A new study published in the journal Science is claiming that without a significant change to the world’s current agricultural model and the collective diet of humanity, the goals of the Paris Climate agreement are unreachable even if the world could rid itself of fossil fuels from other sectors.
The study — done by researchers at Oxford ‘s Martin School, the University of Minnesota, the University of California–Santa Barbara, and Stanford University — reached the conclusion that if the world does not change its dietary habits and cut down on carbon emissions from the agricultural sector, it will be impossible to meet the temperature targets set by the Paris Climate Accord in 2015.
The United States withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement under President Donald Trump but, if elected, Democrat Joe Biden has promised that one of his first actions upon taking office will be to reenter the agreement — a move that is destined to cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars.
From the study: “To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.”
While recent studies have shown a nearly nine-percent decrease in CO2 emissions in other sectors this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic and increasing use of so-called clean technology, the study claims that the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from agriculture alone has the potential to raise global temperatures by 1.5°C by 2060 and a full 2°C by the end of the century.
From the study: “We show that even if fossil fuel emissions were immediately halted, current trends in global food systems would prevent the achievement of the 1.5° target and, by the end of the century, threaten the achievement of the 2°C target. Meeting the 1.5° target requires rapid and ambitious changes to food systems as well as all nonfood sectors. The 2° target could be achieved with less-ambitious changes to food systems, but only if fossil fuels and other nonfood emissions are eliminated soon.”
Although the study itself eschews giving concrete suggestions on just how to reduce agricultural emissions, the study’s lead author Michael Clark of the Oxford Martin School gave some hints as to how such a reduction could be accomplished. “There needs to be more focus and more effort to reduce emissions from the food system. Greenhouse gas emissions from the food system have increased due to a combination of dietary changes — more food in general, with a larger proportion of food coming from animal sources — population size, and how food is produced,” Clark said.
Diets, especially in wealthy countries such as the United States, will have to change in order to save the world from the menace of global warming. People in wealthy countries need to reduce their intake of carbon intensive foods such as meat and dairy — mainly due to the flatulence of livestock.
Clark added that solutions “include both raising crop yields and reducing food loss and waste, but the most important is for individuals to shift towards predominantly plant-based diets.”
One way to get people to eat less meat is to tax it so that it becomes unaffordable for the masses. A powerful coalition of health professionals in the United Kingdom has called for such a tax to be imposed upon any foodstuffs that are said to have a heavy environmental impact by 2025.
“We can’t reach our goals without addressing our food system,” said Kristin Bash who leads the Faculty of Public Health’s food group. “The climate crisis isn’t something we should see as far in the future. It’s time to take serious action now.”
As of 2018, the world’s population was growing at a rate of approximately 1.05 percent per year. That doesn’t sound like much but it means that the globe’s human population is growing by close to 80 million souls per calendar year. But that growth is not occurring in first world countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom. It is occurring in places such as India and Nigeria, where food security is an ongoing problem.
Changing the diets in first world countries is not a serious answer to the alleged problem these people are trying to solve. Studies such as this one lay bare the Malthusian principle behind the climate-change movement. It will never be enough to forestall the made-up menace of man-made global warming by changing our diets and using less fossil fuels. Ultimately, there needs to be fewer people on the Earth to stop the global warming they claim to be so concerned about. And just how will the climate-change movement accomplish that inevitable goal?
We have some guesses.
