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

Animal agriculture contributes significantly to global warming through ongoing emissions of the potent greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide, and displacement of biomass carbon on the land used to support livestock. However, because estimates of the magnitude of the effect of ending animal agriculture often focus on only one factor, the full potential benefit of a more radical change remains underappreciated. Here we quantify the full “climate opportunity cost” of current global livestock production, by modeling the combined, long-term effects of emission reductions and biomass recovery that would be unlocked by a phaseout of animal agriculture. We show that, even in the absence of any other emission reductions, persistent drops in atmospheric methane and nitrous oxide levels, and slower carbon dioxide accumulation, following a phaseout of livestock production would, through the end of the century, have the same cumulative effect on the warming potential of the atmosphere as a 25 gigaton per year reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, providing half of the net emission reductions necessary to limit warming to 2°C. The magnitude and rapidity of these potential effects should place the reduction or elimination of animal agriculture at the forefront of strategies for averting disastrous climate change. Significance Statement The use of animals to produce food has a negative impact on the climate, but the benefits of a global switch to a plant based diet are underappreciated. We show that the global warming impact, through the rest of this century, of eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from livestock and allowing native ecosystems to regrow on the land currently used to house and feed livestock, would be equivalent to a 68% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. We hope putting clearer numbers on the “climate opportunity cost” of our continued use of animals as food technology will help policymakers and the public properly prioritize dietary change as a climate defense strategy. Declaration of Conflict of Interest Patrick Brown is the founder and CEO of Impossible Foods, a company developing alternatives to animals in food-production. Michael Eisen is an advisor to Impossible Foods. Both are shareholders in the company and thus stand to benefit financially from reduction of animal agriculture. ### Competing Interest Statement Patrick Brown is the founder and CEO of Impossible Foods, a company developing alternatives to animals in food-production. Michael Eisen is an advisor to Impossible Foods. Both are shareholders in the company and thus stand to benefit financially from reduction of animal agriculture.