"Can the Earth Be Saved by 'Just Reducing Beef Consumption a Little'? — Shocking Revelation that '44% Need to Change Their Diet'"

"Overeating" and "Beef" Were the Blind Spots of the Climate Crisis——.

A research team from the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Canada estimated that to keep the global average temperature rise within 2°C, about 44% of the world's population needs to change their eating habits. Moreover, it's not just a matter of some wealthy individuals curbing their luxuries. The study shows that while there are certainly high-emission groups, "people exceeding the limits" are widely distributed.UBC News

Leading this study was Dr. Juan Diego Martinez, who was enrolled in the doctoral program at UBC's Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability. They highlight the reality that "food-related greenhouse gases (GHG) are not someone else's problem but have infiltrated almost everyone's living space."UBC News

1) What Was Discovered: The Meaning of the "44%" Figure

The research team's claim is simple. According to the "globally acceptable food-related emissions" to keep temperature rise within 2°C, as of 2012, about half of the world, and at least 90% in Canada, are at levels where they need to change their eating habits. Furthermore, future projections indicate that by 2050, about 90% will find that "the current way of eating is unsustainable". In other words, it's not a matter of "someone will do it eventually," but rather "the longer it takes, the more people it affects."UBC News

What's important here is that the study is not a "request for idealism," but is structured with the concept of a budget. To keep global warming within 2°C, there is a global total limit in the food sector that "cannot be exceeded." The issue is who is exceeding that limit and by how much.UBC News

2) Research Methodology: Calculating "Per Capita Food Emission Budgets" in 112 Countries

The team divided the populations of 112 countries (covering 99% of global food-related GHGs) into income deciles and calculated the "per capita food emissions" by combining:

• Food consumption (what and how much is eaten)

• Production (emissions from agriculture and livestock)

• Supply chain (transportation and distribution, etc.)
  , and compared it with the "per capita emission limit" consistent with the 2°C target.UBC News

What makes this approach interesting is that it attempts to look beyond "national averages" to the disparities within the same country. Even in wealthy countries, there is a range within the country. Conversely, even if a country is not high-income, the upper tiers within the country may have high-emission eating habits. Food emissions are more ingrained in "living standards" than in "nations"—such a picture emerges.UBC News

3) It's Not Just a "Wealthy People's Problem," but It Is "Inequality"

The study does not deny inequality. In fact, it clearly shows that
the top 15% of emitters account for 30% of food-related emissions. This is the same scale as the entire bottom 50%.UBC News

At the same time, researchers say that while the top emitters are indeed significant, those exceeding the limits are "much broader". Therefore, from a global perspective, it's not enough to just change the top tiers; "half" become the target. In Canada, the harsh result is that all income deciles exceed the limit.UBC News

Furthermore, the paper's abstract indicates that as of 2012, 40-45% of the world's population exceeded the limit, and future limits calculated for the 2050 population show that 89-91% will exceed the limit. In short, the effort to "reduce food emissions" is likely to become part of almost everyone's life by 2050.ResearchGate

4) "Reduce Flights" or "Food"?——It's Not "Either-Or"

In discussions on climate measures, points like "stop flying," "drive EVs," and "reduce luxuries" often come up. Researchers acknowledge the validity of these discussions. However, the reason food is emphasized is clear: the global food system accounts for over one-third of anthropogenic GHGs.UBC News

And there's another reason why the discussion on food is unavoidable. Everyone eats. In other words, food becomes a "daily" choice that concerns "everyone," not just "some actions." Borrowing the words of researchers, for those who consume a lot of both flights and beef, it's necessary to reduce **"both" rather than "either-or."**UBC News

5) So What to Change?: The Points Are "Overeating" and "Beef"

Researchers point out two major "simple changes."

① Optimize the amount eaten and reduce food waste

"Eat only what is necessary and reuse leftovers." Reducing food waste decreases unnecessary production, disposal, and cooking, thereby reducing emissions. It also benefits household finances.UBC News

② Reduce (or stop) beef consumption

Beef is particularly emphasized. According to UBC's introduction, **beef alone accounts for 43% of the average Canadian's food-related emissions**. Moreover, the researchers themselves, having grown up in Latin America where "beef is part of the culture," acknowledge that they cannot deny the data.UBC News

6) Another Perspective on "Food Limits"——There Are Also "People Who Should Increase"

This is where the discussion becomes complex. The paper's abstract mentions that emission reductions are not simply about "everyone reducing," but also about ensuring **those who are not eating enough have "room to increase for healthy living."** In other words, reducing the upper tiers is meaningful not only "for the climate" but also for **food fairness**.ResearchGate

From this perspective, "reduce beef" is not just a matter of endurance but is seen as an "adjustment of the framework" where:

• those currently emitting excessively reduce

• those not yet reaching the necessary amount can be fulfilled

• yet the total remains within the 2°C target
  .
  
  
  

7) Replacing in Japan: "Replacement Design" Over Extreme Abstinence

Japanese eating habits are diverse, but especially during the year-end and New Year holidays, "feasts" increase. What's important here is not to fail by trying to achieve ideals all at once, but to engage in replacement design.

For example,

• reduce beef dishes by "once or twice a week" and replace them with chicken, fish, or soy

• slightly reduce portions and carry over leftovers to the next day (reduce waste)

• balance out on regular days without denying "feast days"

Researchers themselves position behavioral changes as an "entry point to move politics and systems." They call for "Vote with your fork," suggesting that if individual choices become a topic, politicians will be more inclined to pay attention to food system policies.UBC News

8) Reactions on Social Media: The "Points" That Spread Are Generally Four (※Reconstructed Trends)

This topic tends to spread on social media via official accounts of research institutions and media. In fact, UBC Science and Sentient Media have been confirmed to post on X with summaries like "44% need to change their eating habits".X (formerly Twitter)

(※Below is not quoting individual posts but is a reorganization and reconstruction by the editorial department of discussions likely to arise from such dissemination)

Point A: Agreement "Beef Is Key After All"

• "If beef alone has a big impact, start there."

• "Starting with 'quantity' and 'loss' is easier."