Higher Farm Productivity Is Slowing the Growth of Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Agriculture has long been seen as a tough sector to clean up when it comes to climate change. Farms need land, water, fertilizer, machinery, and livestock, all of which generate greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, global food demand keeps rising as populations grow and diets change. A new scientific study, however, shows that these two trends—higher food production and lower emissions growth—do not necessarily have to move in opposite directions. In fact, improved farm productivity has played a central role in keeping agricultural emissions from rising as fast as food output.
A study published on January 16 in the journal Science Advances takes a deep look at global agriculture over six decades, from 1961 to 2021. The research was conducted by Ariel Ortiz-Bobea of Cornell University and Simone Pieralli of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. Using large-scale international datasets, the researchers examined why agricultural production has increased far more rapidly than greenhouse gas emissions over this period. Their conclusion is clear: productivity gains, meaning more output from the same amount of inputs, are the main reason emissions growth has been relatively restrained.
Over the past 60 years, global agricultural production has expanded dramatically. According to the study, productivity grew by about 270% between 1961 and 2021. During the same period, greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture rose by roughly 45%. Emissions did increase, but at a much slower pace than output. This gap between production growth and emissions growth is often described as “decoupling,” and the researchers set out to understand exactly what drove it.
Agriculture and land use still account for about one-fifth of all human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, so this slowdown in emissions growth does not mean the problem is solved. However, it does suggest that progress is possible without sacrificing food production. The study challenges the idea that increasing agricultural output must automatically come with proportionally higher emissions.
A key contribution of this research is how it measures and explains emissions trends. Many previous studies focused on total production or calories produced. Ortiz-Bobea and Pieralli took a different approach, grounding their analysis in economic concepts. National agricultural statistics typically track value, inputs, and outputs, not calories alone. The researchers therefore focused on how much value agriculture produces, how much labor, land, capital, and materials are used, and how many greenhouse gases are emitted in the process.
To do this, they combined USDA data on agricultural inputs and outputs from countries around the world with emissions data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). They then used an analytical framework that breaks emissions growth into three main components: growth in total output, changes in emissions per unit of input, and changes in output per unit of input, which is productivity.
Their results consistently showed that higher productivity was the dominant factor slowing emissions growth. In simple terms, farmers have learned how to get more food, fiber, and other agricultural products from the same amount—or even fewer—inputs. When productivity rises, emissions per unit of output tend to fall, even if total emissions continue to increase slightly.
The study does not identify specific farming practices or policies that caused these productivity gains, but it does point to the importance of technological change. Advances that improve land efficiency, such as better seeds, improved fertilizers, and more effective farm management techniques, appear to have had a stronger impact on reducing emissions intensity than improvements related solely to labor efficiency. This suggests that the direction of technological progress matters greatly for climate outcomes.
Another important angle explored in the research is the role of research and development (R&D). Ortiz-Bobea notes that in countries like the United States, agricultural productivity growth has started to slow. One likely reason is long-term stagnation in public R&D funding over the past four decades. Productivity gains do not happen automatically; they depend on sustained investment in science, technology, and innovation.
This has direct implications for policy. Governments often treat productivity and environmental protection as competing goals. The study suggests this is a false trade-off. With the right incentives and research priorities, it may be possible to design policies that increase output while also reducing emissions intensity. The key challenge is deciding what goals R&D policies should prioritize and how to balance limited resources across productivity, sustainability, and climate objectives.
Beyond the study itself, the findings fit into a broader conversation about how agriculture can contribute to climate mitigation. Most agricultural greenhouse gas emissions come from methane, largely produced by livestock digestion and manure management, and nitrous oxide, which is linked to fertilizer use and soil processes. Carbon dioxide emissions also arise from land-use change, energy use, and machinery. Productivity improvements can influence all of these indirectly by reducing pressure to expand farmland and by making input use more efficient.
Globally, emissions per unit of agricultural output have been declining for decades, even as total emissions rise. This pattern shows up in FAO statistics and other international assessments. The new study strengthens the evidence that efficiency gains, rather than structural shifts alone, have been central to this trend.
However, the researchers are careful not to overstate their conclusions. Productivity growth alone will not be enough to meet global climate targets. Absolute emissions reductions will still be necessary, especially given the scale of agriculture’s contribution to global warming. The study also does not determine whether future productivity gains will continue to deliver the same emissions benefits, particularly as climate change itself begins to affect yields and farming conditions.
What the research does provide is a clearer framework for thinking about trade-offs. Instead of asking whether agriculture should prioritize productivity or sustainability, it encourages policymakers and researchers to ask how technological change can be guided to serve both goals. Understanding the past helps clarify which strategies are likely to be most effective going forward.
In the end, the message of the study is cautiously optimistic. Agriculture has already shown an ability to grow more efficient over time, producing far more with relatively smaller increases in emissions. With smarter investment in research, better technology, and thoughtful policy design, that trend could continue. The challenge now is ensuring that future gains are fast enough—and widespread enough—to meet both food security and climate goals.
Research paper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aeb8653
