Not saying it's not the right metric, I'm saying the "1.9% to agriculture" number isn't including fertilizers, chemicals, or supply chains so the food isn't rotting in your silo. It does include fuel for tractors on the farm though.
"Large amounts of natural gas are required in the manufacturing of fertilizer and pesticide, so these amounts are categorized as indirect energy consumption on farms. Overall, about three-fifths of energy in 2016 used in the agricultural sector was consumed directly on-farm, while two-fifths were consumed indirectly in the form of fertilizer and pesticides."
It's ambiguous, so I regret posting the link. Usually in energy accounting, "indirect" means "accounting puts it into a different category, but we acknowledge that other category wouldn't be making it if the demand for them wasn't here in this category and we differentiate it so we don't double-count it". Scope 1 vs Scope 2 & 3 in carbon-reporting land, if you will.
Combining primary and indirect energy is possible, I suppose, but it's not how it's usually done? So I gave a shit link, emissions reporting is dead for at least the next 4 years, and so none of this matters anyways cause we're just burning our way into prosperity for the foreseeable future.
