Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO2 emissions this century

Abstract

Animal agriculture contributes significantly to global warming through ongoing emissions of the potent greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide, and displacement of biomass carbon on the land used to support livestock. However, because estimates of the magnitude of the effect of ending animal agriculture often focus on only one factor, the full potential benefit of a more radical change remains underappreciated. Here we quantify the full “climate opportunity cost” of current global livestock production, by modeling the combined, long-term effects of emission reductions and biomass recovery that would be unlocked by a phaseout of animal agriculture. We show that, even in the absence of any other emission reductions, persistent drops in atmospheric methane and nitrous oxide levels, and slower carbon dioxide accumulation, following a phaseout of livestock production would, through the end of the century, have the same cumulative effect on the warming potential of the atmosphere as a 25 gigaton per year reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, providing half of the net emission reductions necessary to limit warming to 2°C. The magnitude and rapidity of these potential effects should place the reduction or elimination of animal agriculture at the forefront of strategies for averting disastrous climate change.

The Environmental Footprint Associated With the Mediterranean Diet, EAT-Lancet Diet, and the Sustainable Healthy Diet Index: A Population-Based Study

“…The Isocaloric Substitution of Plant-Based and Animal-Based Protein was related with Aging-Related Health Outcomes ( 36 ). A recent paper by Eisen and Brown, ( 37 ) show that, following a phaseout of livestock production will independently provide persistent drops in atmospheric methane and nitrous oxide levels, and slower carbon dioxide accumulation. This reduction through the end of the century, have the same cumulative effect on the warming potential of the atmosphere as a 25 gigaton per year reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.…”

Designing Environmental Messages to Discourage Red Meat Consumption: An Online Experiment

“…More recent research shows that annual agricultural production emissions of high-income countries’ diets could be reduced by 61% if their populations adopted the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet [ 35 ], which limits red meat consumption to 98 g per week [ 36 ]. A gradual phase out of all of animal agriculture, while unlikely, could achieve half of the net GHG emission reductions necessary to limit global warming to 2 °C above preindustrial levels, a goal set at the Paris Agreement, with the phasing out of beef accounting for 47% of those GHG reductions [ 37 ]. Indeed, limiting global temperature rises to 2 °C above preindustrial levels is not possible without GHG reductions from the food system [ 38 ].…”

Climate change and the urgency to transform food systems

“…Decoupling livestock from land use Consumption of animal protein is likely to continue and grow into the future and will likely compete for land with human food through feed demand (33).…”

“…Reduction in meat (especially beef and lamb) consumption is expected to have the biggest outcome for climate change and the environment (9,33), especially as general food demand and meat in specific are projected to increase. Many current dietary choices have negative impacts on environmental sustainability and health (36).…”

“…Many current dietary choices have negative impacts on environmental sustainability and health (36). The growing number of upper and middle-income consumers on average over-consume food, contributing to an increased food demand, GHG emissions, and food waste (33). Switching to healthy diets and following food guidelines has the potential to improve environmental sustainability (including mitigation of climate change), and improvement in health outcomes (37,38).…”