Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation


Recent studies show that current trends in yield improvement will not be sufficient to meet projected global food demand in 2050, and suggest that a further expansion of agricultural area will be required. However, agriculture is the main driver of losses of biodiversity and a major contributor to climate change and pollution, and so further expansion is undesirable. The usual proposed alternative—intensification with increased resource use—also has negative effects. It is therefore imperative to find ways to achieve global food security without expanding crop or pastureland and without increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Some authors have emphasized a role for sustainable intensification in closing global ‘yield gaps’ between the currently realized and potentially achievable yields. However, in this paper we use a transparent, data-driven model, to show that even if yield gaps are closed, the projected demand will drive further agricultural expansion. There are, however, options for reduction on the demand side that are rarely considered. In the second part of this paper we quantify the potential for demand-side mitigation options, and show that improved diets and decreases in food waste are essential to deliver emissions reductions, and to provide global food security in 2050.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Distribution of terrestrial biomes, suitability and land use and its connection to the global agricultural annual biomass flows for 2009.
Figure 2: Diagram showing the total GHG emissions from agriculture and land-use change due to agricultural expansion, for the six scenarios.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Houghton, R. A. Carbon emissions and the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in the tropics. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 4, 1–7 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050. The 2012 Revision (FAO, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 1–5 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ray, D. K., Mueller, N. D., West, P. C. & Foley, J. A. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS ONE 8, e66428 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Reaping the Benefits; Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture (The Royal Society, 2009)

  6. Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–818 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Garnett, T. et al. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: Premises and policies. Science 341, 33–34 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Mueller, N. D. et al. Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature 490, 254–257 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. IIASA and FAO, Global Agro-ecological Zones (GAEZ v3.0) (IASSA/FAO, 2010);

  11. Ripple, W. J. et al. Ruminants, climate change and climate policy. Nature Clim. Change 4, 2–5 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Stehfest, E. et al. Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic Change 95, 83–102 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Smith, P. Delivering food security without increasing pressure on land. Glob. Food Sec. 2, 18–23 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Smith, P. et al. Competition for land. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 365, 2941–2957 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Westhoek, H. et al. Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe’s meat and dairy intake. Glob. Environ. Change 26, 196–205 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hedenus, F., Wirsenius, S. & Johansson, D. J. A. The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets. Climatic Change 124, 79–91 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosegrant, M. W. et al. International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT) (IFPRI, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Havlík, P. et al. Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3709–3714 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Netherland’s environmental assessment agency IMAGE User Manual (PBL, 2010);

  20. Schmitz, C. et al. Land-use change trajectories up to 2050: Insights from a global agro-economic model comparison. Agric. Econ. 45, 69–84 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. A. in ISLSCP Initiat. II Collect (eds Hall, F. al.) (ORNL DAAC, 2010);

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ramankutty, N., Evan, A. T., Monfreda, C. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22, 1–19 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 (2010);

  24. FAO FAOSTAT (FAO, 2013);

  25. Wirsenius, S. Human Use of Land and Organic Materials Modeling the Turnover of Biomass in the Global Food System PhD thesis, Chalmers Univ. Technology and Göteborg Univ. (2000)

  26. Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonnesson, U., van Otterdijk, R. & Meybeck, A. Global Food Losses and Food Waste (FAO, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Scarlat, N., Martinov, M. & Dallemand, J-F. Assessment of the availability of agricultural crop residues in the European Union: Potential and limitations for bioenergy use. Waste Manage. 30, 1889–1897 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Haberl, H. et al. Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in Earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 12942–12947 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Oerke, E. & Dehne, H. Global crop production and the efficacy of crop protection—current situation and future trends. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 103, 203–215 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Faurès, J-M., Svendsen, M. & Turral, H. in Water Food, Water Life A Compr. Assess. Water Manage. Agric. (ed Molden, D.) 353–394 (IWMI/Earthscan, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  31. FAO AQUASTAT Database (FAO, 2013);

  32. FAO FertiStat—Fertilizer Use by Crop Statistics (FAO, 2013);

  33. Valin, H. et al. Agricultural productivity and greenhouse gas emissions: Trade-offs or synergies between mitigation and food security? Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 035019 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. The Future of Food and Farming. Final Project Report (The Government Office for Science, 2011)

  35. Kummu, M. et al. Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ. 438, 477–489 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. United Nations Population Division, United Nations Population Projections 2013 Revision (United Nations, 2013);

  37. Willett, W. Eat, Drink, and be Healthy The Harvard Medical School Guide to Healthy Eating (Simon and Schuster, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  38. WHO & FAO Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation on Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases (WHO, 2003).

  39. The American Heart Association’s Diet and Lifestyle Recommendations (American Heart Association, 2014);

  40. Simopoulos, A. P., Bourne, P. G. & Faergeman, O. Bellagio report on healthy agriculture, healthy nutrition, healthy people. Nutrients 5, 411–423 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Garnett, T. Changing What We Eat (The Food Climate Research Network, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Smith, P. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 11 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Smith, P. et al. How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals? Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2285–2302 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Gleeson, T., Wada, Y., Bierkens, M. F. P. & van Beek, L. P. H. Water balance of global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature 488, 197–200 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Rogelj, J. et al. Emission pathways consistent with a 2 °C global temperature limit. Nature Clim. Change 1, 413–418 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Schneider, A., Friedl, M. A. & Potere, D. A new map of global urban extent from MODIS satellite data. Environ. Res. Lett. 4, 044003 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Streets, D. G., Yarber, K. F., Woo, J. H. & Carmichael, G. R. Biomass burning in Asia: Annual and seasonal estimates and atmospheric emissions. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 17, 1099 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Anderson-Teixeira, K. J. & DeLucia, E. H. The greenhouse gas value of ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 425–438 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Bajželj, B., Allwood, J. M. & Cullen, J. M. Designing climate change mitigation plans that add up. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 8062–8069 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. European Commission, Joint Research Centre & Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), Release Version 4.2., 2012 (JRC, 2014);

Download references


This work was funded by a grant to the University of Cambridge from BP as part of their Energy Sustainability Challenge.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



B.B., J.M.A., K.S.R., C.A.G., J.S.D. and E.C. developed the model, B.B., P.S., J.M.A. and K.S.R. designed the study/scenarios, B.B., K.S.R. and C.A.G. analysed the outputs, and all authors wrote the paper with B.B. leading.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bojana Bajželj.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bajželj, B., Richards, K., Allwood, J. et al. Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nature Clim Change 4, 924–929 (2014).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene