The intersection of food, agriculture, and climate change is poised to take center stage at the forthcoming global climate negotiations in northern Brazil. With the thirtieth annual Conference of the Parties (COP30) set to take place from November 6-21 in Belém, the focus will be on addressing the complex challenges that arise from the intersection of agriculture and climate change.
Delegates from nearly every country will convene in Belém, a key regional hub and gateway to the Amazon. Despite the urgency, most nations remain off track in their efforts to drastically cut carbon emissions, which is crucial to mitigating the severe impacts of climate change.
Food and climate advocacy groups see COP30 as a potential game changer for transforming food systems, which are responsible for about a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. As the host nation, Brazil has prioritized agriculture as one of the key agenda items for the conference.
Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, renowned for his efforts to alleviate hunger and protect critical ecosystems in the Amazon and Cerrado, will lead the conference. Brazil’s significant role as an agricultural powerhouse and the world’s eleventh-largest economy adds weight to its influence at the summit. However, advocates for comprehensive food system reforms face significant opposition from the country’s well-prepared agribusiness sector.
The agriculture industry, under scrutiny for its substantial emissions—ranging from nitrous oxide from fertilizers to methane from livestock digestion—faces pressure to reform. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has emphasized the need for rapid reductions in emissions from the food and farming sectors.
Some campaigners view reducing agriculture’s methane emissions—surpassing those from oil and gas—as a critical and cost-effective measure to slow global warming. Peer-reviewed research suggests that reducing red meat consumption, particularly in wealthier nations, is the most effective approach.
However, agribusiness delegates from Brazil, the U.S., and other livestock-producing nations plan to argue against production cuts at COP30. They aim to downplay agriculture’s environmental impact, advocate for technical solutions with questionable efficacy, and frame regulatory measures as threats to well-being and prosperity.
In a move supported by civil society and policymakers, Brazil’s COP presidency has prioritized “Information Integrity” to counteract the spread of climate-related misinformation, though greenwashing in agriculture poses a more subtle challenge.
Regenerative Agriculture
Served with: grass-fed beef, regenerative grazing, carbon farming, carbon positive
The term “regenerative agriculture,” lacking universal definitions, broadly pertains to eco-friendly farming practices that enhance soil carbon storage. It is favored by companies like McDonalds and Cargill in their net-zero plans.
The summit will feature numerous panels on regenerative agriculture, hosted by Brazil’s Embrapa and sponsored by companies like Nestlé and Bayer. While practices such as organic and no-till farming offer benefits, science indicates that soil carbon sequestration can only offset a small portion of the agriculture sector’s emissions.
The beef industry promotes regenerative grazing and manure management as means to lower emissions, yet its carbon footprint is comparable to that of India. Scientists remain skeptical, citing the substantial contribution of meat production to methane emissions.
A 2024 Harvard Animal Law and Policy Program survey of experts found overwhelming agreement that reducing “animal-sourced” foods is essential for a 50% reduction in livestock greenhouse gases by 2050 to meet Paris Agreement goals.
Despite the financial allure of regenerative agriculture, changes to the Paris Agreement have opened carbon markets to “soil-based credits,” now traded under UN markets.
Tropical Agriculture
Often paired with: regenerative agriculture, climate-neutral, carbon offsets
Brazil’s “special envoy for agriculture,” Roberto Rodrigues, will advocate for the country’s leadership in “low-carbon tropical agriculture” at COP30. This concept suggests that warm-region soils and tree planting can offset methane emissions from Brazil’s massive cattle population.
Major agriculture polluters have used tropical agriculture claims to assert “carbon neutral” credentials, including Brazilian meat giant JBS, whose methane emissions surpassed those of ExxonMobil and Shell combined in 2024.
Embrapa’s research underpins the industry’s marketing of “low-carbon” and “carbon-neutral” beef labels. However, independent research challenges the notion that soil carbon can balance livestock emissions. Leading soil scientist Pete Smith calls claims of extensive soil carbon sequestration “preposterous.”
Critics point out that many Brazilian pastures are created by clearing forests, releasing more CO2 than new trees can absorb. While some carbon sequestration advances have occurred, labeling the sector as highly sustainable is seen as “intellectual dishonesty,” according to Climate Observatory’s Claudio Angelo.
