Individual responsibility vs. systemic responsibility
If a single person changed to a more sustainable diet, that change wouldn’t have much of an impact on the environment. So is it more effective to focus on systemic change than individual change? Of course, if everyone just blamed the system and didn’t change any of their own behaviours, then nothing would improve. Also, if most of the population didn’t demonstrate an interest about an issue by changing their actions, then politicians wouldn’t have much of a reason to change the system by improving policies. In fact, our individual behaviour and the structure of our society influence each other in both directions. Policies affect people’s behavior, and individuals’ actions influence policy. Of course, systemic change can have a big effect, but we also can’t ignore our individual responsibility. Additionally, our actions can influence those around us, leading to a compounding affect on change.
We could try to influence policies related to fossil fuel extraction and use through voting or protesting, but the impact of those actions is limited. These activities are an important step, but they have an indirect impact. Unfortunately, even if we do these things, we still may not get the result we want. Our socioeconomic status also limits our ability to buy an electric car, solar panels, or a more sustainable home. We cannot directly control the governments’ decision to invest in renewable energy technologies. But if we have access to a variety of foods, we can directly control the emissions associated with the food we purchase and consume.
It is estimated that if Americans replaced beef, pork, and chicken with plant-based proteins, their individuals dietary emissions would reduce by 49.6%.1 Furthermore, if all Americans consumed only plant-based foods, dietary emissions would be 61-73% lower. People and countries that eat a lot of meat can have a larger relative impact by consuming less.2 Similarly, it was estimated that vegans in the UK caused 75% less dietary emissions than high meat consumers. It didn’t matter where the food came from or how the food was produced, the results were similar.3
The Project Drawdown report concluded that lowering food waste and eating a plant-rich diet are the two most effective individual actions that we can practically take to lower emissions.4 Reducing the consumption of animal foods has a greater impact on reducing emissions than increasing the crop yields.5 Similarly, consumers changing what they eat has a larger effect than companies improving their production processes.2
One study compared a standard diet, a meatless Monday diet, a diet low in red meat, a vegetarian diet, a pescatarian diet, a diet that included only animals at the bottom of the food chain, and a vegan diet. The study found that dietary emissions were reduced in the order listed above, with the standard diet emitting the most and the vegan diet emitting the least. In fact, a vegan diet emits 8 times less than the standard diet. Overall, the less animal products we eat, the lower our individual carbon footprint. The study also found another interesting result. Because dairy products emit a relatively high quantity of greenhouse gases, a diet that includes animal products in just one meal each day may emit less greenhouse gases than a completely vegetarian diet.6 So, if you don’t want to become completely vegetarian or vegan, eating some meals without animal products every day can still have a positive impact.
Foods that come from animals at the bottom of the food chain, such as small fish and insects, also have a lower carbon footprint.6 However, substituting beef, pork, or chicken with these animal foods for the sake of the environment creates a different problem. Because these animals are small, we have to kill more animals in order to consume the same quantity of meat. So even though this strategy is sustainable, it can cause more unnecessary suffering and death.
Do only the highest emitting sectors have a responsibility?
Fossil fuels are a problem. The livestock industry likes to emphasise this in order to divert blame.7 To more easily see the flaws in this type of thinking, we will consider a hypothetical example. Let’s imagine that climate change was caused by 100 unique industries, each contributing to 1% of emissions. In that case, because each industry only causes a relatively small amount of emissions, would we just neglect the emissions from each industry and therefore not try to solve climate change? Of course, this attitude is not very effective. A better approach would be to lower emissions as much as possible in each sector. This hypothetical scenario is not too different from reality. The fossil fuel and animal agriculture industries are made up of a range of smaller industries. Even if the emissions of each of these sub-industries are relatively small, they contribute to total emissions. We of course need to switch to renewable energy as much as possible. We also need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as much as possible. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore other greenhouse gases. Climate change is a big problem and we need all of the solutions available. While it is important to focus on the industries that emit the most, it is also important to reduce emissions across all industries as much as realistically possible.
Apart from thought experiments, what does the science say about this question? In fact, if we stick to business as usual, by 2050 emissions from agriculture are predicted to increase by 80%.8 To avoid exceeding 1.5°C or 2°C of warming, by 2030 animal agriculture will emit approximately 49% or 37% of allowable emissions respectively. Even if we stopped fossil fuel emissions right now, we would still exceed the 1.5°C limit and may exceed the 2°C limit by 2100, due to emissions from the food sector alone.9,10 If we completely removed animal agriculture, we could achieve half the emissions reduction required to meet the 2°C target.11
It is difficult to rapidly decarbonise industries outside of animal agriculture. If we reduced emissions from animal agriculture, the energy sector would have more time to lower their emissions. As a result, if we consumed less foods from ruminants like beef, dairy, and lamb, the cost required to transition the energy sector can be 25% lower.13 Additionally, carbon capture and storage technologies to date have not been scaled up and are uneconomical. It is also important to prevent every 0.1°C of warming due to climate tipping points.12 Furthermore, by emitting less methane, we can prevent some of the short-term, serious effects of climate change. The earlier we lower emissions, the more we will prevent damage later. Therefore, emissions from animal farming should not be ignored.
So how can we actually lower emissions from animal agriculture? Well, we need to lower the population of farm animals. If we didn’t artificially impregnate these animals, their population would decline. As a first step, reducing the population of the highest emitters such as cows is most effective.14 If we consumed less animal foods, the demand for those foods would decrease and hence so would the supply. For example, in the United States, if beef consumption was replaced by legumes, 46-72% of their 2020 emission reduction target can be achieved.15 Similarly, if South Korea reduced beef consumption by 50%, then half of their agricultural emission reduction target can be achieved.16
Do only the highest emitting countries have a responsibility?
Countries that emit a lot such as China and India are a problem. Some individuals and governments in small countries may have this attitude in order to divert blame. To more easily see the flaws in this type of thinking, we will consider another hypothetical example. Let’s imagine a scenario where China is divided up into 100 smaller countries. In that case, do those smaller countries within China have less responsibility because they as a country emit less? Of course, if we added up the emissions from these smaller countries, the total emissions would be the same as China as a whole. So again, this attitude is not very useful. People living in small countries lowering their emissions has the same positive impact the climate as the same amount of people in large countries lowering their emissions. The more a country consumes animal products, the more it emits from its food.17 At the end of the day, we will all live on the same planet and will experience the consequences of our actions. There are different limitations to emissions reductions depending on where we live, but we are all responsible to limit our per capita emissions as much as practically possible. We all have a role to play. Instead of blaming each other, acknowledging our personal responsibility and changing behavior is the most effective approach. We can’t control the behavior of other industries, other countries, or other people, but we can control our own behaviour. Instead of waiting for other countries or people to change, let’s set an example.
Overall, the problems caused by climate change will have the greatest effect on low-income individuals in Central America, South America, Arabia, Southeast Asia, and Africa. However, developing countries did not contribute as much to climate change as developed countries on a per capita basis.18,19 Many poor people live in areas where the effects of climate change will be most severe. Climate change will have negative effects on agricultural output, food prices, and food quality. Furthermore, natural disasters will have a more negative effect on the poor.20 However, developing countries will not be able to invest in technologies that can help them adapt to different climates, and hence they will experience more serious impacts.21 Overall, developing countries are less responsible because they are less able to control emissions per capita. Developed countries contributed more to the problem and have more control over lowering per capita emissions, and so they are more responsible. It would also be constructive if developed countries helped developing countries to improve the sustainability of their food and energy systems.
Country’s hidden emissions
When developed countries import animal products or animal feed from developing countries, they export that negative environmental impact to developing countries. Countries typically only try to reduce emissions within their own borders, but do not typically take into account the environmental impacts of imported food. However, consumers have a responsibility for the damage caused by products that they buy.22 Of course, countries that supply animal products also have a responsibility reduce animal food production, but without our demand, there would be no reason for them to supply as much. Both the supplier and the consumer are responsible. Regions that import a lot of food, such as Hong Kong and Singapore, export a lot of their food related emissions. For example, Hong Kong’s emissions associated with meat and dairy product consumption were greater than the total direct emissions from Hong Kong. Approximately 62% of Hong Kong’s actual emissions are hidden in international trade. If Hong Kong switched from their meat heavy diet to following the national dietary guidelines, Hong Kong’s emissions related to animal agriculture would be reduced by 67%. With this change, Hong Kong could reach their 2030 Paris Agreement goal.23
But don’t vegans still fly on airplanes and drive petrol cars?
The essence of this kind of argumentation is that if we are not perfect in every area, then we shouldn’t even try in any area. This is an all or nothing attitude. Emissions in one area are no excuse for causing more emissions in all areas. A more important questions is who emits more overall, vegans who travel or meat eaters who travel?
Furthermore, flying doesn’t cause many problems outside of emissions like animal agriculture does, for example poor animal welfare, biodiversity loss, antibiotics, and zoonotic disease. Many vegans became vegan for reasons other than the environment, such as animal rights. Does this mean that vegans are not responsible for lowering emissions? Definitely not. Of course, we should all fly as little as possible. For example, we can travel domestically or to countries that are closer to us. However, most people don’t fly regularly, but they do eat animal products every single day.
Another important consideration is whether accessible substitutes exist for a technology or not. Some technologies and products are currently important to society, but unfortunately cause a lot of emissions. However, it is difficult to lower those industry’s emissions without a technology that emits less and can replace that product. However, in the case of animal agriculture, many of us have the opportunity to change right now because there is an abundance of suitable substitutes. If there is a substitute, it is better to choose the product or service with the lowest impact. If there is no substitute, then we should use that product or service less. For example, it would be great to buy an electric car or take the bus everyday, but right now many of us don’t have access to affordable electric vehicles or public transport. However, many of us have to ability to decide what we foods we buy and eat on a daily basis. So, if we change our diet, we can have a direct and immediate impact. For now at least, there are still no easily accessible alternatives to airplanes and cars, but there are many accessible animal food substitutes. It is even more important to eat plant based if we emit somewhere else to try and offset that. We can also try to make up for the ones whole will not switch to a more plant predominant diet.
Conclusion
Of course, in the long term we really need to lower carbon dioxide emissions from the use of fossil fuels. But at the same time, lowering methane emissions can limit global warming in the short term. Lowering emissions, not matter they type of greenhouse gas, has an important role to play and are not mutually exclusive. We can lower them all at the same time. So, instead of blaming other industries or countries, it is more effective to lower emissions as much as we can, both individually and as a society. In the end, we all live together on the same Earth and future generations will endure the consequences of our choices. Eating less animal products won’t save the planet all by itself, but this is an important part of the solution. If we have the opportunity to act, then we also have a responsibility. If you want to learn more about how to lower your dietary emissions, check out this post.
References
1. Willits-Smith A, Aranda R, Heller MC, Rose D. Addressing the carbon footprint, healthfulness, and costs of self-selected diets in the USA: a population-based cross-sectional study. The Lancet Planetary Health. 2020;4(3):e98-e106.
2. Poore J, Nemecek T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science. 2018;360(6392):987-992.
3. Scarborough P, Clark M, Cobiac L, et al. Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts. Nature Food. 2023;4(7):565-574.
4. Project Drawdown. Table of Solutions. 2023; https://drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions.
5. Theurl MC, Lauk C, Kalt G, et al. Food systems in a zero-deforestation world: Dietary change is more important than intensification for climate targets in 2050. Science of The Total Environment. 2020;735:139353.
6. Kim BF, Santo RE, Scatterday AP, et al. Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crises. Global environmental change. 2020;62:101926.
7. Mitloehner F. Livestock’s contributions to climate change: Facts and fiction. Render. 2016;46:10-11.
8. Tilman D, Clark M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature. 2014;515(7528):518-522.
9. Clark MA, Domingo NGG, Colgan K, et al. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets. Science. 2020;370(6517):705-708.
10. Kim B, Neff R, Santo R, Vigorito J. The importance of reducing animal product consumption and wasted food in mitigating catastrophic climate change. Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. 2015.
11. Eisen MB, Brown PO. Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO2 emissions this century. PLoS Climate. 2022;1(2):e0000010.
12. Armstrong McKay DI, Staal A, Abrams JF, et al. Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points. Science. 2022;377(6611):eabn7950.
13. Bryngelsson D, Hedenus F, Johansson DJ, Azar C, Wirsenius S. How do dietary choices influence the energy-system cost of stabilizing the climate? Energies. 2017;10(2):182.
14. Harwatt H. Including animal to plant protein shifts in climate change mitigation policy: a proposed three-step strategy. Climate Policy. 2019;19(5):533-541.
15. Harwatt H, Sabaté J, Eshel G, Soret S, Ripple W. Substituting beans for beef as a contribution toward US climate change targets. Climatic Change. 2017;143(1-2):261-270.
16. Yeo MJ, Kim YP. Prediction of the carbon dioxide emission change resulting from the changes in bovine meat consumption behavior in Korea. Journal of Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment. 2015;31(4):356-367.
17. Sandström V, Valin H, Krisztin T, Havlík P, Herrero M, Kastner T. The role of trade in the greenhouse gas footprints of EU diets. Global Food Security. 2018;19:48-55.
18. Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Barnard P, Moomaw WR. World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency. BioScience. 2019;70(1):8-12.
19. Samson J, Berteaux D, McGill BJ, Humphries MM. Geographic disparities and moral hazards in the predicted impacts of climate change on human populations. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 2011;20(4):532-544.
20. Jameel Y, Patrone CM, Patterson KP, West PC. Climate–Poverty Connections: Opportunities For Synergistic Solutions At The Intersection Of Planetary And Human Well-Being. 2022.
21. Vermeulen SJ, Campbell BM, Ingram JS. Climate change and food systems. Annual review of environment and resources. 2012;37(1):195-222.
22. De Ruiter H, Macdiarmid JI, Matthews RB, Kastner T, Smith P. Global cropland and greenhouse gas impacts of UK food supply are increasingly located overseas. Journal of The Royal Society Interface. 2016;13(114):20151001.
23. Yau YY, Thibodeau B, Not C. Impact of cutting meat intake on hidden greenhouse gas emissions in an import-reliant city. Environmental Research Letters. 2018;13(6):064005.