r/PlantBased4ThePlanet

Report intro:

The climate emergency is escalating, with increasingly alarming impacts on the food system. Animal agriculture is both highly dependent on a stable climate system and one of the biggest contributors to climate change, primarily through methane and nitrous oxide pollution and indirectly as a major driver of deforestation and land-use change.

Transformative changes are needed and shifting diets in many areas where meat and dairy are overconsumed is essential to bring down emissions and improve health. The 2025 EAT-Lancet report provides further evidence for how healthy and sustainable diets on a planet of 10 billion people are feasible, and how shifting to such diets would cut emissions from the food system in half and prevent 15 million premature deaths per year.

The last UN climate conference, COP30, took place in November 2025 in Belém in the Brazilian Amazon, and hopes were high that transforming agriculture and food systems would finally make it into an official conference text. However, this did not happen. Instead, agribusiness voices focused on efficiency and concerns around food security featured prominently across the conference, standing in the way of real change. While climate change is a real threat to food security, this narrative is reframed and exploited by meat and dairy industry actors to justify continued growth of animal agriculture.

Additionally, despite the scientific consensus that dietary shift and agricultural methane reductions are crucial to stay on a 1.5°C or even a 2°C-degree trajectory, just 4% of national climate plans (nationally determined contributions, or NDCs) include quantified, time-bound agricultural methane reduction targets, and fewer still include sustainable diets.

This briefing will unpick some of the key industry narratives that are being used to prevent the inclusion of food systems on the climate agenda. It highlights arguments and key messages pushed by meat and dairy industry representatives and allies at both the World Meat Congress, a biennial industry event which last year was held in Brazil just before COP30, and at COP30 itself.

There's a Download button that leads to a PDF, it's a short report.

At my cousin’s home renovation discussion last Saturday I started thinking about hanging plants from the ceiling to enhance indoor aesthetics. Some rooms already had them and they looked fresh and lively. At first it seemed like an easy way to brighten up spaces without occupying floor area. Local nurseries had very few hanging setups and options were limited.

But I remembered trying indoor plant decorations before that looked nice but were difficult to maintain and often drooped or fell. That experience was disappointing and made me more cautious. Even small details like pot size, weight, and watering needs started to matter more.

To explore better options I checked online. While casually scrolling online marketplaces including alibaba I saw many hanging plant designs and price ranges but I am not sure if I should buy them because of past experiences. Some looked stable while others raised doubts about durability.

Now I am wondering whether hanging plants are truly practical for indoor decoration or mostly a visual experiment. Has anyone used them long term and found them manageable?

I know it sounds gross but a huge amount of clean, safe-to-eat animal products are thrown out fully packaged everyday from grocery and food companies.

If you were open to dumpster diving, would you consider eating animal products found there? Even if not straight meat or milk/yoghurt, things like pastries, cereal, honey, etc?

A few days ago I tried eating vegetarian for a day, and at first I thought it might feel limited. But when I explored different meals, flavors, and ingredients, I realized how diverse and satisfying vegetarian food can be. Even small details like spices, cooking style, and fresh ingredients made a huge difference in taste and enjoyment. It didn’t feel restrictive at all—in fact, it felt refreshing.

Later I searched online on websites including alibaba and found many vegetarian food options and products. Some focused on ready-to-eat meals, while others offered organic ingredients or plant-based alternatives. Some even had small extras like eco-friendly packaging or health-focused recipes. I was surprised how minor changes in diet could impact energy levels and overall well-being. It made me think about what people prioritize most. Is it health, ethics, or environmental impact?

Can choosing a vegetarian lifestyle truly improve health while making a positive impact on the planet?

by Chris Bryant. Sources in the video description.

Have you heard of Blue Zones?! Area where people have been classified and announced as living the longest lifespans in the world. It has been stated that 90%-95% of the diets being maintained were found to be plant based. Complex carbohydrates are said to be one of the main food types relied on within the studied diets. Not just any carb but complex carbs since jelly beans, cookies and cakes can be considered carbs; but complex carbs! The worst things found to be brought into homes effecting health in a negative manner was processed meats, salty snack, and sugary snacks like candy, sodas, and sweets. These do not aid having a lengthened life move with caution when partaking.

Has having a plant based styled diet benefited you in any way internally that you’d like to share ? & Do you have any thoughts on blue zones ?

Fun Fact: one cup of legumes a day has been found to add 4yrs to someone’s life in general.

>Whether it is crude oil, natural gas, or coal, these are unnervingly the base of much of our food supply!

Sources in the video description.

>Food self-sufficiency (FSS) and healthy diets are high on policy agendas to ensure food security under increasing global pressures. A global shift towards self-sufficient production of healthy diets would represent a radical departure from today's globalised food system. Representing such scenarios in a biophysically consistent way requires accounting for multiple resource constraints and feedback loops—including feed, fertiliser, and trade flows—while allowing flexible reallocation of crop areas, livestock numbers, and biomass streams. We use the global biophysical optimisation model CiFoS (Circular Food Systems) to evaluate the potential for self-sufficient production of multiple food groups and nutrients in 70 regions by 2050 under a business-as-usual diet (BAU-MinTrade) and a Planetary Health Diet (PHD-MinTrade). FSS is assessed by minimising biomass and nutrient trade while fulfilling dietary requirements, with trade only balancing shortages. Results show that total trade could fall by 62% to 618 million tonnes in BAU-MinTrade and by 79% to 343 million tonnes in PHD-MinTrade. Many regions—including Europe, the Americas, Oceania, and China—could be almost self-sufficient under both scenarios. Several African regions, India, and parts of Asia would still rely on imports, especially under BAU-MinTrade. Most food groups and nutrients show potential for increased FSS, though trade in some animal-source products and nutrients may rise. Self-sufficient systems can keep land use and GHG emissions within planetary boundaries, but nitrogen and phosphorus inputs remain high. PHD self-sufficiency is consistently more sustainable than BAU. Aligning production with dietary shifts towards a PHD supports self-sufficiency while reducing environmental trade-offs.

Learn how fossil hydrocarbons are involved in food. You'll understand which foods will get more expensive due to an oil and gas crisis.