Brazil’s methane emissions have increased since 2020, with agriculture responsible for over 74% of total emissions in 2023. The expansion of agriculture has contributed to the loss of native vegetation.
The scientific consensus warns that current food system trends pose an “unacceptable risk,” calling for dietary changes to prevent ecosystem tipping points, such as the irreversible damage to the Amazon rainforest and coral reefs.
Harvard University’s Helen Harwatt emphasizes that meeting Paris Agreement goals requires “huge reductions” in feed production and animal-sourced foods in regions like Brazil, where beef consumption is notably high.
The Brazilian Agribusiness Association (ABAG) plans to promote its industry as a “low-carbon agriculture leader” at COP30, omitting the need for livestock reduction. Special Envoy Rodrigues advocates for including soil carbon sequestration from tropical agriculture in emissions reduction goals.
Embrapa maintains that its carbon protocols are scientifically grounded, addressing deforestation emissions within a 20-year framework.
No Additional Warming
Often associated with: climate neutrality, GWP*, tropical agriculture
The debate over measuring methane emissions will likely surface at COP30, as livestock-intensive nations seek favorable methodologies. Their preferred metric, GWP* or “global warming potential star,” compares short-lived gases like methane with long-lived CO2 impacts.
While GWP* can be useful globally, it controversially downplays emissions of large meat and dairy producers when applied nationally or corporately, while penalizing smaller increases elsewhere.
Advocates of GWP* include U.S., Australian, and Latin American industry groups and Oxford University academic Myles Allen. Recently, New Zealand adopted GWP* in its climate goals, weakening its methane reduction target.
Critics, calling it an “accounting trick” and “fuzzy methane maths,” warn that GWP* adoption allows large polluters to claim “climate neutrality” without reducing herd sizes or methane output.
A global group of climate scientists advises against GWP* as a common metric, arguing it maintains high methane emissions expectations. Allen sees COP30 as a chance to “reframe climate policy” around alternative metrics like GWP*.
Brazilian agribusiness groups have incorporated GWP* into their tropical agriculture toolkit, with Embrapa increasingly supporting the metric.
Bioeconomy
Often paired with: circular economy, biogas, biofuels, socio-bioeconomy
“Bioeconomy” encompasses diverse ideas for transforming economies to align with nature. In Brazil and Europe, it has become synonymous with green growth, embraced by agribusiness and governments.
Critics argue that corporations like Cargill and Arla have co-opted the term to greenwash destructive farming expansion. The term now encompasses controversial “green” fuels like “biofuels,” made from organic materials like corn and soybean oil.
Environmental scientists critique biofuels for requiring vast land for monoculture crops, leading to deforestation and biodiversity loss, as well as competing with food crops.
Meat giants like JBS and Cargill are expanding into biogas, branding it as “clean” energy. However, its large-scale viability remains uncertain, with one analysis suggesting it could replace only 7% of gas-fired power.
Biofuels, although derived from organic matter, still emit greenhouse gases when burned. A recent study found they emit 16% more CO2 than fossil fuels due to associated farming and deforestation impacts.
As a leading ethanol producer, Brazil plans to promote bioenergy at COP30. A leaked document indicates Brazil’s intention to champion a global push for “sustainable fuels,” primarily biofuels and biogas.
We Feed the World
Often paired with: efficiency, emissions intensity, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), nutrition, “Brazil is only just off the hunger map”
The meat industry is expected to revive this claim at COP30, especially with Brazil’s anticipated “Belém Declaration on Hunger and Poverty.” Agribusiness will argue that regulating the industry according to science-based climate safeguards will exacerbate hunger.
This narrative overlooks that the world already produces 1.5 times more food than needed, with hunger persisting due to waste, poverty, and inequality, worsened by climate impacts.
Solving hunger requires political solutions, not increased production. Research shows that industrial meat and dairy expansion has not improved food security in low-income nations but has fueled over-consumption in wealthier countries.
Half of maize and 75% of soy is used for animal feed, not human consumption. Scientists and the EAT-Lancet Commission have highlighted that reducing meat production in high-income countries would free up land for grains and pulses, feeding more people with fewer emissions.
A 2016 study found smallholder farms provide most food in regions with high hunger rates, producing over 70% of calories in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia.
