Rich nations could see ‘double climate dividend’ by switching to plant-based foods

The United States, France, Australia and Germany would jointly see approximately half of the overall carbon advantages, the research study notes, because meat and dairy production and consumption are high in these countries.

High-income countries could cut their agricultural emissions by almost two-thirds through dietary change, the authors find. They include that moving away from animal-based foods might release up an area of land larger than the entire European Union.

If this land were all permitted to revert to its natural state, it would catch almost 100bn tonnes of carbon– equal to 14 years of worldwide agricultural emissions– the authors note. They include that this level of carbon capture “might possibly satisfy high-income countries CO2 removal obligations needed to limit warming to 1.5 C under equality sharing principles”.

Animal-based foods have higher carbon and land footprints than their plant-based options, and are most frequently consumed in high-income countries. The research study, released in Nature Food, examines how the international food system would alter if 54 high-income nations were to shift to a more plant-based diet.

Adopting a more plant-based diet plan could offer rich countries a “double environment dividend” of lower emissions and more land for recording carbon, a brand-new study says.

Double environment dividend

The research study discovers that moving far from animal-based foods could free a location of land bigger than the whole European Union. If this location were allowed to go back to its natural state, it would capture around 100bn tonnes of carbon– equal to 14 years of global farming emissions from 2010– by the end of the century, the authors discover..

Get our complimentary Daily Briefing for a digest of the past 24 hours of environment and energy media coverage, or our Weekly Briefing for a round-up of our content from the past seven days. Simply enter your email below:.

Dr Nynke Schulp is an associate teacher of land usage, way of life and environment change at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and was not involved in the study. She tells Carbon Brief that existing studies “tend to work from the assumption that the entire world embraces a particular dietary change”, and so “this studys concentrate on dietary change in high-income countries is an important nuance, both from a mitigation possible viewpoint and from a climate justice viewpoint”.

They also highlight that eating more offal– a co-product of meat production– might be a great way for individuals to lower their meat-related carbon footprints. However, the authors state that offal is “not usually consumed in high-income nations due to convention and customer preference”.

The study assumes that any land maximized by a modification in diet would be allowed to revert to its natural state through a “natural climate option” called passive restoration, in which land is permitted to go back to its previous state. Behrens explains in a news release that this strategy has a variety of co-benefits, consisting of “water quality, biodiversity, air contamination and access to nature, to name just a couple of”.

Freeing up land.

Modifications in carbon sequestration from 54 high-income nations adopting the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet. The plot listed below shows the overall carbon sequestration (left) and emissions reductions (right) potentials from a range of various food types. Note that carbon sequestration is shown as a total over the 21st century, while the reduction in emissions is shown per year.

As examining changes in the 54 high-income countries, the study follows the trade of food between countries to see how dietary shifts in one nation can impact the food-related land and carbon footprints around the world.

Modifications in carbon sequestration from 54 high-income countries embracing the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet plan. Note the logarithmic scale in the colour bar. Source: Sun et al (2022 ).

The plot listed below programs the overall carbon sequestration (left) and emissions reductions (right) capacities from a variety of various food types. The red lines left wing and best mark fixed worths to make comparisons between the charts easier. Note that carbon sequestration is revealed as an overall over the 21st century, while the decrease in emissions is revealed each year.

Dr Paul Behrens from Leiden University, an author on the paper, tells Carbon Brief that the diet plan varies in between countries to represent their “local production and food cultures”.

According to the study, high-income countries could decrease their farming emissions by 62% by shifting to a more plant-based diet. Dr Sonja Vermeulen is the lead worldwide food scientist at WWF, and is not associated with the study. She assisted to put this figure into perspective:.

And Behrens informs Carbon Brief that “the onus is on high-income nations to change food systems”. In the press release, he adds:.

Carbon sequestration (left) and possible greenhouse gas reductions (right) from “animal items” (top), “blended products” (middle) and “plant-based items” (bottom). These “luxury, low-nutrition crops” are primarily consumed in high-income nations and provide a “non-negligible” chance for catching and cutting emissions carbon, according to the study.

The map listed below programs the prospective carbon sequestration from surplus land if the 54 high-income countries were to move to the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet, with dark green shading indicating the biggest potential. Modifications in lower-income nations are because of knock-on impacts for food trade..

” It will be vital that we redirect farming subsidies to farmers for biodiversity security and carbon sequestration. We need to look after farming neighborhoods to allow this in a just food shift.

Individuals in high-income countries currently have the biggest potential to decrease greenhouse gas emissions through their dietary choices, due to the fact that their diets are generally the most meat-orientated. Animal-derived products drive 70% of food-system emissions in high-income nations but only 22% in low– middle-income countries.

Sun, Z. et al. (2022) Dietary change in high-income countries alone can lead to considerable double climate dividend, Nature Food, doi: 10.1038/ s43016-021-00431-5.

The study explores how the carbon footprint of food production might change if 54 high-income nations were to adopt the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet plan. This is a mainly plant-based diet plan that is “flexible by offering guidelines to series of various food groups that together constitute an ideal diet for human health and environmental sustainability”..

