Supply Chain Council of European Union | Scceu.org
Procurement

Integrating degrowth and efficiency perspectives enables an emission-neutral food system by 2100

  • Schneider, F., Kallis, G. & Martinez-Alier, J. Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 511–518 (2010).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).

    ADS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hickel, J. et al. Urgent need for post-growth climate mitigation scenarios. Nat. Energy 6, 766–768 (2021).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hickel, J. What does degrowth mean? A few points of clarification. Globalizations 18, 1105–1111 (2021).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Xue, J., Arler, F. & Næss, P. Is the degrowth debate relevant to China? Environ. Dev. Sustain 14, 85–109 (2012).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Victor, P. A. Growth, degrowth and climate change: a scenario analysis. Ecol. Econ. 84, 206–212 (2012).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Kallis, G. et al. Research on degrowth. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43, 291–316 (2018).


    Google Scholar
     

  • D’Alisa, G., Demaria, F. & Kallis, G. Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era (Routledge, 2014).

  • Otero, I. et al. Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12713 (2020).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Keyßer, L. T. & Lenzen, M. 1.5 °C degrowth scenarios suggest the need for new mitigation pathways. Nat. Commun. 12, 2676 (2021).

    ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Nieto, J., Carpintero, Ó., Miguel, L. J. & de Blas, I. Macroeconomic modelling under energy constraints: global low carbon transition scenarios. Energy Policy 137, 111090 (2020).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831674

  • Rockström, J., Edenhofer, O., Gaertner, J. & DeClerck, F. Planet-proofing the global food system. Nat. Food 1, 3–5 (2020).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2, 198–209 (2021).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Clark, M. A. et al. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2 °C climate change targets. Science 370, 705–708 (2020).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Cosme, I., Santos, R. & O’Neill, D. W. Assessing the degrowth discourse: a review and analysis of academic degrowth policy proposals. J. Clean. Prod. 149, 321–334 (2017).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Daly, H. E. Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an economics that is efficient, just, and sustainable. Ecol. Econ. 6, 185–193 (1992).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Dietrich, J. P. et al. MAgPIE 4—a modular open-source framework for modeling global land systems. Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 1299–1317 (2019).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Leclère, D. et al. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585, 551–556 (2020).

    ADS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bodirsky, B. L. et al. Reactive nitrogen requirements to feed the world in 2050 and potential to mitigate nitrogen pollution. Nat. Commun. 5, 3858 (2014).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Soergel, B. et al. A sustainable development pathway for climate action within the UN 2030 Agenda. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 656–664 (2021).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Bodirsky, B. L. et al. The ongoing nutrition transition thwarts long-term targets for food security, public health and environmental protection. Sci Rep. 10, 19778 (2020).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Stevanović, M. et al. The impact of high-end climate change on agricultural welfare. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501452 (2016).

    ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Masters, W. A. et al. The nutrition transition and agricultural transformation: a Preston curve approach. Agric. Econ. 47, 97–114 (2016).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Hubacek, K., Baiocchi, G., Feng, K. & Patwardhan, A. Poverty eradication in a carbon constrained world. Nat. Commun. 8, 912 (2017).

    ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Popkin, B. M., Corvalan, C. & Grummer-Strawn, L. M. Dynamics of the double burden of malnutrition and the changing nutrition reality. Lancet 395, 65–74 (2020).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Springmann, M., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M. & Scarborough, P. Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4146–4151 (2016).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Jakob, M., Lamb, W. F., Steckel, J. C., Flachsland, C. & Edenhofer, O. Understanding different perspectives on economic growth and climate policy. WIREs Clim. Change 11, e677 (2020).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Daly, H. Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development: Selected Essays (Edward Elgar, 2008).

  • Tubb, C. & Seba, T. Rethinking food and agriculture 2020–2030: the second domestication of plants and animals, the disruption of the cow, and the collapse of industrial livestock farming. Ind. Biotechnol. 17, 57––72 (2021).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Yi, J. et al. Post-farmgate food value chains make up most of consumer food expenditures globally. Nat. Food 2, 417–425 (2021).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Latka, C. et al. Paying the price for environmentally sustainable and healthy EU diets. Glob. Food Secur 28, 100437 (2021).


    Google Scholar
     

  • O’Neill, D. W. Measuring progress in the degrowth transition to a steady state economy. Ecol. Econ. 84, 221–231 (2012).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hawkes, C. et al. Smart food policies for obesity prevention. Lancet 385, 2410–2421 (2015).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Swinburn, B. et al. Monitoring and benchmarking government policies and actions to improve the healthiness of food environments: a proposed Government Healthy Food Environment Policy Index. Obes. Rev. 14, 24–37 (2013).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Campos, S., Doxey, J. & Hammond, D. Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr. 14, 1496–1506 (2011).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Magnus, A., Haby, M. M., Carter, R. & Swinburn, B. The cost-effectiveness of removing television advertising of high-fat and/or high-sugar food and beverages to Australian children. Int. J. Obes. 2005 33, 1094–1102 (2009).