Brazil’s success in exiting the UN hunger map came from local food policies and small farmer support, not agribusiness exports.
The EAT-Lancet Commission advocates for a diet rich in whole grains, legumes, and seeds, suggesting people consume 50% less red meat in most regions. Studies confirm that reduced meat consumption would be a global win-win-win for reducing pollution, conserving biodiversity, and improving health.
As climate impacts worsen, University of Texas professor Raj Patel emphasizes the need to support resilient, diverse “agroecological” systems that receive less financial support than industrial agriculture.
Big Ag Is Progress and Development
Often coupled with: economic development, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
The catchy genre “agronejo,” a blend of country music and pop, portrays agriculture as synonymous with wealth and power in Brazil. Agribusiness cultural campaigns include TV shows, publishers, and educational resources for children, similar to tactics in other countries.
JBS is sponsoring COP30 content in major Brazilian newspapers, promoting agribusiness as a modernizing force in the global South.
JBS announced its expansion into Nigeria, claiming job creation and food security benefits, though local experts dispute these claims.
Small producers in the global South are portrayed as unhygienic and polluting, while industrial operators claim lower emissions per unit of production. This shifts focus from the sector’s total emissions, where wealthier nations lead.
A 2025 study reveals that although global South farmers produce 80% of food consumed globally, profits are captured by governments and companies in the global North.
As COP30 approaches, Brazilian civil society is organizing a People’s Summit to present an alternative vision of agriculture focused on locally-grown foods and ecologically-minded smallholder farmers.
Efficiency Is Enough
Often paired with: emissions intensity, innovation, new technologies, producing “more with less”, “We feed the world”
Global North dairy farms will argue that efficiency, not transformation, can solve climate challenges. They claim producing “more with less” can reduce emissions while increasing milk and butter supplies, aided by technologies like feed additives.
Bold carbon reduction targets often focus on emissions intensity, not absolute pollution. Despite a reported 11% reduction in emissions intensity from 2005 to 2015, dairy emissions rose by 18% due to herd growth.
Companies like Arla, Fonterra, and Mengniu have set intensity-based reduction targets for their supply chain emissions.
Without production limits, efficiency gains may not reduce pollution, as increased efficiency often leads to increased use, known as the Jevons paradox. Ireland’s dairy industry exemplifies this, with increased production leading to rising methane emissions.
The UN FAO’s 2023 “Pathways to lower emissions” report emphasized technology and voluntary efficiency, ignoring peer-reviewed science advocating for government policies that shift diets away from animal products.
Fertilizer and pesticide companies also use efficiency arguments, promoting drones, precision spraying, and chemical-coated seeds as green solutions, despite their role in ecological destruction.
While efficiency improvements matter, experts warn they can’t replace absolute reductions in methane, fertilizers, and land use change. “Efficiency” may benefit business, but not the planet.
Fossil Fuels Are the Real Problem
Often paired with: “Agriculture is a solution,” “Agriculture is unfairly villained,” “We are making great strides in reducing our emissions”
Farm lobbies often deflect criticism of agriculture’s climate impacts by blaming other industries. Latin American trade bodies are shifting blame to the fossil fuel industry ahead of the climate summit.
The Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) aims to remove agriculture “from the dock of the accused” at COP30. Deputy Director General Lloyd Day argues agriculture is unfairly cast as a “villain,” despite being “part of the solution.”
U.S. agriculture trade groups have similarly downplayed their sector’s climate contributions compared to fossil fuel-heavy industries like transport.
While coal, oil, and gas are major climate contributors, food systems emissions alone could push the world over 1.5°C without intervention.
The food system is the largest driver of planetary boundary transgressions, from deforestation to freshwater pollution. Agriculture surpasses fossil fuels in methane and nitrous oxide pollution, responsible for a third of global warming.
By blaming fossil fuels as the “real culprit,” the industry deflects attention from its own footprint and stalls meaningful reform. Climate experts emphasize that addressing global warming requires confronting both sectors with equal ambition.
JBS, PepsiCo, McDonalds, and the New Zealand Government did not comment before publication.
Additional reporting by Gil Alessi and Maximiliano Manzoni
Original Story at www.desmog.com