Metrics for evaluating the environmental footprint of new technologies in agriculture are broken
Pesticides’ carbon footprint is massively underestimated. We need better metrics for innovative technologies.
Crop protection does not have one big bad wolf pesticide like fertilizers’ nitrogen. According to phys.org (1, 2) “Manure and synthetic fertilizers emit the equivalent of 2.6 gigatons of carbon per year -more than global aviation and shipping combined.” For impact investors going after one big problem with a significant impact is a no brainer. Calculating reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in terms of gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) is easy because there are many publications and market reports available for impact investors (3). Nitrogen alone cannot solve agriculture’s carbon emission problem because the bigger problem, crop protection, is overlooked and underestimated.
Crop protection has many medium size wolves which collectively create more CO2e emissions than nitrogen. Furthermore, GHG emissions produced by pesticides are massively underreported for the following reasons (4).
1- CO2e emissions for a kg of pesticide is calculated in terms of active ingredients, but the formulated pesticides that are applied to the field include other chemicals that can make up 50–70% of the product (4). This creates a massive underestimation because any calculation based on active ingredients omits 50–70% of the potential emissions, meaning 0.3–0.5 gigaton is more like 1 gigaton. If it is less than a gigaton, it gives the impression of insignificant.
2- Ninety-nine % of all synthetic pesticides or their precursors come from fossil fuels. The microplastic coating for slow release also comes from fossil fuels (4). GHG emissions from making precursors or microplastic coatings do not even make it into the calculations for GHG emissions.
3- Data on post pesticide application emissions as CO2e is hard to come by. Not all pesticides are equal in terms of GHG emissions. For example, some soil fumigants themselves are GHG emitters and some non-fumigant pesticides also release substantial amounts of greenhouse gas.
4- The indirect effect of pesticide applications on GHG emissions includes interacting with organisms in the soil. For example, a soil fumigant, chloropicrin, resulted in 7 times more GHG emissions by stimulating soil microorganisms (5).
Briefly, the only way we can calculate CO2e emissions for resilient crop protection technologies uses the values per kg of pesticide active ingredient which is already a 50–70% lower estimation. According to pesticide action network (PAN), on average pesticides release 14.96–24.91 kg CO2e per kg of active ingredient manufactured (4). This is important because based on the active ingredient calculations, pesticides released 53–88 million metric tons of CO2e in 2021. If the estimate is 50–70% low, then the right estimation would be 0.17–0.29 gigatons of CO2e emissions. This is less than one gigaton and seems unimportant. However, what if we had multiple invasive species outbreaks, which can increase pesticide applications 200 times (6). This value would be annually 3.4–5.8 gigatons from active ingredients alone. Invasive species outbreaks are happening globally in multiple countries all at the same time. This does not even account for the other CO2e emissions in numbers 2, 3, and 4 and the formulation. If we had included the contributions from numbers 2, 3, and 4, the estimated CO2e emissions would be far greater than annual 3.4–5.8 gigatons.
Agriculture’s impact on GHG is much more than nitrogen’s contribution. Crop protection is an underestimated contributor with a massive undercalculation of CO2e emissions and its impact. Gigaton CO2e emissions worked very well to develop innovative technologies to manufacture nitrogen, but it is not working to identify innovative technologies in crop protection. This is due to lack of tools that can accurately calculate the CO2e equivalent emissions from pesticides.
We need new criteria to identify promising resilient crop protection technologies to replace synthetic pesticides. We need more than just gigatons of CO2e to prioritize innovative crop protection technologies. How do we come up with new reasonable criteria for evaluating new technologies? Adjusting how emissions from crop protection technologies are evaluated can be a good starting place. For example,
1- CO2e emissions need to be in million kg/pesticide when CO2e impact is just based on active ingredients. We already know that active ingredients underestimate CO2e emissions by 50–70%.
2- The raw material for the innovative technology should NOT use fossil fuel or petroleum based precursors.
3- Is the innovative technology replacing the greenhouse gas emitting pesticides? This can be direct replacement of a GHG emitting soil fumigants or non-fumigant.
4- How does the innovative technology affect soil microorganisms to reduce GHG emissions?
5- Do the manufacturing facilities use smart energy such as solar, wind, etc?
Pheronym develops a sustainable, resilient crop protection technology and meets the multiple criteria above. 1-The pheromones we developed are active in micrograms/acre compared to many pesticides, which are used g to kg/acre for active ingredients. 2- The raw material to produce the pheromones are plant based. 3- Our product replaces GHG emitting soil fumigants that kill for pest insects and nematodes. 4- Our product does not have unintended consequences for the soil microbiome and reduces 30% of the methanogenic bacteria in the soil. 5- We are located at Agstart incubator which uses solar panels for energy needs. Our products have additional benefits such as improving soil biodiversity, improving effectiveness of soil biologicals leading to the reducing use of pesticides.
Author: Dr. Fatma Kaplan is the CEO/CSO of Pheronym. She is an Activate Berkeley Alumni Fellow & Berkeley Lab Affiliate Cyclotron Road Cohort 2021. She is also an entrepreneur and an accomplished scientist with experience in both biology and chemistry. She has a Ph.D. in Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology and postdoctoral training in Natural Product Chemistry with a focus on isolating biologically active compounds. Dr. Kaplan discovered the first sex pheromone of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans and published it in Nature. Then she discovered that pheromones regulate other behaviors in both parasitic and beneficial nematodes. Dr. Kaplan conducted the first agricultural biocontrol experiment in Space at the International Space Station in 2020. She has very high impact publications, and her dissertation (beta-amylase’s role during cold and heat shock) was cited in textbooks within 5 years of publication. Dr. Kaplan worked as a scientist at NASA, the National Magnetic Field Laboratory, and the US Department of Agriculture — Agricultural Research Service. Dr. Fatma Kaplan and Mr. Karl C. Schiller co-founded Pheronym to bring nematode pheromone technology to the market and to provide effective, non-toxic, sustainable pest control for farmers and gardeners.
References
- Carbon emissions from fertilizers could be reduced by as much as 80% by 2050 by University of Cambridge, 2023
- Emissions by sector: where do greenhouse gases come from? 2023
- Global nitrogen fertilizer GHG emissions by type | Statista 2019
- A Vicious Cycle Winter 2022–2023
- Stimulation of nitrous oxide production resulted from soil fumigation with chloropicrin 2003
- Environmental Consequences of Invasive Species: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Insecticide Use and the Role of Biological Control in Reducing Emissions 2013
- How biopesticides reduce carbon emissions in agriculture 2023
