A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Nature Food
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Articles
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00431-5
1Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands. 2College of Land Science and Technology, China Agricultural
University, Beijing, China. 3The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO, The Hague, the Netherlands. 4Department of Geography,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. 5Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment (SAGE), Nelson Institute for Environmental
Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. 6Institute for Ecological Economics, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna,
Austria. 7Leiden University College The Hague, The Hague, the Netherlands. ✉e-mail: z.sun@cml.leidenuniv.nl
Agriculture is key to determining the rate and depth of cli-
matic change. Current food system emissions alone may pre-
clude the limiting of climate warming to 1.5 °C or even 2 °C
above pre-industrial levels1, yet simultaneously, radical land-use and
agricultural management interventions may be crucial strategies for
limiting climatic change2. Dietary change, for one, has been found
to be a practical and effective strategy in multiple studies3,4. The
global food system is responsible for ~13.7 GtCO2e emissions per
year, accounting for 26% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions5. Agricultural production, particularly animal-derived
products and land-use change, accounts for the largest propor-
tion of these emissions6. In 2013, per capita meat consumption in
high-income countries was almost six times greater than that in
low-income countries6. Animal-derived products account for 70%
of food-system emissions in high-income countries but only 22%
in low–middle-income countries7. Attribution of these emissions is
complicated by agricultural globalization, whereby food consump-
tion in high-income countries drives overseas GHG emissions
through international trade8. As such, dietary change in high-income
countries may hold the potential to substantially reduce agricultural
emissions around the world—a potential climate ‘dividend’.
Shifting from current dietary patterns in high-income nations to
healthier alternatives with few or no animal products could simul-
taneously spare agricultural land for other uses. While a portion of
this land may ultimately be used for various types of development
and/or bioenergy, its use for intentional ecosystem restoration—a
‘natural climate solution’2,9—would represent a second additional
carbon dividend from dietary change. In many regions, reverting
cropland to its antecedent or ‘potential’ natural vegetation (PNV)
can substantially increase aboveground biomass carbon (AGBC),
belowground biomass carbon (BGBC) and soil organic carbon
(SOC) stocks8,10–13 with additional co-benefits for biodiversity14
and other ecosystem services. Recent studies highlight the large
magnitude of this sequestration potential. Global vegetation is
believed to currently store less than 50% (450 GtC) of its potential
carbon stock (916 GtC) due to appropriative land use11. Likewise,
global soils have lost 116 GtC over the course of agricultural history
due to carbon-cycle imbalances imposed by cultivation and other
human appropriation15. A substantial portion of these carbon stocks
could be recovered if land is spared by dietary change and subse-
quently restored to PNV. However, the extent to which land could
be spared has not been comprehensively assessed due, in part, to
the complex trade relationships between food producers and con-
sumers8. Such relationships are particularly relevant to the land-use
footprints of high-income nations that import large amounts of
food from around the world16.
We assess the potential for a ‘double dividend’ for GHG emis-
sions mitigation via dietary change from both reduced direct agri-
cultural production emissions and carbon sequestration via land
sparing whereby agricultural lands can revert to other uses. While
linked, these elements play out over two different timeframes: the
first, reduced production emissions, influences the sector’s annual
GHG contribution, while the second, sequestration, often requires
decades or even centuries to realize its full potential. We conceptu-
alize the latter effect as a one-time ‘committed’ mass of carbon that
is sequestered over an unspecified period after restoration is ini-
tiated (Methods). In addition, information and knowledge nudges
could motivate the public’s perception and individual intrinsic iden-
tity on sustainable diets, which would facilitate value-driven actions
on diet change17,18. However, such climate benefits will materialize
only if land upstream in the supply chain is spared from agricul-
tural activities. We use data for the year 2010 from the Food and
Agriculture Biomass Input–Output dataset (FABIO)19 to relate the
international final demand for food items with primary agricultural
production. FABIO is a physical global multi-regional input–out-
put table and so avoids price-based impacts and issues in estimating
Dietary change in high-income nations alone can
lead to substantial double climate dividend
Zhongxiao Sun 1,2 ✉ , Laura Scherer 1, Arnold Tukker1,3, Seth A. Spawn-Lee 4,5, Martin Bruckner 6,
Holly K. Gibbs4,5 and Paul Behrens 1,7
A dietary shift from animal-based foods to plant-based foods in high-income nations could reduce greenhouse gas emissions
from direct agricultural production and increase carbon sequestration if resulting spared land was restored to its antecedent
natural vegetation. We estimate this double effect by simulating the adoption of the EAT–Lancet planetary health diet by 54
high-income nations representing 68% of global gross domestic product and 17% of population. Our results show that such
dietary change could reduce annual agricultural production emissions of high-income nations’ diets by 61% while sequestering
as much as 98.3 (55.6–143.7) GtCO2 equivalent, equal to approximately 14 years of current global agricultural emissions until
natural vegetation matures. This amount could potentially fulfil high-income nations’ future sum of carbon dioxide removal
(CDR) obligations under the principle of equal per capita CDR responsibilities. Linking land, food, climate and public health
policy will be vital to harnessing the opportunities of a double climate dividend.
NATURE FOOD | VOL 3 | JANUARY 2022 | 29–37 | www.nature.com/natfood 29
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved