2012 - wwf · the emissions caused along this chain are called “direct” emissions. in addition...

2012

STUDY

Climate change on your plateNutrition ImpactFood losses Climate

Imprint

Published by WWF Germany, Berlin October 2012 Authors Steffen Noleppa/agripol GbREditors Tanja Dräger de Teran/WWF Germany, Andreas Müller-SeedorfCoordination Thomas Köberich/WWF GermanyContact [email protected] Graphic design Thomas Schlembach/WWF Germany

Table of Contents Summary 4 1 Problem definition and objectives 7 2 Food-related greenhouse gas emissions 11 3 Current German greenhouse gas emissions resulting from food consumption 25 3.1 Direct emissions resulting from food production and preparation 25 3.2 Indirect emissions resulting from land use change 31 4 Healthy eating is good for the climate 39 4.1 A healthier diet lowers direct emissions 39 4.2 A healthier diet lowers indirect emissions 42 4.3 The impact of a healthier diet on the German carbon and land footprints 51 5 Less food waste – fewer emissions 59 5.1 Impact of food waste on direct emissions 59 5.2 Impact of food waste on indirect emissions 62 5.3 The impact of food waste on the German land and carbon footprints 64 6 Conclusions 69 WWF recommendations on healthy eating 73 WWF recommendations for avoiding food waste 74 References 76 Annexes 79

Our food consumption gives rise to considerable greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as our food must first be produced, then harvested, trans-ported, stored, and possibly processed before it

finally ends up on the retailers’ shelves. Once it has reached the consumer’s household it is further stored, often refrigerated, then processed and eaten – or it may end up in the waste bin, in which case it will need to be managed as part of the waste stream. The emissions caused along this chain are called “direct” emissions. In addition there are so-called “indirect” emissions which are often overlooked in the public discussion but which may significantly in-crease our personal “carbon footprint”. These greenhouse gas emissions result from land use changes, for example the conversion of grassland into arable land or tropical rainforest into pasture. But how is our daily food consump-tion linked to land use change in our own country or elsewhere in the world? Where does land use change occur and which foods have a particularly strong impact in this regard? Are our decisions as to what to eat and how much to eat of relevant to our climate or to land use change in Brazil? Can a healthy diet be considered a contribution to climate protection? And what is the climate impact of our current wasteful way of dealing with food?

“Meat eats Land” and “Tons for the Bin”, the two preceding studies as part of a long-term WWF project, describe the linkages between our food consumption – and in particular our high meat consumption – and land consumption. They come to the conclusion that the land footprint of our strongly meat-based diet is very large indeed. But the studies also show that a healthier diet and a more prudent attitude to dealing with food can substantially reduce our land footprint. This third study now considers the climate impact of the way we eat.

Almost 70 % of the direct greenhouse gas emissions caused by our food con-sumption can be attributed to livestock products while plant-based products only account for about a third of these emissions. Our appetite for meat is therefore not only responsible for increased “land consumption” but also produces considerably more greenhouse gases.

Slight increase in German food consumption results in conversion of 200,000 ha of landDietary changes do not only impact on land consumption but also on the quantities of GHG emissions. The following example explains why: Compared to 2009, the average German in 2010 consumed slightly more wheat products (2010: 66.4 kg, 2009: 62.8 kg) and poultrymeat (2010: 19.3 kg, 2009: 18.8 kg). The annual average per capita food consumption increased from 667 kg (2009) to 677 kg (2010). This increase may seem very minor but it significantly incre-ased Germany’s need for agricultural land for food production, i.e. by 215,000 ha. As Germany does not have the capacity to increase its domestic agricultural area, the additional land needed must be drawn on in other countries. The 215,000 ha in question are almost equivalent to the territory of the federal state of Saarland. Of this additional acreage, 37,000 ha are located in South America where the associated land use change gives rise to approximately 5.6 million tons of CO2 emissions. The overall quantity of additional indirect GHG emis-sions resulting from this relatively small change in our eating habits amounts to 40 million tons, which considerably increases the German food carbon footprint, i.e. from 163 to 203 million tons CO2 -equivalents. The per capita

Summary

4

food carbon footprint thus increased from 2 to about 2.5 tons CO2- equivalents. In other words, roughly 20 % of our current food carbon footprint is caused by recent changes in food consumption and the associated land use change.

