By Jack Miller, Member, North Central Pennsylvania Group; Pennsylvania Chapter Executive Committee
A few months ago a fellow member of our local Sierra Club Group sent me a short piece from the Guardian which highlighted the book, We are Eating the Earth: The Race to Fix Our Food System and Save Our Climate by Michael Grunwald. It is a book that has pushed my thinking in some new directions while strengthening my understanding in others. Grunwald reports on the findings of Tim Searchinger whose path has led him from being an environmental lawyer and now a researcher on land use and the climate crisis. Searchinger is a Senior Research Scholar at Princeton University.
To develop and win his legal cases, Searchinger had to do extensive research. His research led to victory for wetland filters for the Everglades. This was followed by his defining work in debunking the use of the bio-fuels corn ethanol and wood pellets as methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The book’s major focus is on feeding the world’s growing population without destroying planetary life. How do we feed an extra two billion people by 2050 without destroying world habitability? The author George Monbiot also asks the same question in his book, Feeding the World Without Destroying the Planet. In it he wrote “I have come to see that land use as the most important of all environmental questions. I now believe that it is the issue that makes the biggest difference to whether terrestrial ecosystems survive or perish.”
Searchinger focuses on the “cost” of land use. Not the cost in dollars, but the loss of carbon sequestered in natural lands such as swamps and forests. There are certain undeniable facts. The earth’s land is limited. There are only so many acres that can be used for food production. Every acre that is used to expand agricultural land means there are fewer wild lands and wild creatures. How do we produce more food, without destroying the wild lands which provide habitat for wildlife while providing a massive sink for carbon sequestration?
Searchinger demonstrates that the science that was used to promote and justify corn ethanol was in error because it didn’t consider land costs. These costs, “opportunity costs” in economic terms, were not considered in their calculations. They did not consider the loss of carbon stored in the lost wild lands. His findings were presented in the prestigious magazine Science. Every acre used to grow corn for ethanol means an acre must be taken from somewhere else to grow food. Corn for ethanol accounts for 40% of US corn production or about 36 million acres. All this corn is subsidized by US taxpayers. Of the remaining crop, 35% is used to feed animals, 3 % for sweeteners, and 7% for human consumption. Ethanol was supposed to reduce CO2, but the opposite is the truth. The mandate requiring the inclusion of ethanol in gasoline is counterproductive in the fight against climate change.
The story of using wood to reduce CO2 emissions mirrors his findings on corn ethanol. It was promoted that if we burn wood pellets for home heating and energy production we will reduce GHG (greenhouse gas) production. The industry first claimed it would just use waste wood, but whole trees are being debarked and then turned into pellets. Mandates by the European Union for its use are berated in the book. A great deal of these pellets are coming from the United States.
In seeking solutions to the food and GHG crisis, Searchinger speaks forcefully against those claiming a “silver bullet” solution. The book takes a long look at the claim that we can solve the problem with carbon sequestration in the soil. The book takes a focused look at the claims made in the movie Kiss the Ground by Alan Savory. Both Searchinger and Monbiot came to the conclusion that it just isn’t so when it comes to soil sequestration of carbon. No-till farming, regenerative agriculture, may be good for soil health and the prevention of soil erosion, but it does not store great amounts of carbon.
The book presents a number of possible steps that might be taken to address the GHG crisis. How do you produce more food without using more land? One answer is to increase the production from each acre. Searchinger believes that industrial agriculture must be part of the solution because it produces the most food per acre. This includes the use of fertilizer. He recognizes that there is a runoff problem because of overuse.
He recognizes that there is a runoff problem because of overuse, as farmers add an “insurance application” of fertilizer.
The problem with organic farming is that it is less productive than modern farming. There are a number of other ways to increase food production. They range from soil microbes to perennial grains to replace wheat.
To Searchinger, the solution “is about using land efficiently by maximizing yields, growing less energy, eating less beef, wasting less food, and resisting the delusion that soil carbon can save us.” I agree that we must use many solutions, but by far the greatest solution we have at hand is a significant reduction in beef consumption. Consider Searchinger’s calculation that eating five pounds of beef equals the contribution to the climate crisis as driving an SUV across the country. If an American cuts his beef consumption in half, they can save the emissions of four transatlantic flights.
The numbers tell the story. Agriculture uses 37% of the earth’s surface which includes mountains, ice caps, glaciers, and bodies of water or about 50% of all habitable land. 11% of the earth’s surface is used for crops and 26% for pastures. Keep in mind that worldwide a third of crops go to feed animals. 80% of the world’s soybean crop goes to feed animals. Just think how many acres could be reforested if we didn’t use 36% of our corn crop to feed animals or 40% to burn in our cars. Searchinger suggests that we in the developed world should cut in half our average weekly consumption of three hamburgers. Is that nearly enough when you consider that 60% of all agricultural land is used for beef production to produce 2% of calories and 5% of our protein?
He encourages us to switch to other meat sources, especially chickens and pigs, but they have their own detrimental outcomes. Using the World Resources Index model, he found that when compared with protein from beans, chicken and pork produce more than three times the emissions and use three times more land. There has already been some shift from beef to chicken due mostly to the lower cost of chicken.
While Grunwald became vegan during some of his writing of the book, he and Searchinger both more or less put the idea aside. Searchinger seems set on the idea that we must have our beef. Most people seem set on the idea that we must eat meat, eggs, and dairy to get our needed protein. When reading about meat substitutes, we often come across the term alt proteins. Plant protein provides all the essential amino acids. A diet rich in vegetables and fruits is far superior to a diet built on animal sources.
Are meatless Mondays enough? I see it as a start, but is that nearly good enough for your health and the biosphere? If meatless Mondays are a good thing why not other days of the week? A vegan diet can be a very satisfying way to eat. It wasn’t that many years ago I couldn’t even imagine even becoming a vegetarian.
A section of the book examines plant-based substitutes for meat. It points out that many substitutes were touted, but few have had success. While I have eaten quite a few store-bought veggie burgers over the years, I now just make a few batches of black bean burgers and freeze until needed. The plant-based substitutes can be helpful for people to make a transition to a vegan diet. Perfection isn’t the goal. Chocolate peanut butter pie is too much for me to resist.
There has been a great deal of evidence presented that a whole food, plant-based diet is the healthiest diet we can eat for our own and the health of the biosphere. For more information just read the books or look on Youtube for Drs. Michael Gregor, Kim Williams, Dean Ornish, Robert Osfeld, and Colin Campbell. My journey to a whole food, plant-based diet was cemented after I took an E-Cornell course along with the realization that its importance in preventing environmental damage.
While I found some shortcomings in the book, I would recommend. It informs on the glaring failure of the mainstream environmental movement to recognize and take on the challenge that the world’s food supply presents. Tens of millions of acres of land could be used to feed the growing masses of the earth, allow for creating rewilding habitat for threatened species, reduce GHG, and clean countless streams if we would just put down our steak knives. Are these groups, even the Sierra Club, afraid they will “scare off” members if they put this issue on a front burner?
While our personal change to a whole food plant-based diet won’t eliminate the threats of a coming food and environmental crisis, they can’t be eliminated without us. There is only one person whose actions of which we have total control. Grunwald wrote that this is a test of self-restraint, but I have found it not a difficult challenge. There is also one more real plus: the satisfaction of doing good for my grandchildren.
This blog was included as part of the February 2026 Sylvanian newsletter. Please click here to check out more articles from this edition!