The Energy-Agriculture-Biodiversity Nexus
By Adam Gallaher
Photo by Natalia Danjon
Achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 remains a significant challenge, and rapidly transitioning the production of electricity is by no means a trivial task. Current estimates from the International Energy Agency suggest that to remain aligned with 2050 goals, wind and solar development need to rapidly increase by 1,120 gigawatts within the next four years. Renewable energy, particularly solar energy, however, requires considerably more land compared to outgoing fossil fuel generation. As a result, siting solar energy has emerged as a major obstacle to reaching net-zero emissions and has become increasingly contentious particularly among rural communities in the United States. The question now becomes; can we decarbonize our energy systems without sacrificing the very landscapes we depend on for food and biodiversity?
Our study, published in Geography and Sustainability, aims to answer that very question by focusing specifically on what we define as the energy-agriculture-biodiversity nexus. Using New York State as a case study, we modeled what it would take, on the ground, to build enough utility-scale (≥1 megawatt) solar to meet mid-century climate targets. From a 30,000-foot level the answer is yes, it is technically possible. There is enough land to deploy roughly 46,000 MW of solar capacity to meet decarbonization goals outlined in New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. However, the deeper you dive into planning the development of those 46,000 MW the more nuanced the challenge becomes. Specifically, when asking where that solar development will go, and what landscapes could get displaced in the process. By breaking the question of geography down into three scenarios, our study reveals some interesting and potentially consequential results.
Left to market forces alone, the answer is clear: solar flows to farmland. Pasture and hay systems dominate deployment, accounting for most of the land converted. That might sound obvious given the similarities between suitable land for agriculture and solar energy, but these agricultural landscapes are not always singular in their purpose. Many serve as habitats that often support grassland birds whose populations have been declining; 53% since 1970. By prioritizing the cheapest path to clean energy, we risk quietly eroding biodiversity and reshaping rural livelihoods.
What if we try to protect agriculture instead? Here, the system reveals a harder truth about land-use trade-offs. Like water running across the land, blocking it doesn’t stop the flow, it only redirects it. By preserving farmland, solar development is relocated into forests, substantially increasing potential forest conversion. Furthermore, these are not marginal ecosystems; more than half of the forests affected in this scenario are ecologically valuable, climate-resilient landscapes. Protecting one system, it turns out, can unintentionally compromise another.
This is the central insight of the work: the energy transition is not constrained by a lack of land, but by the competing use and value of land. Every acre carries ecological, economic, and cultural value, and our models show that shifting priorities redistributes, rather than eliminates, impacts.
Yet there is some good news that gives me optimism. When we prioritize biodiversity in siting decisions, the system adapts in ways that are both ecologically meaningful and economically modest. Solar development avoids sensitive habitats, reduces pressure on forests, and still delivers the required energy, with only a ~0.17% increase in total costs. In policy terms, that is essentially a rounding error.
Too often, we have treated agriculture and biodiversity as constraints, essentially boxes to avoid rather than dynamic systems that shape outcomes. But by modeling them as competing objectives, we can begin to see the real geography of the energy transition: not as a technical optimization problem, but as a negotiation among values. This opens the door to richer, more interdisciplinary approaches that integrate ecology, economics, and social justice into energy modeling.
Adam Gallaher is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography & Environmental Studies at Central Michigan University. He is a broadly trained geographer, who investigates how societies can design sustainable energy transitions that are both environmentally grounded and socially just. He previously served as a Postdoctoral Research Associate at Cornell University in the Department of Natural Resources and the Environment and holds a Ph.D. in Geography from the University of Connecticut, as well as an M.S. in Geographic Information Sciences and a B.S. in Environmental Studies from Central Michigan University