1. Food justice, food security, and climate engineering

Abstract

Both the planning of EurSafe2021 and the origin of this book were profoundly influenced by the Covid-19 pandemic, and we are extremely pleased to see that so many contributions still arrived. We would like to thank all authors for sharing their work and insights and all reviewers for their muchappreciated expertise on the vast range of topics. We are grateful for the support and encouragement received from the EurSafe board and Svenja Springer, in preparing this conference despite the challenging circumstances. Our special thanks go to

Right to Food and Geoengineering

“…The obligation to achieve climate change mitigation can also be interpreted to involve obligations to conduct CDR (Honegger et al, 2021). CDR is doubly relevant for food-related reasoning since most of the CDR methods developed to date constitute agricultural geoengineering (geoengineering via agricultural practices) and directly influence farming activities too (Kortetmäki & Oksanen, 2016).…”

“…4) while risks to food security are low if methods are safe from sudden carbon leakages. One proviso to this suggestion concerns resource allocation: if effective non-agricultural CDR is expensive, as Kortetmäki & Oksanen, 2016 suggest (although technical advancements may rapidly change the situation), the relative costs and benefits of non-agricultural CDR need to be compared to what could be achieved at the same cost using alternative measures.…”

“…Of these, SCS and biochar (a form of SCS) alter soil properties; BECCS uses croplands to simultaneously produce bioenergy and carbon storage; and AR transforms cropland into forestland. 8 While these techniques are safer than SRM from a food security perspective (Kortetmäki & Oksanen, 2016), their other impacts need consideration. It should be acknowledged, however, that agricultural geoengineering overlaps with conventional emission reductions.…”