When Does Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) Make Sense?
Why It Matters
Controlled Environment Agriculture (i.e. vertical farming, greenhouses, indoor farming) is often promoted as a solution to food insecurity and climate change. But new research shows that whether it reduces carbon emissions depends heavily on where it operates, what it grows, and how it is powered.
Key Takeaways
- Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) is not inherently a lower-carbon option; its environmental impact depends on local energy systems and crop types.
- Growing leafy greens in countries with low-carbon electricity grids can potentially be more sustainable than importing them.
- The possibility of low-carbon CEA increase significantly as electricity systems become cleaner and renewable energy expands.
The Promise and Problem of Indoor Farming
(CEA), which includes vertical farms, greenhouses and highly automated indoor growing facilities, is attracting growing attention worldwide. These systems can produce food year-round, use less water and pesticides, and operate on land unsuitable for conventional farming.
Supporters argue that CEA could help countries strengthen food security while reducing agriculture's environmental footprint. Yet there is a catch: growing food indoors often requires substantial energy for lighting, cooling and environmental controls.
This creates a fundamental trade-off. While CEA can reduce transport distances and land use, they may generate more carbon emissions if they rely on carbon-intensive electricity. As governments and investors pour resources into vertical farming, understanding when these systems genuinely deliver environmental benefits has become increasingly important.
A Transparent and Objective Benchmark for CEA to be a lower-carbon option
To address this question, the researchers developed what they call a Maximum Energy-use Threshold (MET). Put simply, the metric estimates how much energy a CEA facility can consume before its carbon footprint becomes higher than the conventional alternative.
The threshold varies across countries and crops because local conditions differ. Factors such as electricity emissions, transport distances and trade patterns all influence whether locally grown indoor produce is more sustainable than imported food. Rather than assuming all CEA venture is environmentally beneficial, the MET provides a benchmark for determining when it actually makes sense.
Using international trade, transport and energy data, the researchers examined a range of crops, including lettuce, tomatoes, strawberries, wheat and soybeans. Their analysis compared the emissions associated with imported produce against those generated by CEA systems operating under different energy scenarios.
Not Every Crop or Country Is Equal
The results reveal that CEA works best under specific conditions.
Leafy vegetables and highly perishable produce such as strawberries show the strongest potential. In landlocked countries with relatively clean electricity grids, producing these crops locally in controlled environments can generate fewer emissions than importing them over long land distances. The benefits are especially pronounced when imported produce would otherwise require air freight.
However, the picture changes for staple crops such as wheat and soybeans. These crops require significantly more energy to produce, making them difficult to justify from a carbon perspective under current conditions. For most countries, today's indoor farming technologies consume far more energy than would be environmentally desirable for these crops.
There are exceptions. If CEA allows agricultural land to be restored to natural ecosystems that absorb carbon, the equation changes. In some countries with abundant renewable energy and high carbon sequestration potential, CEA of certain staple crops could become environmentally beneficial. Countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Honduras, Colombia and Panama emerged as particularly promising examples.
The research also points to the importance of future energy systems. As electricity grids become cleaner and renewable technologies improve, CEA's environmental prospects improve considerably. What may be unsustainable today could become viable in a lower-carbon energy future.
Business Implications
For investors, agritech firms and policymakers, the findings offer an important reality check.
The success of CEA should not be judged solely by technological sophistication. Location, energy sourcing and crop selection are equally important determinants of sustainability. A CEA facility that performs well in one country may have a much larger carbon footprint in another.
The study also provides a practical tool for decision-makers. The Maximum Energy-use Threshold can help governments design incentives, guide investment decisions and establish sustainability benchmarks for the growing indoor agriculture industry. Rather than supporting all CEA projects equally, policymakers can focus on those most likely to deliver genuine environmental benefits.
As food security concerns intensify and climate pressures mount, the future of farming may increasingly move indoors. But the research suggests that achieving both food security and sustainability will depend not just on growing food differently, but on growing the right crops in the right places using the right energy systems.
Authors and sources
Authors: Shiwei Ng (Technical University of Munich (TUM) and TUMCREATE), Olaf Hinrichsen (Technical University of Munich (TUM) and TUMCREATE), S. Viswanathan (Nanyang Technological University)
Original Article: Nature Communications (2026)
---
For more research, click here to return to NBS Knowledge Lab.
