“We need to see major changes in livestock production and consumption — really deep and rapid changes over the next decade,” said
Helen Harwatt, an environmental social scientist and lead author of the survey report, which was published last week by Harvard’s animal law and policy program, where Harwatt is a fellow. The survey was also co-authored by researchers
Matthew Hayek,
Paul Behrens, and
William Ripple.
Asked how rapidly global livestock emissions should fall after they peak, the experts’ most common response was a 50 percent or more decrease within five years after peaking. And the most effective way to do that, most survey respondents agreed, is by reducing the amount of meat and dairy humanity produces and consumes.
But such a peak, let alone a swift reduction in the amount of meat we eat, is nowhere in sight. Rising
global meat consumption, along with vanishingly little government policy designed to change diets or cut pollution from factory farms, means we’re all but guaranteed to miss even the least ambitious targets suggested by climate and agricultural scientists in the Harvard survey.
Last year, a United Nations and OECD
analysis predicted global meat consumption — a good but imperfect proxy for livestock emissions — won’t actually peak until
2075.