Many people today recognize the reality of global warming and accept that everyone must contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Sadly, however, many of us—whether misled by intentional disinformation, influenced by commercial interests, or caught in cognitive dissonance—seem to believe that small, convenient changes to our current patterns of living will suffice. A few solar panels on the roof, an electric or hybrid SUV (sic!), the occasional cycling trip to work… The truth is: all these token gestures may please our conscience, but, as serious research shows, they fall dramatically short of the scale and depth of change required.
The heart of the problem is that the environmental crisis is not merely a matter of technology, but of systemic overshoot sustained by four deeply intertwined factors:
First, overconsumption—especially rampant in high-income societies. This is not simply “excess” for all, but a story of vast and growing inequalities: a tiny global elite consumes the lion’s share of resources, while billions lack access to basic needs.
Second, our dependence on fossil fuels remains overwhelming. Over the past decade, total global energy use has surged nearly 15%, a rise that outpaces efficiency gains and renewable energy growth. This “Jevons paradox” is alive and well: technological advances are outweighed by growing aggregate demand, driving emissions ever upward.
Third, our dietary choices play a significant role in accelerating global warming. Despite persistent myths and aggressive lobbying around “ethical meat” (grass-fed, organic, etc.), livestock production alone generates 11–17% of global greenhouse gas emissions—and up to 30% when factoring in logistics and land use. Recent (preprint) estimates that also consider the increase of agricultural land and “foregone carbon storage” annualise the global climate cost of agriculture at ~34 Gt CO₂ eq/year (3.5x typical estimates), matching energy emissions. The latest IPCC and Oxford research leaves no doubt: “Rising animal production and consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land use. Eating less meat, of all types, is the most effective step for individuals.”
Fourth, the global population remains historically high, increasing by over one million people every week. Yet it is consumption intensity—not just absolute numbers—that drives planetary risk. While growth rates slow in many Western regions, emissions remain heavily skewed: the wealthiest nations bear the greatest responsibility.
Of course, individual responsibility has limits. Calls for personal change often deflect attention from the systemic injustices and power structures sustaining the status quo. Structural barriers—such as access to healthy food, economic inequality, and social norms—constrain choices. Policies to encourage plant-based diets, shift subsidies, and restrict harmful advertising are essential to enable large-scale change. In turn, any responsible voter must reject political parties that fail to commit to a genuine green transition.
Still, the hard truth remains: no amount of green marketing or policy rhetoric can conceal this fact—there is no path to sustainability without radical cuts in resource use and fundamental shifts in consumption habits, especially in affluent countries. While systemic reforms take time, some actions—like adopting plant-based diets and reducing air travel—are within our immediate reach.
So let’s be honest: anyone preaching climate change without demanding significant reductions in consumerism and a painful modification of our personal lifestyles is either fooling us or fooling themselves.
Food for thought—and for the future of the planet.
(Published 3/2023)
According to the US Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute the average per capita meat consumption per person in the world was 38.7 kilograms.
Note: Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.