Not everyone needs to become a vegetarian, much less vegan, to keep the planet from overheating, but it would surely make things easier if they did.
That is the ambiguous and — for many on either side of this meaty issue — unsatisfying conclusion of the most comprehensive report ever compiled on the link between climate change and how we feed ourselves, released on Thursday by the UN.
The core findings are crystal clear: Climate change is threatening the world’s food supply, even as the way we produce food fuels global warming.
Rising temperatures in tropical zones are starting to shrink yields, displace staple crops and sap essential nutrients from food plants. At the same time, the global food system — from farm to food court — accounts for at least one-quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions. With 2 billion more mouths to feed by mid-century, it cannot simply be scaled up without pushing Earth’s thermometer deep into the red zone, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “special report.”
More than one-quarter of today’s food-related emissions come from cattle and sheep.
“Today’s IPCC report identifies the enormous impact that our dietary choices have on the environment,” said Alan Dangour, a nutrition and global health expert at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “It is clear that reducing the demand for meat in diets is an important approach to lowering the environmental impact of the food system.”
The livestock industry is a double climate threat: It replaces carbondioxide-absorbing forests — notably in sub-tropical Brazil — with land for grazing and soy crops for cattle feed. The animals also belch huge amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
On average, beef requires 20 times more land and emits 20 times more greenhouse gases per unit of edible protein than basic plant proteins, said the World Resources Institute, a Washington-based policy think tank.
For all these reasons, the IPCC said, gravitating toward “balanced diets, featuring plant-based foods” would hugely help the climate change cause.
This might sound like a ringing endorsement of vegetarianism, but it does not necessarily mean the world must, or should, eschew meat altogether, the IPCC said.
Besides “coarse grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds,” that “balanced diet” also includes “animal-sourced food produced in resilient, sustainable and low-greenhouse gas emission systems,” the report said.
There are likely several reasons the 100-plus authors stopped short of calling for a ban on carbon-intensive red meat.
To begin with, calling for anything is not part of their brief.
“The IPCC does not recommend people’s diets,” co-chair Jim Skea, a professor at Imperial College London’s Centre for Environmental Policy, said on Twitter in reaction to misleading media stories. “What we’ve pointed out on the basis of scientific evidence is that there are certain diets that have a lower carbon footprint.”
Observers privy to the week-long meeting, which vets the report summary line by line, also said that some scientific findings align better than others with the interests of beef-producing nations.
IPCC reports are based entirely on published, peer-reviewed research and this one included thousands of data points.
However, the final step in a years-long process is approval by diplomats who tussle over how key passages are formulated, including what gets left in or out.
Another compelling reason not to espouse a purely plant-based diet is that billions of poor people around the world depend on fish, and to a lesser extent meat, for protein and nutrients that might not be readily available elsewhere.
“More than 800 million people have insufficient food,” said Harvard University’s Walter Willett, co-commissioner of a landmark study earlier this year in The Lancet proposing a “reference diet” for optimal health that is long on veggies, legumes and nuts, and short on meat, dairy and sugar.
That diet, The Lancet study found, could feed a world of 10 billion people in 2050 — but only barely.
“We are suggesting a more balanced diet that has roughly 100 grams per person per week of red meat — a single serving once a week rather than every day,” co-author Johan Rockstrom, former director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Change Impacts, told reporters.
Meat consumption has leveled off in rich nations, where fast food chains — including Burger King, McDonald’s and Subway — are rushing to offer faux meat alternatives.
However, globally, consumption of all four major meats — beef, pork, chicken and lamb — are projected to rise slightly over the next five years, according to industry analysts.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with