I think it best to post a bit more about the food related article (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/ ... lexitarian
I think the article was meant as an encouragement for people to change their dietary habits as one way to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions......and I think it is good to give people encouragement to do this. The downside of the article as it originally appeared (with the grossly incorrect information it presented) is that:
1. It was just plain wrong and it is best if wrong statements be avoided.
2. It will lead to some people going out and repeating those false claims which (when people who know how wrong those claims are hear these claims repeated) will diminish their credibility not only for themselves but for climate change activists in general.
3. It will lead some people to think that by being vegetarian (nearly) that they have done way more than most people have done just by the fact that they are vegetarian (nearly) and so they will not pursue changing their lifestyle in other ways....in short being complacent about the other issues which are much bigger factors and which are having a much bigger impact on greenhouse gas emission.
.....but people who want to know how much effect being vegetarian has on ghg(greenhouse gase) emissions has on the total emissions have no information.....it certainly is not more than half as was originally stated in the article and the changes in the article did not give a corrected estimate of the effect.
There are many things to consider in making a new assessment and in this post I will give a rough way of estimating it.
The emissions from agriculture was estimated in 2014 (I previously presented the reference) at being about 11% but with a stipulation that not all of the indirect emissions were included. If anyone looks around on the internet they will probably find that higher percents are often quoted. I'm not going to try to pin down some exact number (really, no one know exactly) but from what I've read 15% is a likely number and 20% is likely on the high side.....a big difference in the numbers found on the internet is in exactly what is included (is land use change included?...is consumers fuel use in driving to buy the food incuded?....etc.). Also note that I am using the contribution of AGRICULTURE as estimated and not the contribution for FOOD so the estimate for food will be higher than my estimates for agriculture which is why I will go with the 20% figure.....if you want it is easy to use 25% or whatever number you favor.
The article (as corrected) claims that based on a study from nature that about 50% of emissions from food would be eliminate if everyone followed a flexitarian diet (90% reduction in beef and pork consumption along with other healthy measures). So.....simple math shows that if food contributes 20% of the emissions and it is cut by 50% (in half) then the reduction of overall ghg emissions which that change would produce is 10%.
Now, a 10% reduction is definitely significant and worth pursuing....but it can be seen that it in itself is not nearly going to get us near the goal.....by itself not nearly what the mistakenly declared 50% would have meant if it was accurate (which it is not).
This is a rough estimate and meant to just give us some kind of perspective which is based on realistic estimates rather than the grossly mistaken reporting of the article as originally presented.