It's not about lacking physical space to grow crops, it's about what you have to destroy to claim that land for Ag.
In brazil 80%+ of the deforestation of the Amazon is caused by cattle ranching or soybeans cultivation.
In Europe most of the land used today for Ag was once forest. But they have all been cut down so long ago that we forget.
This has an obvious massive impact on CO2 emission, habitat loss etc.
> In brazil 80%+ of the deforestation of the Amazon is caused by cattle ranching or soybeans cultivation.
Common misconception. The actual felling of trees is done by people who profit from selling tropical hardwood logs and then move on. Ranchers and farmers opportunistically move into newly deforested cheap land because it costs less than buying established farmland.
Without the (illegal) lumber export, there's very little encroaching because the opportunistic frontier farmers would not have a supply of nearly free land to expand into.
I don't really see the business model though. That's like trying to sell Chinese fishing fleets subpar nets that cost more and catch fewer fish because you think overfishing the oceans is a bad thing. It's not going to be a very successful business.
None in isolation.
But if/when countries start enacting carbon taxes & bonuses that account for the externalities, that could significantly change the cost equation, it could become more profitable for farmers to adopt farming techniques that require less land (less carbon tax to pay), and use the now unneeded land for passive income through forestry (get paid by the state to manage a carbon sink).
In Europe most of the land used today for Ag was once forest. But they have all been cut down so long ago that we forget.
This has an obvious massive impact on CO2 emission, habitat loss etc.