Healthier diet would equate to saving 230 billion kilometres of passenger car journeysThose in Germany who eat a healthier diet actively contribute to climate protection. The sizes of our land and carbon footprints are strongly correlated with our meat consumption and the associated use of soya in livestock pro-duction. A healthier diet based on scientific recommendations would have a correspondingly positive impact on resource and climate protection: It would free up more than 1.8 million hectares worldwide for other uses. This is an area the size of the federal state of Saxony. Moreover, it could avoid the release of greenhouse gas emissions in the order of 27 million tons CO2-equivalents: 13 million tons of savings in direct greenhouse gas emissions and 14 million tons by avoiding land use change. This figure is equivalent to the emissions caused by 2.3 million new cars, based on a European emission standard for passenger cars of 120 g CO2/km and a total mileage of 100.000 km.

Climate protection benefits from prudent use of foodThe German’s inconsiderate attitude to food also has an immediate impact on the climate, as the amount of edible food discarded each year required 2.4 mil-lion ha of cropland to be produced. This is an area the size of the federal state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania which could be devoted to other uses or not be utilized at all. Land use change on an area this size causes approximate-ly 21.5 million tons CO2-equivalents of indirect greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally there are 18.7 million tons CO2-equivalents in direct emissions which would be avoided as considerably less food would need to be produced. Total emissions savings would thus be in the order of 40 million tons CO2-equivalents, which is comparable to the total greenhouse gas emissions of Slovenia or Israel. If we consumed our food in time, rather than letting it go off, we would actively pursue climate protection and safeguard land resources.

ConclusionIf German consumers could be convinced to include less meat in their diet and to discard less edible food, more than 4 million ha of arable land and grassland in Germany and abroad could be freed up for other types of land use. Such behavioural changes would result in greenhouse gas emissions savings in the order of up to 67 million tons CO2-equivalents. This amount of savings equates to the entire emissions output of Austria or a fleet of 5.5 million new cars each driving 100000 km.

At an individual level, such behavioural changes would result in every person in Germany contributing annual greenhouse gas emissions savings in the order of 800 kg CO2-equivalents or 7 % of their overall emissions.

Tanja Dräger de Teran, WWF

Climate change on your plate | 5

A change in diet based on scientific dietary recommendations would mean to consume more vegetables and less meat, amongst other changes.

Germans like to eat and they eat a lot, with meat being a firm favourite. Their meat consumption needs almost 19 million ha of agricultural land for its production – more than the amount of arable land available within Germany. 19 million ha equa-

tes to 2300 m² per person. An additional 600 m2 of cropland are needed for other uses such as industrially used agricultural commodities or energy crop production. However, less than twenty years from now only about 2000 m² of agricultural area will be available per head of our global population (Doyle, 2011; UBA, 2009). At over 1000 m², our current meat consumption uses up more than half of the agricultural area available per person in the future. The land footprint of our strongly meat-based diet is very large indeed. This was the conclusion drawn in the first (von Witzke et al., 2011) of a total of three studies as part of a WWF project assessing the impact of our food consump-tion and in particular of our meat consumption. This current third study concludes the series.

Our land footprint could be significantly reducedThe second study as part of the WWF project (Noleppa & von Witzke, 2012) has shown that, without doubt, we can significantly reduce the land footprint of our diet. The study assessed a range of alternative courses of action and quantified their respective impacts in terms of the reduction of land consumption. Some of the results were as follows:

» A change to a healthier diet in line with scientific recommendations could “release” almost 10 % or 1.8 million ha of the agricultural land we currently utilize.

» The elimination of avoidable food waste at the consumer level could yield almost 2.4 million ha which would be freed up for other uses.

If it was possible to reduce German meat consumption and convince the Germans to discard less edible food, more than 4 million ha of arable land and grassland in Germany and overseas could be freed up for other uses. The German per capita land footprint could be reduced by approximately 500 m² and thus be more in line with the target value of no more than 2000 m² of agricultural land which will in future need to meet all agricultural commodity needs.

