Climate and agriculture: an economic equation we can no longer ignore

The economic equation of the climate crisis is clear: the longer we wait, the higher the price will be. The good news? Taking action costs less than doing nothing.

As the climate action strategist at Logiag, I am constantly looking for the climate crisis’ concrete manifestations of agriculture, which are no longer abstract. We see it in yields, profitability, and the stability of production systems. And despite adaptation efforts on the ground, losses are mounting.

This is where the economic equation becomes clear: the longer we delay reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the greater the losses will be—and the higher the cost.

Investing now in climate transition on farms is a strategic decision that benefits the entire agri-food chain, because while action has a cost, the cost of inaction is much higher.

Indeed, regardless of future GHG reduction scenarios, damage to the global economy will inevitably reach nearly $40 trillion per year by 2050. That is six times more than the estimated cost of limiting global warming to 2°C. Every year of delay in mitigating emissions adds hundreds, if not thousands, of billions of dollars to the bill.

The price of inaction: an unsustainable economic burden for agriculture

In agriculture, the impacts of climate change are now tangible on the ground, and the forecasts will not improve if the agri-food sector continues to postpone the necessary investments.

Global agricultural productivity is now 21% lower than it would have been without climate change. In the United States, agricultural productivity could fall to pre-1980 levels by 2050. In Quebec, heat stress on dairy herds could alone lead to losses of $5 to $7 per hectoliter due to lower fat and protein yields.

A recent study published in Nature provides a striking quantification of the impact of global warming on global food production. By analyzing six staple crops (wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, barley, and cassava), the authors estimate that each degree Celsius of warming will result in a net loss of 120 calories per person per day globally—even taking into account adaptation strategies already implemented by farms. At this rate, a 3°C rise in temperature by the end of the century—a scenario now considered plausible—would be equivalent to eliminating one meal per day for every human being.

Acting now: a major economic opportunity

Fortunately, there is another side to this equation, and it is positive: taking action is profitable. Proactive investment in GHG emissions mitigation in agriculture is not only necessary, but also constitutes a tremendous economic opportunity : every dollar invested today in this climate transition would yield a return of 10 by 2100 (median value).

Conclusion

The data is clear: agriculture is on the front lines of climate change, and this threatens global food security. Despite adaptation efforts, the projected losses are enormous—but they are not inevitable.

Inaction is costly. Acting now to reduce GHGs means protecting our ability to feed the population and create sustainable economic value.

For producers, decision-makers, and players in the agri-food chain, climate transition is much more than a challenge: it is a strategic opportunity to build a more resilient, profitable agriculture that is aligned with the challenges of the century.