So, almost 80% of emissions come from transportation, electricity production and industry[1] but let's focus on diets(9%) and forests.
I'm all for better diets and better managing of forests but this is like saying that to put out a fire we really should be concentrating on spitting on it instead of calling the fire department.
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.
I think grassroot movements and small NGOs should absolutely be focusing on personal choices that people can make to make themselves and their communities sustainable.
But the vast majority of government resources (money, attention and political capital) should be expended on reigning in systematic issues, such as outlined by GP: promoting electric vehicles, replacing all coal/oil/gas power plants, carbon neutral shipping and commercial flights etc
The shift of the global economy to sustainability is going to bring down lots of rich people and lots of vested interests, and replace it with other rich people and vested interests. The former are not going to go down without a big fight and only governments (and not individuals) are strong enough to bring them down.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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).
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.
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.
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?
I'm all for better diets and better managing of forests but this is like saying that to put out a fire we really should be concentrating on spitting on it instead of calling the fire department.
[1] - https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...