New areas for food security, nature conservation and environmental protectionWe live in an increasingly globalized world with highly dynamic agricultural markets and a trend towards large-scale land conversions – from grassland to cropland, from forests, and tropical rainforests in particular, to agricultural land (see i.a. Marklund & Batello, 2008). Every bit of land not used for food production offers more food security for a growing world population and opens up opportunities for nature conservation or for achieving environmental objectives, be it here in Germany or in other regions of the world. Preserved tropical rainforests for example would retain their biodiversity into the future and could help to store water and sequester carbon.

1 Problem definition and objectives

If the Germans changed their

eating habits and discarded less

edible food, 4 million ha of

arable land and grassland could be

freed up.


Natural wetlands and extensive grassland areas could also be preserved in Germany. The carbon sequestered on these lands could help at least mitigate anthropogenic climate change.

It has become possible to at least partially quantify many of the impacts of our diet (see i.a. Audsley et al., 2010; Meier & Christen, 2012). The conclusion that is often drawn is that a diet which uses resources sparingly would yield positive impacts on a number of levels. This is the starting-point of the current study. It looks at Germany and in particular at the impact of our diet on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Our diet results in high greenhouse gas emissions1

Without doubt, considerable levels of GHG emissions arise along the food supply chain from agricultural production to the processing, wholesale and retail levels, to the consumer and finally at the waste management level. A comparison of eight developed country studies on this issue shows however that there is a significant range, with food consumption contributing between 15 % and 31 % to overall GHG emissions (Garnett, 2010). Other studies confirm this large variation and the uncertainty involved. The European Commission for example found in 2006 that 20-30 % of the European Union’s total GHG emissions resulted from the production, provision and consump-tion of food, possibly even a greater percentage (cf. FOEN, 2011; Schaffnit-Chatterjee, 2011; Tukker et al., 2006). Further estimates put food-related GHG emissions at 15 % in the USA (Kim & Neff, 2009), approximately 18-20 % in Britain, (cf. Audsley et al., 2009; Garnett, 2008; SWC, 2010) and 24 % in Finland (cf. Risku-Norja et al., 2010).

Food-related GHG emissions in Germany are likely to be in the latter region. Wiegmann & Schmidt (2007) as well as Eberle (2008) have put forward estimates of 16 % while a meta-analysis of several other studies conducted by Nieberg (2009) cites values between 14 % and 22 %. Again, there is much uncertainty, especially given the fact that these figures are mostly based only on rough approximate calculations and literature reviews.

This may be due to the fact that food consumption stands at the end of a long value chain, where systems demarcations may at times be quite arbitrary or driven by particular interests: The farming sector provides raw materials and consumes inputs which require a great deal of energy and cause direct GHG emissions. The raw materials are then transported, processed, packaged and stored before they reach the consumer. Storage and processing at the consu-mer level again require energy for e.g. cooking, frying and freezing. Finally, waste management results in further GHG emissions. Where in this complex chain can useful demarcations be made? Is the analyses of the value-added chain at all useful for the purpose of illustrating all relevant food-related GHG emissions? And does this approach not run counter to national GHG emis-sions inventories? These inventories are regularly published by the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and show emissions by sector, such as energy, transport or farming.

1 Whenever it is stated in this study that food consumption results in GHG emissions, it is taken to mean the sum total of emissions arising along the entire food value chain from agricultural production to the end consumer and including food waste management.

8

Aim of the study: To find out how diet and GHG emissions are interrelatedThis study aims to outline with precision this complex issue as well as the uncertainty attached, tailored exactly, in so far as this is possible, to the German situation. This third and final part of the WWF project aims to answer the following questions:

» What is the level of GHGs generated by our diet and what structural characteristics must be considered?

» How do these GHG emissions balances change if we eat healthier diets and discard less food?

» What conclusions can be drawn from answering the above questions?

» How can these insights help in changing our personal eating habits and in promoting relevant political changes?

With a view to obtaining approximate answers to the above questions this report is structured as follows:

» Chapter 2 provides an overview of GHG emissions which can be assigned to food and diet. It explains emissions types and the factors influencing these.

» Chapter 3 discusses current food-related GHG emissions in Germany, differentiating between direct and indirect GHG emissions.

» Chapter 4 analyses which of the GHG emissions are avoidable in the course of adopting a healthier diet based on scientific recommendations.

