Extensive conversion of grasslands & wetlands driven by global food, feed, & bioenergy demand (Kan et al., 2026) doi.org/10.1073/pnas...
Global patterns of commodity-driven deforestation & associated carbon emissions (Singh & Persson, 2026) doi.org/10.1038/s430...
WRI: www.wri.org/insights/glo...
Two recent studies further show plant-rich food systems are key.
2001-2022: pasture drove 42% of commodity-related deforestation (higher in tropics).
2005-2020: pasture drove 50% of global non-forest ecosystem conversion, & 34% of cropland expansion went to animal feed (80% in some countries).
Do cows compete with humans for food?
750 million acres of land are tied to beef cattle production, yet the arable cropland used for cows (40 million acres) could provide protein for 234 million people per year if used for human-edible crops.
#onehealth #foodsecurity
youtube.com/shorts/EWnKn...
80% of agricultural land is used for livestock (and textiles), yet this huge land use provides only 17% of our calories and 38% of our protein.
16% of the land used for crops provides 83% of our calories and 62% of our protein. It's past time we rethink what we eat.
Great points & the paper highlighting fishmeal sourced from nutritionally vulnerable areas is another reason to stop fish farming.
Insect farming, at scale, would mostly be in the global south (warmer) where they'd face invasive escape risks.
It's a lose-lose.
More plant-rich diets are key.
Yes, reducing forage fishing is important. Where have I said otherwise?
Why would trying to do so through a higher GHGs & equally ecosystem risky option like trillions of insects be the answer? Esp when soy is available, or you know, reducing demand for fish farming...
Fish farming is better off with fortified soy since it’s cheaper & lower GHGs, if we assume it's a necessity.
I’m also curious where advocates for this imagine insect mega farms with trillions needing farmed would be located? Likely marginalized communities. It's a terrible goal.
About 20% of fish caught is reduced to oil & fishmeal. Let's say there's trillions of insects farmed & fed to farmed fish (costing more $ & GHGs) displacing some fishmeal in a decade. The same fleets have quotas for fish reduced to oil & will likely divert co-product meal to growing chicken/pigs
You misread my point. I'm not denying the eco importance of low trophic level fish, that's a strawman
Forage fishing doesn't necessarily decrease if insects manage to displace *some* fishmeal for fish farming. Fish oil & livestock feed use still. And again, see 📃 on big invasive risks with insects.
I completely agree with this analysis by Project Dradown, which also had the good taste to include our papers among its references!
Very good summary on their part. 👏
Appreciate the comment. You and your co-authors work was very helpful in weighing all the pros and cons.
Soy fish-feed has improved with fortifications (synthetic amino acids, protein blends) though, as I understand it, largely making the nutritional difference minimal vs insects. I still don't think even this justifies growth in fish farming but perhaps that's another debate.
Curious if you have a source for that. Yes a good share of fishmeal still comes from wild forage fish, but l'd hypothesize that reducing fishmeal use does little for ocean ecosystems unless fishing pressure is reduced significantly too.
& don't underestimate the risks of invasive insects.
Great suggestion Michael thanks. Certainly the location and heating amount needed is a big influence on GHGs, but at best it'll bring to around the same footprint as chicken (see Thailand source), and still won't address ecosystem risks of invasive escapes.
Wow, interesting. 🤯
"However, recent analyses show highly variable and often high life cycle emissions, 4.2–25.8 kg CO₂‑eq per kg of protein for insects as human food, with the upper end of this range approaching the lower bound for beef."
Currently, half of farmed insects end up in the pet food market, and only a few percent of total production goes to direct human consumption. In practice, it mostly replaces already low-impact plant ingredients, not high-emission animal products.
Well even using insects as fish-feed would still require large, temperature controlled facilities (often FF powered) with grain inputs. And it'd be replacing current fish-meal or soy-meal, both lower emitting.
Considering the challenge in suggesting we eat more plants, proposing insect products seems ridiculous.
But it's received $1B to try to scale & now ~80B insects are farmed.
It can actually emit as much as some beef & has major risks.
My first in the Drawdown Explorer:
drawdown.org/explorer/dep...
US beef is underestimated by ~6x if factoring in the missed opportunity to rewild & restore the land used for its production.
And according to this new WRI report, implementing EVERY existing & breakthrough mitigation tech would only reduce US beef carbon costs by 18%:
www.wri.org/insights/tru...
Animal agriculture is the single largest use of Earth's land.
Yet it's rarely mentioned in eco reporting: only 1% of climate journalism even mentions diet change.
Based on 10,696 U.S. climate articles (2022–2025):
www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/pop... @biologicaldiversity.org
While countries are making progress at measuring & mitigating methane from fossil fuels, we need to increase our efforts in curbing methane from livestock, rice, & food waste.
@paul-west.bsky.social and I explain in our latest article @projectdrawdown.bsky.social drawdown.org/insights/we-...
What better way to end 2025 than getting our paper published in Global Environmental Change 🥳💚
We studied perceptions of the feasibility of climate-relevant behavior change and how these perceptions connect to income differences and climate policy support.
Let me tell you all about it🧵👇
Our future food system will be very different. By design or by disaster. Much of the choice is ours
If we get it right, everyone wins. Healthier diets and communities, more nature, higher productivity, stable(r) climate, etc...
My speech: @nebriefing.bsky.social www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvjJ...
Learn more here:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
www.earthroverprogram.org/about/report
The Earth Rover team showed peat-carbon estimates were off by ~20% by revealing peat–soil boundary.
They can now track soil density, moisture, & crop impacts in more detail.
Next: measure texture, carbon, & scale to whole fields.
This could one day give fast ⬇️$ soil readings for farms globally.
"Soil is one of the Earth’s most important yet least understood ecosystems...Yet over 75% of the world’s soils are now degraded, threatening food security, ecosystems, and climate stability."
Amazing to see this launched! I learned brief details a year ago when I met @georgemonbiot.bsky.social
More effective for climate but with tradeoffs still in likely increased pandemic and antibiotic use risk, & likely more runoff/eutrophication than beef.
A lack of clear messaging (although it's improving) & yeah even if perfectly done, I agree, simply telling people won't do much. Just like telling people to buy less stuff, fly less, use less plastic, etc. is less effective than building better institutions/choice options/incentives/cultural change.
This is all changing quickly and I think you're right in a recent uptick again.
The title of this is misleading but signs still of some slowing growth (maybe peak) in certain countries, unfortunately it's not going to more lentils but instead more chicken:
www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11...
I think I see your semantic point around the word "must", and I also think you're misinterpreting the purpose of the survey. The general public is much less aware of this urgency, as difficult of course as it is, relative to other wicked problems needing change based on the science.
