THE ‘DOUBLE-DIVIDEND’: Plant-based diet + rewilding provides ‘massive opportunity’ to cut CO2
The double dividend means if we change animal-based diets to plant-based diets, we can reduce GHG emissions (dividend one). The saved agricultural land from diet change can be restored to potential natural vegetation for carbon sequestration (dividend two).
K.E.D. COAN: By shifting to more plant-rich diets, wealthy nations could cut their agricultural emissions by 61 percent—and sequester nearly 100 gigatons of CO2 equivalent if the surplus farmland is left to rewild. The global food system is the second-biggest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs), accounting for up to a third of emissions. Over half of that number comes from meat and dairy production, despite these sources providing a meager 20 percent of the world’s calories. Wealthy nations drive most of this demand.
A recent study calculated the carbon-saving potential of having these wealthy countries shift away from meat and dairy in a way that would create what the study authors call a double dividend. “Our double dividend means if we change animal-based diets to plant-based diets, we can reduce GHG emissions (dividend one) from direct agricultural production,” explains lead author Dr. Zhongxiao Sun. “The saved agricultural land from diet change can be restored to potential natural vegetation for carbon sequestration (dividend two).”
Adopting something called a “planetary health diet” and letting native ecosystems re-grow could help wealthy nations—notably the US—meet their Paris Agreement targets. And the diet is healthier, to boot…
The authors of the current study used a combination of available data sets to simulate the immediate emissions impact of 54 high-income countries adopting the EAT-Lancet diet. They began with these countries because, per capita, their populations eat six times as much meat, and they have the most options and financial wherewithal to choose what they eat.
The data sets behind the authors’ analysis included the Food and Agriculture Biomass Input–Output model (FABIO), which correlates international food demand with primary agricultural production (the 54 countries were selected in part based on their presence in FABIO). Using a GHG emissions data set from the 2010 Food and Agriculture Organization’s statistical database (FAOSTAT), the team could then translate the national GHG savings that would result from the changes in diet…
In addition to the emissions estimates, the team calculated how much farmland would be freed as a result of these dietary changes. Currently, up to 80 percent of farmland is used for grazing and growing animal feed—but that translates to a mere 20 percent of the world’s calories. Beef production is also the number-one driver of deforestation.
A large portion of the farmland used to grow livestock feed could be repurposed for crops for direct human consumption, increasing the production of vegetables, fruit, and plant-based proteins. This would still leave plenty of land for ecosystem restoration. Assuming that this land was allowed to revert to its natural state (called passive restoration), the authors used global maps of crops, pastures, soil carbon, and vegetation to project how much carbon could be sequestered.
The authors calculated that, through dietary change alone, high-income countries could cut their emissions by 61 percent. But some nations could save a lot more than others. In fact, just four countries accounted for nearly half of that total: Germany (4.4 percent), Australia (6.5 percent), France (7.1 percent), and the US (a whopping 29.9 percent).
Regarding land use, the ensuing production decreases would free up an area of farmland—primarily in the US Midwest, central Europe, and coastal Australia—greater than the entire European Union. By tracing the location of food production, the research team found that about two-thirds of the carbon sequestration would occur in high-income countries. Mid-income exporters of beef, like Brazil, would also see increased opportunities to rewild pastures as a result of lower demand in wealthy countries…
“Imagine if half of the public in richer regions cut half the animal products in their diets,” said last author Dr. Paul Behrens in the media release. “You’re still talking about a massive opportunity in environmental outcomes and public health.”
Given that high-income countries need to reach cumulative CO2 reductions of 85-531 gigatons by the end of the century to meet the Paris Agreement targets, a potential savings of far greater than 100 gigatons might be worth swapping in a few more hummus plates or veggie burgers. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: