AntiTyph t1_jbbdhjk wrote
Reply to comment by BurnerAcc2020 in Global food consumption alone could add nearly 1 °C to warming by 2100. Seventy five percent of this warming is driven by foods that are high sources of methane (ruminant meat, dairy and rice). by Plant__Eater
They also have an SSP1 pathway in the paper which still results in 0.38-0.67C of warming. They also include a rough estimate for zero population growth from 2020 levels... which is still ~ 0.3C of warming.
BurnerAcc2020 t1_jbochod wrote
I mean, SSP1 results in a slight decline in population at the end of the century, so it being similar to no-growth scenario isn't too surprising. However, the more important part is that SSP1 already assumes that the current dietary patterns (the focus of the paper) are not sustained, and pretty much all the interventions they recommend are implemented.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300681
> In comparison, the SSP1 scenario features a sustainable land transformation with comparatively little pressure on land resources due to low population projections, healthy diets with limited food waste, and high agricultural productivity.
> Population growth and food demand is a strong driver of future CH4 emissions across the SSPs. It is thus not surprising that CH4 emissions are highest in the SSP3 baseline and lowest in SSP1.
So, it's unfortunate that some people appear to read this paper as if it discovers a completely new source of warming. It doesn't; it's more like a reanalysis of the existing projections narrowly focused on a specific hypothetical & set of interventions.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments