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.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

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

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

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

wuhan institute of virology main entrance
​​COVID lab leak? Making a case that the Wuhan market origins theory is wrong
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Screenshot-2026-06-18-at-11.41.51-AM
Viewpoint—Protecting baloney science: Far right senators move to protect the phony homeopathy industry
Screenshot-2026-06-17-at-9.44.03-AM
Viewpoint: Embryos are becoming the newest battleground of love, loss, and legal uncertainty
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-9-2026-01_11_37-PM
Turmeric supplements: More risks than benefits
artificial intelligence brain think illustration md
Viewpoint — Digital gods and human extinction: Will we be the first species ever to design our own descendants?

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

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