8 korrents from this piece
Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.
Their wordsClaims to the contrary could lead to a misallocation of investments and, consequently, worse environmental (and social) outcomes.
Their wordsTherefore, land sparing is more likely to take place, even at the local level, when yields of staples go up. The situation is different for some internationally traded products like soy and palm oil.
Our reading
Raising yields on land already farmed is what keeps farming from taking more of the wild world.
Their wordsIn other words, land sparing almost always occurs—it is just a question of where.
Their wordsWithout yield improvements, therefore, we would have seen more than double the cropland expansion.
Their wordsNelson Villoria estimates that for every 1% gain in Total Factor Productivity (inputs required per unit of output) in the US, croplands in the rest of the world shrink by 0.7%.
Their wordsIn sum, land sparing is common at the local level and the norm at the global scale, in contrast to recent appeals to Jevons' paradox.
Their wordsYield-boosting measures, however, always need to be thoughtfully paired with other measures to ensure that outcomes—environmental as well as social—are acceptable at the local level.
Their wordsWhat this also tells us is that, at the end of the day, the argument for boosting yields—especially among smallholder farmers—is not just environmental: it is humanitarian.