Viewpoint: Public investment in farming technology could cut land use by 63 thousand square miles—’about the size of Iowa’

Credit: NFU
Credit: NFU

Using existing research on the relationship between R&D and productivity and SIMPLE, a global economic model of agriculture, we find that doubling agricultural R&D between 2020 and 2030, compared to a business-as-usual scenario, would reduce global agricultural land use by about 63 thousand square miles, about the size of Iowa, and reduce the level of emissions from fertilizer and fuel use per unit of food produced about 12 percentage points. We project these changes would reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by over 100 million tons — equivalent to ⅙ of current US agriculture emissions — while also reducing global food prices about 8 percentage points more than under business-as-usual.

These benefits of R&D have multiple mechanisms. Research can reduce emissions both from farm inputs like fertilizers as well as from land-use change. Advances in crop breeding, farm equipment, and other agricultural areas have helped farmers grow more food with less fertilizer and land, and thus less land-use conversion and greenhouse gas emissions. Because of such innovations, the carbon intensity of agriculture fell more than 10 percent between 1990 and 2015.

Mis- and disinformation are distorting science and public policy. Subscribe to our Daily and Weekly Digests for incisive coverage of ‘disruptive’ innovations in AI, agricultural biotechnology, food, chemicals, nuclear energy, vaccines, and other disruptive innovations.

Since the US is a major global food producer, these benefits will spill over. Productivity gains give the US a larger share of global food production by increasing farmers’ international competitiveness. This reduces global environmental impacts since US farming is typically more resource-efficient than farming elsewhere.

Ultimately, our analysis finds that increasing US public agricultural R&D funding would help address climate change, land-use conversion and habitat loss, and food insecurity. In contrast, we show that another proposal that would reduce emissions — preventing expansion of farmland and taxing farm inputs — would also risk increasing food prices and thus food insecurity.

Read the original post

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Sep-17-2026-12_28_43-PM
Vitamin D, omega-3 fish oil and glucosamine supplements could cause brain damage 
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-17-2026-10_17_15-AM
Viewpoint: Why are the less intelligent more likely to be conservative—and smarter people more socially liberal?
Screenshot-2026-09-10-at-12.20.19-PM
'Jet fuel didn't melt the steel': 9/11 conspiracy theories debunked
ChatGPT-Image-Aug-28-2026-03_33_46-PM
Viewpoint: Bad science—Five bogus Trump administration claims about vaccines and autism
Screenshot 2026-07-29 at 10.40
The COVID vaccine turbo cancer scare is back. Science still proves it’s wrong.
Screenshot-2026-09-10-at-11.50.46-AM
Did COVID vaccines kill 2,500 service members? RFK Jr. hires an investigator who compares vaccine promoters to Nazi doctors
Screenshot-2026-09-16-at-12.07.47-PM
The heated debate over trans athletes in the WNBA
screenshot at  am
‘Glyphosate is not carcinogenic’: Independent EU chemical oversight agency reaffirms—for the 3rd time in 9 years—that the herbicide is safe-as-used
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.