To rein in global warming, healthy forests and sustainable diets are key, U.N

Well Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.

Changing your diet is easier than finding another form of transport anyway?

[1] - https://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

That 9% is just what is emitted by the soil and animals itself if does not account for the transportation and electricity costs of agriculture.

You are correct and link to a good source, so thank you, those two boxes are rare to check in a climate related contrarian-take.

But don't lose track of the engineering constraint here. We not only need to get to zero emissions, we need to get to roughly -20% emissions (relative to today). So the fact that something is "only" 9% of our positive number today in no way shields it from the necessary change that's coming ASAP.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean that as a justification for behavior policing every little thing at once, but generally anything big enough to register on the gigaton scale we have to have a plan for NOW.

Its too late to do this serially.

That data is only for the US where transportation and energy usage is likely higher per capita than other nations. It may also not take into account food that is imported.

On the same website the EPA global stats show that agriculture and deforestation (largely due to clearing land for cattle grazing) contributes 24% of global greenhouse gas emissions. [1]

I agree that we should be considering all areas of emissions, however diet is something that every individual can decide to take responsibility for immediately without having to lobby huge industries or pass new legislation. Other choices like moving to removable energy and reducing our reliance on transport have a lot more economic and social inertia behind them.

Millions of people are already voluntarily reducing or eliminating their meat intake, and there are plant-based options at virtually all restaurants/chains here in the UK. It's a trend that we should all be encouraging in my opinion, as it demonstrates that society can willingly change its behaviour on a wider scale when presented with reasonable alternatives.

[1] - https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...

I think the exciting thing about changing diet is that literally everyone could stop eating meet now and the world would continue as before and we’d wipe off that 9% over night. But stopping shipping, heating, aircon, electricity generation, manufacturing all overnight would bring about the end of civilisation. Literally. So I think it’s worth a go whilst we also solve the other problems in parallel. We have very little time left I fear.

The problem is that in a thread about cutting back on transportation emissions, the top post will be about cows and wasteful agriculture and the emissions cost of transporting so much food and water long distances.

Instead of always shifting the blame to another thing, do what you can within your own means to attack all points at once: eat locally grown food and ideally cut back on meat consumption, particularly beef and fish (fish not for emissions, but due to the absolutely massive environmental damage that fish farming, trawling, and all methods aside from using your own rod do to everything); try to use public transportation, walk, or bike when possible or even try pushing your limits a little bit; don't buy worthless flavor of the month products or needlessly "upgrade" to new items when what you have works fine; and cut back on heating and AC when it's not going to be dangerous or unreasonably uncomfortable.

These are changes people can make in a month. The impact on your wallet with be noticeable fairly immediately, and if enough people actually follow it instead of kicking the can down the road, changes will be seen.

This was a special report specifically on land use, so it makes sense they focused on diet and forests.

I am not sure how you interpreted it to mean "let's focus on diets". If somebody points out a problem it doesn't mean it's the problem. As far as I am aware no serious policy says let's focus on X. There is no one single low hanging fruit in climate problem. It would require big changes across the board (land use included).

To only look at only emissions by weight is a trap many fall into and vastly underestimates the impact animal agriculture has on 'climate change' when accounting for all factors. It drives around 75% of rain forest degredation [0], is the single biggest driver of habitat loss [1] and accounts for approximately 55% of land erosion [2], which all have massive escalatory effects on global warming.

Animal agriculture specifically represents 44 percent of anthropogenic methane emissions, the primary driver of climate change related to livestock, as methane is 34 times more potent than carbon dioxide over 100 years[3]; comprises 44 percent of all anthropogenic nitrous oxide emissions, the most potent GHG[3]; and makes up 75-80 percent of total agricultural emissions.[4]

Looking at emissions by metric tonnes is not just ignorant - it sets the completely wrong precedent of how we should view animal agriculture. Animal agriculture in its current state is dangerous, and should be treated with as much disdain as fossils fuels are.

[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971...

[1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sci...

[2]http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm (See page 29)

[3]http://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e03.pdf

[4]http://www.fao.org/climatechange/36143-0fa4483057747f41c0818...

Especially with transportation we should look at why it is happening and then see if it can be reduced. It’s not like transportation is happening for fun.

Don't forget that the IPCC report concerns itself not only with preventing climate change, but also with adapting to it. What's more, changes in land management can be part of a solution for GHG sequestration, so it's not just about reducing emissions. All the more reasons to put significant effort on land management, and therefore diets and forests.

That being said, the IPCC never said that transportation, electricity production and industry must be ignored.

I really couldn’t agree more with your sentiment, bravo.

Out of all the potential progress that needs to be made, this can come last.

There are reasons other than climate change though.

If we don't switch to more sustainable diets we risk doing serious harm to the ecosystem and at least massively reducing biodiversity, if not actually placing humans in danger due to our reliance upon said ecosystem.

For me, I don't want to live in a world where wild animals are just a story I tell my kids while we visit a zoo.

The reason it's 'key' is because adopting a plant-rich diet and reducing food waste are pretty much the only items on this Top 10 list that any individual regardless of location can decide to act upon right now.

Given that agriculture generates ~24% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions including ~48% of global methane emissions, it's a good start that gets individuals thinking conciously about their impact and encourages more action at the grassroots level.

Of course the other issues are just as urgent but those are altered by innovation and governments through taxes and legislation, which can be pushed along with the support of a more climate-concious society.

I failed to mention that these metrics are in terms of equivalent GT of CO2 reduced globally. There's also a metric of cost vs savings for each. Really a great reference book. For example, onshore wind and solar can save 12 Trillion by 2050 at a net cost of about a Trillion.

In case it's not clear, 6 above will presumably reduce carbon dioxide emissions by reducing female fertility and thus slowing population growth. In fact, 6 and 7 are essentially the same thing.

So basically, milk powder is the EU's equivalent of the US's problem with corn syrup? That's rather interesting. I wouldn't even know how to use it as an ingredient, although that's true of at least half the stuff in most packaged foods.

*..."In Wildfire-Prone California"

The study says it could apply to other semi-arid environments as well. Interesting study but the qualifier is definitely necessary.

Please explain how it "comes from the top".

I thought meat and diary farming was the biggest strain on environment? You can live pretty healthy while minimizing those product intake.

Nothing processed about a tin of chickpeas.

You definitely don’t need dairy. The jury‘s still out on whether consuming cow milk is even healthy. E.g. broccoli is a good enough calcium source.

Meat might be necessary (vegans will disagree), but previous generations have done fine with only a couple of meals per week containing meat. Research suggests that we do better on less meat. Definitely stick to poultry if you want a smaller carbon footprint.

Fruit is not necessary, as some northern populations clearly demonstrated (they didn’t have any).

Some cultures eschew dairy almost entirely. Most of the world is lactose "intolerant" actually. Not sure why it would be considered an important part of ones diet.

As a child my family grew vegetables in a sustainable low carbon footprint way and I was very healthy by every metric. I don’t know what concept of “sustainable diets” you’ve been sold but whatever it is strikes me as very odd. Is the way I ate scalable? With vertical farming, I think quite likely actually.

Also if soy “kills you off” early then the longevity of the Japanese is quite a puzzle.

I think the biggest villain to healthy and environment is not animal products, but the industrialization of food.

Do you have a source given that vegetarians seem healthy and blue zones* (high frequency of centenarians) frequently have diets low in meat and/or dairy? Osaka, Seventh Day Adventist communities, etc. come to mind

(* at least the ones with reliable birth certificates)

Listen to every single other report about it then. All the same result.