Besides land cover change, which is of a quite visible effect, the agriculture has a potential and invisible effect on N2O (nitrous oxide), produced from agricultural activity, that critically impacts the climate change. However, as I agree with the Nobel Laureate, Prof. Paul J. Crutzen, there is a huge research gap in this area of research, but unfortunately, the research community is adamant to do research in this area.

It is obvious that agriculture is one of the human activities that contributes to climate change, particularly global warming. The livestock sector of Agriculture alone plays a huge role producing methane, one of the green house gases, that has about 18 times global warming effect of that of carbondioxide.

But the question is: Is it possible to reduce the impact of Agriculture, while still feeding the increasing World Population?

I am not sure if there is a way to achieve that balance between food security and environmental sustainability. By 2050, the world population is expected to reach 9 billion and the need for food will increase by 70% of current production and productivity. The only way we can satisfy that need will be using intensified farming that will continue to contribute to the deterioration of climate and environment.

I am not sure if we get lucky and come up with some breakthrough discoveries that changes the way we do businesses. The only only way we can do, but we are not doing at all is population control!

Dear Tadesse Fikre Teferra ,

Despite a large consensus among the scientists, the AGW is still a debatable topic as there are huge research gaps, especially in the connection between the chemistry and meteorology/climatology. In contrast to the AGW, air pollution is a critical and needs the immediate action against to safe-guard the public and ecosystem health.

As you mentioned livestock, let's focus on it. It is not only the GHG emitter but also a culprit of many number of primary and secondary carcinogens in the atmosphere. However, it is a completely new to the research community as I only have developed a compelling research proposal on the topic with my background in chemistry and research experience in air pollution/atmospheric chemistry modeling.

In a nutshell, air pollution should be considered more seriously than the AGW for environmental safety.

Regards,

Kishore

Dear Thierry,

I can follow your argument. Nethertheless ist would be interesting to find any correlation between CO2 and "green periods". My feeling is, that actually the traditionally agricultural technology and the correlated land-use diminish a possible increase of binding CO2 in vegetable material.

What do you think about this topic?

Best regards

Michael

You might be right about the relevance of the contribution of CO2 to the climate, but actually there are a lot of emotional discussions and activities on all (political) levels to decrease the CO2 by burning our geohistorical carbon sinks in form of crude oil and gas. So the relevance of binding CO2 is the chance to have arguments how to fix this additional CO2 in the atmosphere for example in plants and the humus area of the ground. This might be an additional chance to reduce or stop the hysteria in the climate discussion.