Opinion: The shift towards net zero is a huge opportunity
© Adobe Stock It’s embarrassing to watch right-wing politicians have a paddy in an anti-net zero puddle.
In their world, small-scale nuclear modular reactors are OK, but using land to harness the free power of the sun and wind are not.
I know the technology and the pricing is not perfect, but throwing toys out of the pram on net zero makes no sense.
See also: Opinion – time to press reset on food, nature and people
About the author
It’s understandable that some farmers have latched on to an anti-net zero narrative. For too long, net zero has meant something done to farmers by the government or corporates.
I’ve long argued against landowners giving up food production to reduce their carbon emissions, but the positive vision of a thriving net-zero agriculture has been hard to find.
I take heart from the energy sector. In recent years, “net zero” in energy has become synonymous with national security.
The government’s “clean energy mission” recognises that resilience comes from transitioning to local, clean, renewable sources.
This matters because it reframes decarbonisation as a strategic necessity, not just an environmental goal.
Could net zero mean something similar for farming? I think that the strategic priority of net-zero agriculture should be nothing less than national food security.
Food security
There will be substantial change in land use and farming to achieve it, but healthy and efficient British farms with resilient soils and diverse ecosystems must be the bedrock.
To understand the transformation, we can look to our efforts during the Second World War.
As they were before the war, our import dependencies in food, feed and fuel for farming are huge cause for concern, and each needs addressing, under a net-zero national food security strategy.
Climate change is already affecting food production in many regions we trade with.
National food security means replacing imports from climate-insecure places and ensuring that the food available here is keeping people healthy.
British farmers will need to meet the challenge of producing more pulses, fruit and vegetables, switching land away from lower nutritional value foods.
No one is thinking of rationing, even though evidence from the war suggests it made people healthier, but the dietary changes implied by net-zero targets suggest balanced and more diverse diets.
British farms can meet that need.
Just as farms had to avoid risky imports during the war, national food security will mean a trend towards self-sufficiency and fewer inputs, with cost and environmental benefits.
Circular agriculture should become the norm again, with no “waste”. Peatlands will need rewetting to provide water storage capacity as we face more flood and drought periods.
Energy security
The biggest shift may be in energy security. As we grew oats then for horsepower, more land is now needed for renewables, biomass and trees. Distributing and localising this makes sense.
Farms can become small-scale energy hubs, avoiding the massive costs of national grid upgrades.
Localised, direct current networks could provide abundant low-cost energy for farm operations, water management and local communities.
Just as the transition to net-zero energy creates new economic opportunities, a shift towards net-zero agriculture would open up new markets and opportunities.
The experience of the Second World War showed us that we can transform land use to meet the changing needs of our communities. I am confident that with the right vision and support, we can do it again.