    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Girard, A. W. & Olude, O. Nutrition education and counselling provided during pregnancy: effects on maternal, neonatal and child health outcomes. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 26, 191–204 (2012).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Cook, S. L., Nasser, R., Comfort, B. L. Webster & Larsen, D. K. Effect of nutrition counselling on client perceptions and eating behaviour. Can. J. Diet. Pract. Res. 67, 171–177 (2006).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Taber, D. R., Chriqui, J. F., Powell, L. & Chaloupka, F. J. Association between state laws governing school meal nutrition content and student weight status: implications for new USDA school meal standards. JAMA Pediatr. 167, 513–519 (2013).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Allais, O. & Nichèle, V. Capturing structural changes in French meat and fish demand over the period 1991–2002. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 34, 517–538 (2007).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Witt, U. in Demand, Complexity, and Long-run Economic Evolution (eds Chai, A. & Baum, C. M.) 117–139 (Springer, 2019); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02423-9_7

  • Fankhauser, S., Tol, R. S. J. & Pearce, D. W. The aggregation of climate change damages: a welfare theoretic approach. Environ. Resour. Econ 10, 249–266 (1997).


    Google Scholar
     

  • OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being (OECD, 2013).

  • Hirvonen, K., Bai, Y., Headey, D. & Masters, W. A. Affordability of the EAT–Lancet reference diet: a global analysis. Lancet Glob. Health 8, e59–e66 (2020).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Soergel, B. et al. Combining ambitious climate policies with efforts to eradicate poverty. Nat. Commun. 12, 2342 (2021).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Murray, B. & Rivers, N. British Columbia’s revenue-neutral carbon tax: a review of the latest ‘grand experiment’ in environmental policy. Energy Policy 86, 674–683 (2015).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Pacheco, F. A. L., Sanches Fernandes, L. F., Valle Junior, R. F., Valera, C. A. & Pissarra, T. C. T. Land degradation: multiple environmental consequences and routes to neutrality. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 5, 79–86 (2018).


    Google Scholar
     

  • World Social Report 2020: Inequality in a Rapidly Changing World (UN, 2020); https://doi.org/10.18356/7f5d0efc-en

  • Bauer, N. et al. Shared Socio-Economic Pathways of the energy sector—quantifying the narratives. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 316–330 (2017).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Gerten, D. et al. Feeding ten billion people is possible within four terrestrial planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain 3, 200–208 (2020).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Gaupp, F. et al. Food system development pathways for healthy, nature-positive and inclusive food systems. Nat. Food 2, 928–934 (2021).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C. & Sonesson, U. Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention. Study Conducted for the International Congress Save Food! at Interpack 2011, Düsseldorf, Germany (FAO, 2011).

  • Weindl, I. et al. Livestock and human use of land: productivity trends and dietary choices as drivers of future land and carbon dynamics. Glob. Planet. Change 159, 1–10 (2017).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Wang, X. et al. Beyond land-use intensity: assessing future global crop productivity growth under different socioeconomic pathways. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 160, 120208 (2020).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Dietrich, J. P., Schmitz, C., Lotze-Campen, H., Popp, A. & Müller, C. Forecasting technological change in agriculture—an endogenous implementation in a global land use model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 81, 236–249 (2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Pikaar, I. et al. Decoupling livestock from land use through industrial feed production pathways. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 7351–7359 (2018).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Schmitz, C. et al. Agricultural trade and tropical deforestation: interactions and related policy options. Reg. Environ. Change 15, 1757–1772 (2015).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Popp, A. et al. Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options. Clim. Change 123, 495–509 (2014).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Strefler, J. et al. Carbon dioxide removal technologies are not born equal. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 074021 (2021).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Hurtt, G. C. et al. Harmonization of global land use change and management for the period 850–2100 (LUH2) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 5425–5464 (2020).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Windisch, M. G., Davin, E. L. & Seneviratne, S. I. Prioritizing forestation based on biogeochemical and local biogeophysical impacts. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 867–871 (2021).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Kreidenweis, U. et al. Afforestation to mitigate climate change: impacts on food prices under consideration of albedo effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 085001 (2016).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Windisch, M. G. et al. Accounting for local temperature effect substantially alters afforestation patterns. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 024030 (2022).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, 2006); https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories/

  • Lucas, P. L., van Vuuren, D. P., Olivier, J. G. J. & den Elzen, M. G. J. Long-term reduction potential of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 85–103 (2007).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).


    Google Scholar
     

  • The World Bank Group A to Z 2016 83b–83b, ‘High-Income Countries’ (World Bank, 2015); https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0484-7_high_income_countries

  • Jackson, T. Prosperity without Growth: Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow (Routledge, 2016).

  • Kubiszewski, I. & Costanza, R. in The Sustainability Practitioner’s Guide to Social Analysis and Assessment (eds Murray, J., McBain, D. & Wiedmann, T.) 44–51 (Common Ground Publishing, 2015).

  • Kriegler, E. et al. Fossil-fueled development (SSP5): an energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 297–315 (2017).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Luderer, G. et al. Description of the REMIND Model (Version 1.6) https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2697070 (2015).

  • Hickel, J. The sustainable development index: measuring the ecological efficiency of human development in the anthropocene. Ecol. Econ. 167, 106331 (2020).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Alexander, S. Planned economic contraction: the emerging case for degrowth. Environ. Polit. 21, 349–368 (2012).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Infante Amate, J. & González de Molina, M. ‘Sustainable de-growth’ in agriculture and food: an agro-ecological perspective on Spain’s agri-food system (year 2000). J. Clean. Prod. 38, 27–35 (2013).


    Google Scholar
     

  • Related posts

    Online system soon to ensure transparency in procurement

    scceu

    China says to more closely regulate influencer management firms

    scceu

    How hybrid learning has changed the art of the possible

    scceu