Connecting Climate Change Mitigation to Global Land Regeneration, Doubling Worldwide Livestock, and Reduction of Early Deaths from Noncommunicable Diseases

The study analyzes population-weighted IHME Global Burden of Disease (GBD) data across 7,846 cohorts (~7.8 billion people in 195 countries). An inverse relationship was observed globally between animal-sourced food consumption and early deaths (before 70) from over 100 NCDs. Globally, mean NCDs = 1428 deaths/year/100k with mean animal food intake = 264.68 kcal/day; correlation r = −0.287 (95% CI −0.307 to −0.266; P < 0.0001). In high-income settings such as the United States, higher animal food intake correlated positively with NCD mortality (mean NCDs = 1197 deaths/year/100k; mean animal food intake = 700.66 kcal/day; r = 0.731, 95% CI 0.677–0.777; P < 0.0001). The authors’ prior preprint suggested at least doubling average worldwide animal food production and consumption and distributing it more evenly could reduce global NCDs. These findings led to examining climate implications and IPCC approaches to agricultural mitigation and land carbon sequestration.

The paper reviews and critiques IPCC definitions and related literature: (1) Sustainable land management is defined by IPCC as stewardship to meet human needs while maintaining long-term productivity and environmental functions; the author argues it lacks explicit permitted/prohibited practices and that current global ecosystem degradation renders mere maintenance inadequate. (2) Sustainable intensification is defined as increasing yields while decreasing environmental impacts; common descriptions (Britannica, Wikipedia) associate intensification with chemicals, monocropping, and CAFOs, which may degrade soils. (3) Climate-smart agriculture aims to increase productivity and incomes, enhance resilience, and reduce/remove GHGs “where possible,” which the author interprets as prioritizing productivity over emissions reductions and lacking method specificity. (4) SSP1 emphasizes sustainability in land management, intensification, and consumption to free land for re/afforestation and bioenergy; methods are unspecified. The IPCC cites work suggesting intensive livestock systems can reduce land/GHG per kg meat (e.g., Brazilian Amazon), which the author critiques for endorsing confined operations. The review references UN assessments of severe terrestrial alteration and ongoing ecosystem decline, and IPCC conclusions that inaction on land degradation increases emissions and reduces sinks.

The study undertakes: (1) Conceptual critique of IPCC terminology and SSP1 framing for agriculture and land use; (2) Quantitative comparison using IPCC AR6 Working Group III datasets and definitions for net GHG accounting (CO2, CH4, N2O using GWP100). Baseline: IPCC mean 2010–2019 net anthropogenic emissions for AFOLU and total GHGs. Scenario modeled: global transition to regenerative/organic agriculture on ~5 billion hectares of degraded agricultural land; doubling global livestock for human consumption and to provide manure-based fertilization (displacing synthetic fertilizers); optimization of forest/grassland/wetland/savannah management; and elimination (or strong reduction) of fossil fuel combustion. Soil carbon sequestration rates use literature estimates (Paustian et al.) suggesting an upper limit ~4–5 t CO2-eq/ha/yr with near-complete adoption of best practices; applied as 4 t CO2-eq/ha/yr over 5 billion ha to yield ~20 GT CO2-eq/yr sequestration in soils. CH4 accounting distinguishes livestock and rice sources, assigning ~1.2 GT CO2-eq/yr to rice (12% of global CH4), implying livestock <= 3.0 GT CO2-eq/yr at baseline and ~6.0 GT CO2-eq/yr when doubled; total CH4 and N2O totals align with IPCC aggregates. Fossil CO2 emissions are taken as ~36.2 GT CO2/yr. Net land-atmosphere CO2 flux includes natural land sinks, added to anthropogenic AFOLU fluxes. Time dynamics: soil carbon saturation over 20–30 years per hectare; global transition phased over 2–10 years leading to 40+ years to reach saturation.

