How Do Dietary Choices Influence the Energy-System Cost of Stabilizing the Climate?

David Bryngelsson, Fredrik Hedenus, Daniel J. A. Johansson, Christian Azar and Stefan Wirsenius
Additional contact information
David Bryngelsson: Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, 41296 Gothenburg, Sweden
Fredrik Hedenus: Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, 41296 Gothenburg, Sweden
Daniel J. A. Johansson: Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, 41296 Gothenburg, Sweden
Christian Azar: Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, 41296 Gothenburg, Sweden
Stefan Wirsenius: Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, 41296 Gothenburg, Sweden

Energies, 2017, vol. 10, issue 2, 1-13

Abstract: We investigate how different global dietary scenarios affect the constraints on, and costs of, transforming the energy system to reach a global temperature stabilization limit of 2 °C above the pre-industrial level. A global food and agriculture model, World Food Supply Model (WOFSUM), is used to create three dietary scenarios and to calculate the CH 4 and N 2 O emissions resulting from their respective food-supply chains. The diets are: (i) a reference diet based on current trends; (ii) a diet with high (reference-level) meat consumption, but without ruminant products (i.e., no beef, lamb, or dairy, only pork and poultry); and (iii) a vegan diet. The estimated CH 4 and N 2 O emissions from food production are fed into a coupled energy and climate-system optimization model to quantify the energy system implications of the different dietary scenarios, given a 2 °C target. The results indicate that a phase-out of ruminant products substantially increases the emission space for CO 2 by about 250 GtC which reduces the necessary pace of the energy system transition and cuts the net present value energy-system mitigation costs by 25%, for staying below 2 °C. Importantly, the additional cost savings with a vegan diet––beyond those achieved with a phase-out of ruminant products––are marginal (only one additional percentage point). This means that a general reduction of meat consumption is a far less effective strategy for meeting the 2 °C target than a reduction of beef and dairy consumption.

Keywords: climate change mitigation; energy system modelling; dietary changes (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/2/182/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/2/182/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:10:y:2017:i:2:p:182-:d:89439

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().