The European Green Deal (EGD), aimed at achieving carbon neutrality within the European Union (EU) by 2050, could unintentionally exacerbate global greenhouse gas emissions unless substantial dietary changes, particularly a shift toward plant-based diets, are adopted. A recent study published in Nature Sustainability highlights that while the Green Deal is expected to reduce emissions within the EU, it could lead to a more than twofold increase in emissions outside of Europe.
“By adopting a more plant-based “planetary health diet”, it is possible to save an enormous amount of carbon emissions”
The research, led by Klaus Hubacek, Professor of Science, Technology, and Society at the University of Groningen, finds that the EGD’s agricultural and forestry targets could result in a significant rise in land-use-related emissions globally. The study suggests that carbon emissions outsourced to non-EU countries could increase by 244.8% relative to the amount of carbon removed within the EU under the Green Deal’s current framework.
Impact of agricultural practices and land use changes
Key measures under the EGD, including reforestation efforts and expanding organic farming, are intended to promote biodiversity and carbon removal. However, these initiatives also reduce the availability of land for food production within the EU. As food demand remains constant, production is likely to shift to other regions, leading to increased deforestation and emissions in non-EU countries.
The study estimates that to meet EGD targets for carbon removal, the demand for agricultural land outside the EU could grow by 23.9 million hectares, resulting in an additional 758.9 megatons of CO2-equivalent emissions. This land-use change would also contribute to biodiversity loss, with an estimated reduction in mean species abundance by 3.86 million.
In a reference article from University of Groningen, Hubacek points out that although the Green Deal contains provisions against importing products linked to deforestation, these regulations may not fully prevent the environmental consequences of displaced agricultural production. “Nothing stops other countries from growing products for Europe on existing farmland while felling forests for their local markets,” he explains.
The role of dietary change
Despite the projected increase in global emissions, the researchers identify dietary change as a critical factor that could mitigate these effects. By shifting towards plant-based diets, particularly those in line with the EAT-Lancet Commission’s “planetary health diet,” it is possible to significantly reduce the environmental spillover of the Green Deal. The study suggests that adopting plant-based diets could decrease global land-use pressure, leading to substantial cuts in emissions and helping to preserve biodiversity.
Hubacek notes the potential of such a shift, stating, “By adopting a more plant-based “planetary health diet”, it is possible to save an enormous amount of carbon emissions.” The study’s findings indicate that reducing meat and dairy consumption would lessen the EU’s dependence on imported agricultural goods, particularly animal feed, which is a key driver of deforestation in regions like Brazil and Southeast Asia.
Additional measures to offset spillover effects
In addition to dietary change, the study proposes other strategies to offset the unintended consequences of the Green Deal. One recommendation is to phase out food-based biofuels, which occupy valuable cropland that could otherwise be used for food production. This shift would reduce the need for land outside the EU, cutting emissions associated with land conversion.
The researchers also suggest that the EU could play a role in improving agricultural efficiency in developing countries, which would help reduce the overall global demand for land. Hubacek and his team argue that enhancing yields in regions that export food to the EU could alleviate some of the pressure on land use and associated emissions.
“There is no free lunch”
The analysis concludes that while the European Green Deal holds promise for reducing emissions within the EU, its global impact could be detrimental if certain policy gaps are not addressed. Hubacek stresses that the current policy framework is overly reliant on technological optimism and that real progress requires a more comprehensive approach, including changing consumption patterns. “There is no free lunch,” he says, adding that achieving true sustainability will require both production and consumption adjustments, particularly in the form of reducing resource-intensive diets.