- Global GBD analysis: Lower animal-sourced food intake is associated with higher early NCD mortality worldwide (mean NCDs 1428/100k/yr; mean animal food 264.68 kcal/day; r = −0.287, 95% CI −0.307 to −0.266; P < 0.0001). In the U.S., higher animal food intake correlates with higher NCD mortality (mean NCDs 1197/100k/yr; mean animal food 700.66 kcal/day; r = 0.731, 95% CI 0.677–0.777; P < 0.0001). - IPCC baseline (2010–2019) AFOLU net GHGs: 11.9 ± 4.4 GT CO2-eq/yr. - IPCC SSP1 projection: AFOLU GHGs reduced to ~3 GT CO2-eq/yr by 2050. - Modeled regenerative/organic + doubled livestock scenario: • Soil C sequestration: ~20 GT CO2-eq/yr from cropland/grassland regeneration (4 t CO2-eq/ha/yr × 5 billion ha). • Additional land management (forests/grasslands/wetlands/savannahs): −7.3 GT CO2/yr (range 3.9–13.1) per IPCC. • CH4: livestock doubled to ~6.0 GT CO2-eq/yr; rice ~1.2 GT CO2-eq/yr; total CH4 ~13.1 GT CO2-eq/yr (aligned with IPCC totals). • N2O: ~2.6–2.8 GT CO2-eq/yr, assumed stable due to fertilizer substitution by manure. • Fossil CO2: 36.2 GT CO2/yr eliminated in the full scenario (also considered halving in a sensitivity discussion). • Net effect including land natural sinks: ≈ −24.1 GT CO2-eq/yr for 2–3 decades prior to soil carbon saturation, totaling −482 to −723 GT CO2-eq sequestered. - Implications: Potential to pause or reverse warming short term, enhance food security, and reduce NCD early mortality if animal foods increased and distributed more evenly.

The findings challenge dominant narratives that lower animal-sourced foods universally benefit health and climate. While high-income contexts show positive associations between high animal food intake and NCD mortality, globally low intake correlates with higher early NCD deaths, suggesting distributional inequities and potential benefits from increased access to animal foods. The IPCC’s framing of sustainable/intensive/climate-smart agriculture is critiqued for lacking explicit practice guidelines and, in some references, favoring intensive systems that may degrade land. The proposed scenario integrates doubling livestock with regenerative/organic agriculture to rebuild soil organic matter, leveraging nature-based carbon sequestration to deliver short-term net negative emissions while addressing land degradation and food security. Implementation requires substantial labor, resources, and policy shifts, potentially via worker-owned cooperatives aligned with UN SDGs. After 20–30 years per hectare (≈40+ years globally) soil carbon saturation will curtail further net sequestration; sustaining climate stability would then require per-capita GHGs < ~1.5 t CO2-eq/yr, achieved through near-elimination of fossil fuel combustion, renewable energy expansion, and lifestyle/consumption changes. The scenario is positioned as a testable alternative for climate scientists and policymakers to evaluate given current trajectories and SSP1 limitations.

The paper posits that IPCC’s most favorable scenario (SSP1) would not achieve net soil carbon sequestration and may rely on unproven technological removals. In contrast, a global transition to regenerative/organic agriculture combined with doubling livestock could deliver substantial near-term negative emissions (−24.1 GT CO2-eq/yr for 2–3 decades), reverse land degradation, support food security, and reduce NCD early mortality. Successful implementation requires curtailing fossil fuel combustion, significant upfront financing, labor mobilization, and governance models such as worker-owned cooperatives aligned with the UN SDGs. After soil carbon saturation, further innovation and reduced per-capita emissions (<1.5 t CO2-eq/yr) will be necessary to maintain climate stability. The author calls for climate scientists to analyze and debate this scenario with stakeholders including media, indigenous leaders, policymakers, farmers, entrepreneurs, and the public.

Minor anthropogenic GHGs (F-gases: HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3) were excluded. No granular, spatially explicit assessment of the 5 billion hectares’ sequestration potential was conducted. Forest sequestration potential beyond IPCC modeling was not detailed. Ocean system restoration and sequestration were not modeled. Assumptions on adoption rates, management practices, and livestock expansion impacts bear uncertainty.