermentation, manure, synthetic fertilisers, rice cultivation, crop residues, and cultivation of organic soils.
No one global fix will fit all farming. In the EU, US and China, a large share of emissions is due to synthetic fertiliser usage, whereas in South and East Asia, emissions from rice cultivation contribute large shares, so mitigation options will vary by region. Smallholder farmers own 84% of farms, covering an estimated 12% of global farm area, so local circumstances will need to be considered.
The briefing addresses agriculture's largest contribution to greenhouse gas emissions--cows--which contribute over a third of non-CO2 emissions in Europe, the U.S. and India, and over half in Australia and Brazil. The main mitigation options include improvements in farming practices and a strong reduction in demand, but options need to be tailored to regional circumstances.
There are also large gains to be made in reducing over-application of synthetic fertilisers, which have seen a stronger increase in emissions than any other agricultural source. A fertiliser tax could lessen this rapid growth, while also reducing other environmental concerns. Solutions for rice cultivation--the next biggest source of emissions, making up over a third of emissions in many Asian countries--include draining paddies between planting seasons.
If warming is kept well below 2degC and below 1.5degC, adaptation in agriculture may be able to compensate for some climate impacts, and the faster global emissions are mitigated and such impacts are avoided, the lower the burden of such adaptation.
Food waste
Significant emissions reductions could also be achieved by reducing waste.
"Over a third of the food we produce--about 1.3 billion tonnes each year--is wasted. If food waste were a country it would be the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, with an estimated 2011 level of 3.5 GtCO2e/year," said Yvonne Deng of Ecofys, a Navigant company.
Industrialised nations have much higher per-capita food waste carbon footprints than developing nations, largely through the supply chain. In developing countries most waste occurs on-farm and during distribution. This is a growing problem--the 2050 carbon footprint from food waste could triple that of 2010.
Solutions for the developed world to reduce food waste include altering labelling requirements of best-before and use-by dates, or in some cases even removing them. Another priority is to reduce, for example, European supermarket rejection of food based on shape, size or colour. In developing countries, more efficient storage and distribution systems are needed to reduce on-farm and post-harvest losses.
Dietary changes
A global switch to a low-emissions diet - such as the Harvard diet (4) could result in an estimated 30% reduction of food-related emissions, relative to continuing current dietary trends.
"Dietary shifts could reduce land demand by more than one billion hectares and even bend the emissions curve downwards, something which technical mitigation alone is not expected to do. In fact, some governments have already introduced policies to encourage dietary changes because of their public health benefits," said Claire Fyson of Climate Analytics.
One option to incentivise this shift could be an emissions tax on certain food commodities with the potential to reduce global food-related emissions by almost 1 GtCO2e in 2020, mostly from reductions in beef and dairy use.
Read the full briefing here.
The Climate Action Tracker is an independent scientific analysis that measures government climate action against the globally agreed aim of holding warming well below 2degC, and pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5degC.
"I will give," said the Republican mega-donor with a smile.
Billionaire Miram Adelson on Tuesday night suggested the legal obstacles for President Donald Trump to serve an additional term in office after 2028 are not insurmountable as the far-right Republican megadonor vowed another $250 million to bolster a run that experts say would be unlawful and unconstitutional on its face.
Adelson, a hardline Zionist who, along with her now deceased husband, Sheldon Adelson, has given hundreds of millions to US lawmakers who back a strong relationship between the US and Israeli governments, was sharing the podium with Trump during a Hanukkah candlelighting event at the White House when she made the remarks.
With a reference to Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, Adelson said they had discussed "the legal thing of four more years"—something Trump has repeatedly gestured toward and many of his backers have called for—and told Trump, “So, we can do it, think about it.”
A chant in the crowd then broke out for "For four more years!" as Adelson whispered something in Trump's ear.
“She said, ‘Think about it, I’ll give you another $250 million,’” Trump then said into the microphone. "I will give," Adelson said with a smile.
Watch the exchange:
Adelson: I met Alan Dershowitz.. he said.. four more years. We can do it. Think about it.
Crowd: *chants four more years*
Trump: She said think about it, I’ll give you another 250 million pic.twitter.com/eOc7Zazyns
— Acyn (@Acyn) December 17, 2025
For Trump's 2024 presidential campaign alone, Adelson gave at least $100 million to support the Republican candidate with Super PAC she established, according to federal filings.
In his remarks on Tuesday, Trump credited Adelson with providing him $250 million overall—"directly and indirectly"—during his 2024 bid.
"When someone can you $250 million, I think that we should give her the opportunity to say hello," Trump said, when introducing her. "And Miriam, make it quick, because $250 million is not what it used to be."
"This is the Iraq War 2.0 with a South American flavor to it," warned one Democratic senator.
US President Donald Trump late Tuesday declared a blockade on "all sanctioned oil tankers" approaching and leaving Venezuela, a major escalation in what's widely seen as an accelerating march to war with the South American country.
The "total and complete blockade," Trump wrote on his social media platform, will only be lifted when Venezuela returns to the US "all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us."
"Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America," Trump wrote, referring to the massive US military buildup in the Caribbean. "It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before."
