En-ROADS is great for workshops and role-playing games to enable people to explore climate solutions from changes in our energy choices to adoption of new technologies in carbon removal. Our food system plays a significant part in strategies to address climate change, because it drives energy use through moving and producing food, and can be both a source of greenhouse gas emissions and removals. This post will help you talk about the food system with audiences when you are using En-ROADS.
Food and agriculture is likely to come up in your En-ROADS event when a participant asks about a certain climate solution, such as changing diets (whether vegan, vegetarian, or more plant-based), or reducing food waste. Agriculture contributes 11% of greenhouse gas emissions (figure 1). But the food system extends beyond that. It is also a major factor in emissions from land use and forests (8% of global emissions). Then there is also energy used on farms, and in transporting goods along the value chain. The food system also produces waste, which is a source of methane, and uses refrigeration, which can be a source of F-gases. Estimates on the impact of changing the food system ought to include all these elements.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report Tackling Climate Change with Livestock found that spreading the practices of the most efficient livestock operations could lower the associated emissions by a third. “More efficient livestock systems” means producing the same food with fewer livestock, and using less land for the livestock you have. We estimate there is similar potential in crop systems, by lowering losses and waste, raising crop yields, and using fertilizer more efficiently. We look at three different interventions to our food systems to explore these potentials in En-ROADS.
Table 1. Scenarios for food system interventions with En-ROADS slider settings for replication.
| Slider | BAU | Efficient Livestock or More Plant-based1 | Mostly Vegetarian or “Lancet” diet2 | Improved Crop System1 |
| Ag and Waste | 0 | -10 | -20 | -5 |
| Transportation Efficiency | 0.5 | +0.5 | +0.5 | +0.7 |
| Deforestation | 0 | -1.5 | -1.5 | -1.5 |
Basis:
1 1/3 reduction of each category of associated emissions
2 1/3 of energy and deforestation emissions plus 2/3 of direct emissions
For any of these food system intervention scenarios, use three different sliders to explore them in En-ROADS to represent the different components of the food system. Access the advanced views for each of the sliders to test specific numerical inputs by selecting the three dots to the right of the slider name in En-ROADS. The Agricultural and waste emissions slider is under the Methane & Other menu – be sure to click the “Use detailed settings” switch.
Efficient Livestock or More Plant-based
Adopting either a more efficient livestock system, or a more plant-based diet, or some mixed policy with the same total ambition, would lead to fewer livestock and greater efficiency with the livestock and supporting systems. More plant-based would mean globally cutting meat and dairy consumption by a little. For individuals worldwide this might mean smaller portions, or not quite so much meat every week, so that plants supply most of a person’s calories.
To test this approach in En-ROADS:
- Enter -10% on the slider “Agriculture and waste emissions” (or subtract another 10% from whatever scenario you are building from)
- Add 0.5% per year to the slider Transport Energy Efficiency
- Subtract 1.5% per year on the slider Deforestation
Mostly Vegetarian or “Lancet” diet
A different option related to livestock would be adopting a mostly vegetarian, or “the Lancet” diet (detailed here). A global mostly vegetarian diet would mean cutting meat and dairy consumption by a lot, like most people in the world eat no meat and very little dairy, or you have meat just a few times a year. The Lancet study recommended lower meat consumption (for most people) along with more whole grains, less processed food, and more nuts, legumes, and vegetables. We estimate this change in diet would have the same impact on deforestation and transport emissions as the Efficient Livestock scenario, but would result in a 20% reduction in the impact on Ag and waste emissions. Note that you should only select one of these two diet and livestock options.
To test this approach in En-ROADS:
- Enter -20% on the slider “Agriculture and waste emissions” (or subtract another 20% from whatever scenario you are building from)
- Add 0.5% per year to the slider Transport Energy Efficiency
- Subtract 1.5% per year on the slider Deforestation
Improved Crop System
There are many ways to grow crops with lower climate impacts with different practices applicable to each setting. Some of these might include improved seed quality or crop varieties, crop rotation, efficient methods of fertilization and irrigation, and so on. Whatever locally appropriate practices do to grow food with less land and lower emissions, you can simulate them on their own or added to one of the changes in the livestock system. We expect that the most efficient crop systems could have a third lower emissions than basic crop systems.
To test this approach in En-ROADS:
- Enter -5% on the slider “Agriculture and waste emissions” (or subtract another 20% from whatever scenario you are building from)
- Add 0.7% per year to the slider Transport Energy Efficiency
- Subtract 1.5% per year on the slider Deforestation
Questions that may come up
You might ask or get the question “why isn’t there a greater reduction in temperature?”, or a comment about how livestock cause some larger percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. Some sources about the large impact of livestock are not substantiated, and our estimates of the impact of shifting diets are less than a complete elimination of livestock for several reasons: (1) livestock are extremely important in some areas for livelihood, resilience, and culture; (2) in some areas, livestock grazing wild land is an efficient way to produce food; (3) some soil carbon solutions depend on grazing livestock; and (4) wild ruminants replacing livestock limit the maximum impact a more extreme diet change could accomplish.
There are other effects you might want to discuss when discussing food systems at your En-ROADS event, especially related to justice and co-benefits from actions:
- Afforestation: We don’t assume that reducing the pressure on agricultural land automatically causes forest to regrow, but in your discussion, you could bring up that a more efficient food system that uses less land to feed people would make it easier for there to be afforestation.
- Health: Some changes in diet and agriculture, such as more plant-based foods, more diverse crops, or fewer chemicals, would also have benefits to people’s health.
- Livelihoods: Many of the practices that cause a more efficient livestock system mean higher yield and lower loss of livestock – which if implemented equitably should be a benefit to the hundreds of millions of people who depend on livestock for part of their livelihoods. Also consider that if we are transforming diets, people who depend on livestock for their livelihood lose some market. Change should be designed so that the most vulnerable people benefit, for example by getting paid more for lower quantity but higher quality animal products to meet the needs of a population with different diets.
Below is a video demonstrating the use of En-ROADS for simulating food system interventions, and you can also use this handout that includes the table above. See more about the work Climate Interactive has done around food systems here. Note: this video shows an older version of En-ROADS. Modeling updates since have resulted a few changes in the En-ROADS Baseline scenario, so the impact of these interventions may be slightly different in the current version. However, the slider settings for modeling food are still accurate.
Good luck with your use of En-ROADS.