Dr Matthew Hayek is an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Studies at NYU arts and science, who was not involved in the research study. He tells Carbon Brief how federal governments could incentivise people to eat more sustainably:.

( In 2019, Carbon Brief produced a week-long series of posts on food systems, consisting of a conversation of the environment effects of meat and dairy, and professional views on how changing diets are expected to affect the environment.).

The study breaks down the carbon sequestration capacity of passive repair into three classifications: aboveground biomass carbon (AGBC), belowground biomass carbon (BGBC) and soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks. These describe carbon kept in plant matter above the soil, plant matter below the soil, and the soil itself, respectively.

High-income countries could see the biggest per-capita carbon decreases by moving to a planet-friendly diet plan, the study concludes. Asking individuals to take charge of their individual carbon footprints can be a questionable location of discussion.

The study discovers that many low and mid-income countries– such as Brazil, India and Botswana– would export less food to high-income nations if they took in less meat. This would minimize their own farming emissions and maximize land for drawing down carbon, regardless of no dietary modifications in their own nations, the scientists state. (The study does not assess the financial effect of this lowered trade.).

Changes in greenhouse gas emissions from 54 high-income nations adopting the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet plan. Note the logarithmic scale in the colour bar. Source: Sun et al (2022 ).

Based on these numbers, the study concludes that the 100bn carbon sequestration “could potentially satisfy high-income nations CO2 elimination commitments required to limit warming to 1.5 C under equality sharing concepts”.

The map listed below programs the drop in greenhouse gas emissions from international agriculture if the 54 high-income countries were to shift to the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet plan. Dark red shading suggests the largest decreases. Modifications in lower-income nations are because of knock-on impacts for food trade.

Carbon sequestration (left) and prospective greenhouse gas reductions (right) from “animal products” (top), “mixed products” (middle) and “plant-based products” (bottom). The red line on the left shows +5 GtCO2e sequestration and on the right shows − 0.01 GtCO2e emissions. Source: Sun et al (2022 ).

” The term food system change is perhaps typically utilized too lightly– however there can be no doubt that the changes in these locations would constitute total change of local economies, cultures and landscapes. Picture the huge cattle ranches of the US and Australia changed with equally vast rewilded or repurposed lands– would these be used for biomass and bioenergy, or preservation and biodiversity, and how would rural communities create new livelihoods on their own?”.

” To put this in viewpoint, its about the same favorable effect as all countries signing up to and implementing the COP26 statement on the shift to 100% absolutely no emission automobiles and vans internationally by 2040.”.

The plot reveals that animal-based products– most especially beef– have high carbon and land footprints. The authors highlight that the United States and Australia in specific would see take advantage of minimizing their beef intake, due to their high domestic production and usage..

The research study examines the immediate decrease in emissions from adopting the EAT-Lancet diet using a dataset from the 2010 Food and Agriculture Organizations analytical Database, linked at the national level to the Food and Agriculture Biomass Input– Output dataset.

Not all calories have an equal effect on the planet. Usually, animal-based foods produce 10-50 times more emissions than plant-based foods. Livestock takes up almost 80% of global agricultural land, in spite of producing less than 20% of the worlds supply of calories.

” Folks in industrialized nations eat much more meat and dairy than the worldwide average … Reducing emissions from food usage in abundant countries is vital. For consumers who have ample food choices, these choices play a sizable function in adding to our environment objectives. Our policies must show this by making healthy and sustainable food choices more prevalent, convenient, and affordable.”.

Vermeulen tells Carbon Brief that altering diets in these countries could “transform” them:.

The authors likewise identify just how much land could be spared by a shift in diet. They use worldwide crop and pasture maps– integrated with soil carbon and greenery maps– to quantify just how much additional carbon could be drawn down by soil and vegetation if this surplus land were enabled to revert to its natural state of mixed native grassland and forest..

Catching carbon.

Dietary options.

Sharelines from this story.

Around two-thirds of the carbon sequestration capacity from dietary changes in high-income countries is domestic, the study discovers. On the other hand, nearly a quarter lies in other high-income nations and around a 8th is from middle and low earnings countries.

For instance, the authors note that alcohols and “stimulants” including coffee, cocoa products and tea comprise 5.8% of dietary greenhouse gas emissions. These “luxury, low-nutrition crops” are mainly consumed in high-income nations and provide a “non-negligible” opportunity for catching and cutting emissions carbon, according to the research study. However, “sociological and policy problems” would make it hard to decrease intake of these items in practice, the authors state.

Feeding the worlds population of almost 8 billion people is no little task. The worldwide food system is accountable for around one-third of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, and half of the worlds habitable land is used to produce food.

The authors also highlight that, according to previous research study, restricting warming to 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels needs the 54 high-income countries in this analysis to accomplish cumulative CO2 eliminations of 85-531bn tonnes of CO2 by the end of the century. This variety comes from uncertainty in the quantity of CO2 elimination needed, and in the amount that needs to be assigned to each nation.

Approximately half of the carbon take advantage of increasing and cutting emissions carbon sequestration might be seen collectively in the US, France, Australia and Germany, the research study states.