The problem is that, as an overall percentage of annual emissions, agriculture as a whole is only about 11%* of the total, with meat contributing to part of that amount. Similar to individual contributions, while this is an important part of the problem, it’s not a big enough part that we should prioritize tackling it compared to other, significantly worse parts.
The bulk of resources should be dedicated to massively lowering energy contributions, which are a whopping 72%* of total emissions, with electricity and heat being ~31% of that amount.
It’s big enough to make us miss climate targets on its own. We have to both reduce fossil fuels and meat consumption
To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
it’s not a big enough part that we should prioritize tackling it compared to other, significantly worse parts.
The bulk of resources should be dedicated to massively lowering energy contributions
Yes, but reducing animal products in diets does not require any investments or resources. On large scales, it even frees up resources.
It’s a decision everyone makes three times a day. You can decide against animal products on your plate and still eat a comparably tasty, healthy, affordable meal. No other way to reduce emissions is that easy. Most require upfront investments, construction work, dedication and long term commitment.
The problem is that, as an overall percentage of annual emissions, agriculture as a whole is only about 11%* of the total, with meat contributing to part of that amount. Similar to individual contributions, while this is an important part of the problem, it’s not a big enough part that we should prioritize tackling it compared to other, significantly worse parts.
The bulk of resources should be dedicated to massively lowering energy contributions, which are a whopping 72%* of total emissions, with electricity and heat being ~31% of that amount.
*2013 data, source: https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/#:~:text=Globally%2C the primary sources of,72 percent of all emissions.
It’s big enough to make us miss climate targets on its own. We have to both reduce fossil fuels and meat consumption
(emphasis mine)
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
deleted by creator
Yes, but reducing animal products in diets does not require any investments or resources. On large scales, it even frees up resources.
It’s a decision everyone makes three times a day. You can decide against animal products on your plate and still eat a comparably tasty, healthy, affordable meal. No other way to reduce emissions is that easy. Most require upfront investments, construction work, dedication and long term commitment.