» Chapter 5 outlines the impact on GHG emissions of reducing food waste.

» Chapter 6 finally summarizes the findings of this study and gives recommendations for policy, science, business and consumers.


Agricultural production in Germany accounts for 11-14 % of all greenhouse gas emissions. Fertilizer use and the associated emissions of climate-damaging nitrous oxide contribute significantly to these emissions.

As mentioned above, food-related GHG emissions arise all along the food supply chain, so they do not just arise in the farming sector itself. It is useful therefore to individually illustrate the emissions arising at each stage of the process, in so far as this is feasible. The stages are: agricultural production,

processing and marketing, preparation of meals primarily at household level, and food waste management. We will start with the direct GHG emissions arising in the course of agricultural production.

Agricultural emissionsAgriculture is a significant emitter of the three most important greenhouse gases, i.e. carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide and methane. As much as sixty to seventy percent of the latter two largely originate in the agricultural sector (Popp et al., 2010; Schaffnit-Chatterjee, 2011) or sub-sectors thereof (Audsley et al., 2009). An overview of these three greenhouse gases is given below:

» Nitrous oxide: Similar to high concentrations of nitrates in watercourses, this greenhouse gas arises primarily as a result of organic and inorganic N-fertilizer use on farmland, especially if excess N-fertilizer is applied which can not be fully utilized by the plants grown. According to global estimates, agriculture accounts for 2.5 billion (Schaffnit-Chatterjee, 2011) to 2.8 billion metric tonnes CO2 equivalent (Gt CO2eq) worldwide (cf. Popp et al., 2010). Given total global emissions of 45-50 Gt CO2eq (EPA, 2012; Popp et al., 2010) this means that agricultural nitrous oxide emissions account for more than 5 % of global anthropogenic GHG emissions.

» Methane: In the farming sector, methane arises primarily from ruminant digestion. It also results from organic fertilizer use and in rice paddies (wet rice cultivation). According to the literature, annual agricultural methane emissions are in the order of 2.5 Gt CO2eq (Scherr & Sthapit, 2009) to 3.3 Gt CO2eq (Popp et al., 2010). Global agricultural methane emissions are therefore even more significant than agricultural nitrous oxide emissions.

» Carbon dioxide: Compared to the two greenhouse gases described above, agriculture accounts for relatively small volumes of carbon dioxide. It arises primarily due to farming machinery and irrigation systems run on diesel or other fuels. Popp et al. (2010) consider these CO2 emissions to be relatively insignificant and Schaffnit-Chatterjee (2011) estimate the overall amount to be in the order of 0.5 Gt worldwide. However, a similar amount of CO2 emissions is estimated to result from the production of farm inputs such as mineral fertilizers and plant protection products (Schaffnit-Chatterjee, 2011). National statistics mostly assign these emissions to the industrial sector (cf. IPCC, 2006). However, as these inputs are manufactured exclusively for the farming sector, it is reasonable to allocate them to same. Some studies already take a similar approach (i.a. Garnett, 2008; 2010).

2 Food-related greenhouse gas emissions

Agriculture is a significant

emitter of the three most

important green-house gases,

namely nitrous oxide, methane and

carbon dioxide.


Excursus: Calculating CO2-equivalents

GHG inventories and balances usually add up emissions of individual greenhouse gases. To do so, the emissions of specific greenhouse gases are converted into CO2 equivalents. Carbon dioxide equivalency is a quantity that describes for a given gas the amount of CO2 that would have the same global warming potential when measured over a period of 100 years. As yet, no international standard has gained acceptance and therefore different conversion factors are still being used.

For methane, a multiplication factor of 25 is sometimes used to calculate its carbon dioxide equivalency (see i.a. Audsley et al., 2009; Carlsson-Kanyama & Gonzales, 2009; Schaffnit-Chatterjee, 2011). More often however, a factor of 21 is applied, based on IPCC (IPCC, 2005) standards (see i.a. von Witzke & Noleppa, 2007; Risku-Norja et al., 2010). Unless stated otherwise, a factor of 21 will be applied in this study to convert methane into CO2-equivalents. Nitrous oxide emissions are usually converted into CO2-equivalents by applying a multiplication factor of 310 (see i.a. Risku-Norja et al., 2010) which is also based on IPCC standards and will be applied here unless stated otherwise. Other customary multiplication factors include 298 (see i.a.Audsley et al., 2009; Carlsson-Kanyama & Gonzales, 2009) and 300 (see i.a. Schaffnit-Chatterjee, 2011).