The government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, which has mobilized its military in response to the US president's warmongering, denounced Trump's comments as a "grotesque threat" aimed at "stealing the riches that belong to our homeland."
The US-based anti-war group CodePink said in a statement that "Trump’s assertion that Venezuela must 'return' oil, land, and other assets to the United States exposes the true objective" of his military campaign.
"Venezuela did not steal anything from the United States. What Trump describes as 'theft' is Venezuela’s lawful assertion of sovereignty over its own natural resources and its refusal to allow US corporations to control its economy," said CodePink. "A blockade, a terrorist designation, and a military buildup are steps toward war. Congress must act immediately to stop this escalation, and the international community must reject this lawless threat."
The announced naval blockade—an act of aggression under international law—came a week after the Trump administration seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela and made clear that it intends to intercept more.
US Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), one of the leaders of a war powers resolution aimed at preventing the Trump administration from launching a war on Venezuela without congressional approval, said Tuesday that "a naval blockade is unquestionably an act of war."
"A war that the Congress never authorized and the American people do not want," Castro added, noting that a vote on his resolution is set for Thursday. "Every member of the House of Representatives will have the opportunity to decide if they support sending Americans into yet another regime change war."
"This is absolutely an effort to get us involved in a war in Venezuela."
Human rights organizations have accused the Republican-controlled Congress of abdicating its responsibilities as the Trump administration takes belligerent and illegal actions in international waters and against Venezuela directly, claiming without evidence to be combating drug trafficking.
Last month, Senate Republicans—some of whom are publicly clamoring for the US military to overthrow Maduro's government—voted down a Venezuela war powers resolution. Two GOP senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, joined Democrats in supporting the resolution.
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, wrote Tuesday that "the White House minimized Republican 'yes' votes by promising that Trump would seek Congress’ authorization before initiating hostilities against Venezuela itself."
"Trump today broke that promise to his own party’s lawmakers by ordering a partial blockade on Venezuelan ships," wrote Williams. "A blockade, including a partial one, definitively constitutes an act of war. Trump is starting a war against Venezuela without congressional authorization."
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) warned in a television appearance late Monday that members of the Trump administration are "going to do everything they can to get us into this war."
"This is the Iraq War 2.0 with a South American flavor to it," he added. "This is absolutely an effort to get us involved in a war in Venezuela."
"Obviously, they have issues with what is in that video, and that’s why they don’t want everybody to see it," Sen. Mark Kelly said of administration officials after the meeting.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Tuesday that the Pentagon will not release unedited video footage of a September airstrike that killed two men who survived an initial strike on a boat allegedly carrying drugs in the Caribbean Sea, a move that followed a briefing with congressional lawmakers described by one Democrat as an "exercise in futility" and by another as "a joke."
Hegseth said that members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees would be given a chance to view video of the September 2 "double-tap" strike, which experts said was illegal like all the other boat bombings. The secretary did not say whether all congressional lawmakers would be provided access to the footage.
“Of course we’re not going to release a top secret, full, unedited video of that to the general public,” Hegseth told reporters following a closed-door briefing during which he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio fielded questions from lawmakers.
As with a similar briefing earlier this month, Tuesday's meeting left some Democrat attendees with more questions than answers.
“The administration came to this briefing empty-handed,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told reporters. “If they can’t be transparent on this, how can you trust their transparency on all the other issues swirling about in the Caribbean?”
That includes preparations for a possible attack on oil-rich Venezuela, which include the deployment of US warships and thousands of troops to the region and the authorization of covert action aimed at toppling the government of longtime Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Tuesday's briefing came as House lawmakers prepare to vote this week on a pair of war powers resolutions aimed at preventing President Donald Trump from waging war on Venezuela. A similar bipartisan resolution recently failed in the Senate.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and co-author of one of the new war powers resolution, said in a statement: “Today’s briefing from Secretaries Rubio and Hegseth was an exercise in futility. It did nothing to address the serious legal, strategic, and moral concerns surrounding the administration’s unprecedented use of US military force in the Caribbean and Pacific."
"As of today, the administration has already carried out 25 such strikes over three months, extrajudicially killing 95 people," Meeks noted. "That this briefing to members of Congress only occurred more than three months since the strikes began—despite numerous requests for classified and public briefings—further proves these operations are unable to withstand scrutiny and lack a defensible legal rationale."
Briefing attendee Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.)—who is in the administration's crosshairs for reminding US troops that military rules and international law require them to disobey illegal orders—said of Trump officials, "Obviously, they have issues with what is in that video, and that’s why they don’t want everybody to see it."
Defending Hegseth's decision to not make the boat strike video public, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) argued that “there’s a lot of members that’s gonna walk out there and that’s gonna leak classified information and there’s gonna be certain ones that you hold accountable."
Mullin singled out Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who, along with the Somalian American community at large, has been the target of mounting Islamophobic and racist abuse by Trump and his supporters.
“Not everybody can go through the same background checks that need to be cleared on this,” he said. “Do you think Omar needs all this information? I will say no.”
Rejecting GOP arguments against releasing the video, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said after attending Tuesday's briefing: “I found the legal explanations and the strategic explanations incoherent, but I think the American people should see this video. And all members of Congress should have that opportunity. I certainly want it for myself.”