If we are to have any chance of avoiding apocalyptic climate change and environmental devastation, we must not only stop burning fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, but ALSO stop chopping down rainforests that absorb and store excess carbon.
However, there's a problem with that.
Unless the mass of humanity radically changes what we eat — the way we produce and consume food — we will NEVER achieve any of those other goals.
If you need convincing, read this…
The Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has estimated that world meat production is expected to double by 2050. Given our current trajectory, this would require that we convert approximately 80% of existing forests and shrubland into land devoted to raising animals to produce meat, dairy, and eggs — a conversion that would be unsustainable and would have a devastating impact on the Earth’s climate. An additional 35 million km2 of land would be required to meet the growing demand for animal products, equating to roughly the combined area of Australia and Africa.
Although 83% of the world’s farmland is occupied by animal agriculture, this provides just 18% of the calories and 37% of the protein humans consume, and the majority of cereals and soy produced today are fed to farm animals. More people could be fed with fewer resources if the use of animals for food is reduced or eliminated. Furthermore, meat consumption contributes four times as much to global greenhouse gas emissions as a plant-based diet.
The immediate adoption of a plant-based diet on a global scale would have the potential to reduce demand for land by up to 76%, GHG emissions from food by 49%, and a reduction in freshwater withdrawals by 19%. Having more plant food available for humans can reduce world hunger and food insecurities, while preserving biodiversity and vital ecosystems. Further, a global shift to a fundamentally plant-based diet will reduce the rapidly rising economic burden of medicine and healthcare.
These are just a few brief excerpts from a long and persuasive journal article. Important reading!
LEARN MORE ➡️ https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/5/1/kgae024/7942019?login=false
[#]Science #Environment #Climate #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #Vegan
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from breadandcircuses@climatejustice.social
@breadandcircuses
Just like the expected tripling of plastic production until 2060, a doubling of meat production by 2050 won't happen. I'm not even sure what the UN is calculating there. Climate conditions in the currently arable areas will have drastically changed by then. Are they not incorporating those changes into their predictions?
We're currently going at a rate of +0.04°C per year, if you assume that temperature increase will remain linear (see graphic below). This would put us at roughly +2°C by 2035 and +3°C by 2060. Global average +2°C roughly equals to +6°C on land. I can't speak about the Americas, Asia, Africa, or Australia, but in Europe it'll mean that agriculture in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, parts of France, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Austria, Croatia, etc. will have to change drastically, if it'll remain feasible at all. Pastures and many of the fodder crops are water-demanding. But water will be a scarce good in many of the southern and mid-European countries at that point.
Sure, if we were to stop all or major chunks of the global emissions quickly, we could "flatten" the curve, but am I supposed to see such a tendency anywhere in the world?
Rather, I personally wouldn't expect a linear temperature increase but an exponential one. Especially if we exceed one or more tipping points. And every small fraction of a Celsius more correlates into less arable land.
Then again, the loss of bio diversity due to manmade climate change and manmade ecological genocide will likely seal the deal much faster than the slow process of losing land to climate conditions could.
Are we going to pretend that we're going to "flatten" the curve here as well? 🤔
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from TobiWanKenobi@kolektiva.social
@TobiWanKenobi Yes, you're right. All of those estimates rely on basic linear assumptions, not taking into account the potential for (the probability of!) massively disruptive breakdowns in our economies, our societies, and our environment.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from breadandcircuses@climatejustice.social
text/geminiThis content has been proxied by September (3851b).