It must be emphasized, that the wide range in the global warming potential of individual greenhouse gases must be taken into account when interpreting GHG emissions balances. For example, there is a 20 % difference in specific CO2-equivalents depending on whether a factor of 21 or 25 is applied respectively.

a) Agricultural production accounts for 11-14 % of all greenhouse gases

The share of global GHG emissions caused by agriculture is probably greater than 10 %. Garnett (2010) quotes 12 %, Stern (2007) 13 % and Popp et al. (2010) quote 14 %, same as the IPCC (2007). What holds true for the global level also holds true for Germany, a significant emitter of agricultural GHGs. At the national level, approximately 6 % of CO2 emissions, 53 % of methane emissions and as much as 77 % of nitrous oxide emissions can be attributed to the domestic agricultural sector (Isermeyer et al., 2010). However, even in this country with its long standing, tried and tested and continuously updated system for producing GHG inventories (see i.a. Haenel, 2010) there is still much uncertainty. While Schmidt & Osterburg (2010) for example give a figure of 72.4 million tons CO2-equivalents (Mt CO2eq) for German agricultu-ral GHGs, the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV, 2008) cite 115.3 Mt CO2eq, and the latest figure published by the German Farmers’ Association (DBV, 2011) is somewhere in between at 89.7 Mt CO2eq. Both von Witzke & Noleppa (2007) and Isermeyer et al. (2010) put the share of the German farming sector in national GHG emissions at appro-ximately 11 %. Flessa (2010) cites a figure of up to 13 % depending on which of the emissions are attributed to this sector.

12

b) Emissions resulting from processing, packaging, storage and transport

Prior to being consumed, most agricultural primary products are refined in some way. Many of them are processed, cooled, dried, combined with other products, pre-cooked or pre-fried and frozen. Additionally they are being transported, sometimes over great distances, in between these processes. All these steps use energy, primarily generated from coal, natural gas or oil. These refining processes predominantly generate CO2 emissions which can be attributed to the greenhouse gas emissions balance of food production. Raw products that are refined in particularly “complex” ways, such as potato chips for which the potatoes are peeled, cut, deep-fried, packaged and then frozen, therefore generate higher CO2 emissions than for example fresh, cleaned fruit or vegetables or largely unprocessed meat bought at a local butchers. When assigning specific GHG emissions, the following stage-specific aspects along the value chain must be given special consideration in addition to the processing stage:

» Packaging: Unpackaged foods rarely reach today’s consumers. The amount of emissions thus generated varies with the type of packaging used. Paper packaging generates relatively low GHG emissions compared to for example disposable plastic or glass containers (cf. Nieberg, 2009). One must however also consider that elaborate but useful packaging may prevent spoilage and thus reduces food waste, thereby avoiding “unnecessary” emissions resulting from food items being produced only to end up being thrown out.

» Storage: Food storage also requires a great deal of energy. Type and duration of storage significantly impact on the specific GHG emissions balances. The preservation of fruit and vegetables, for example, generates high specific GHG emissions.

» Transport: Finally, due to its consumption of fuels and lubricants, goods transports also generate high greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide (Kramer et al., 1998). Hoffman & Lauber (2001) argue that transport by air generates much higher emissions than transport by lorry which in turn is more climate-damaging than rail transport. Cargo ships, and ocean-going cargo ships in particular, are even more advantageous in this respect. The amount of emissions generated therefore depends on both the mode of transport and the distance covered. It may indeed be possible for a food item transported over a great distance, but efficiently so, to generate fewer GHG emissions than a regional product that has been stored in an elaborate manner (e.g. by cooling) over a long period (cf. Garnett, 2008, amongst others).


c) Emissions resulting from storage, food preparation and food waste management at household level

Many foods are further prepared at the household level, in the catering trade and by other bulk consumers. They may be cooked, fried, possibly refrigerated and stored, all of which consumes energy, primarily adding to CO2 emissions. The specific energy usage of household appliances including fridges or freezers at household level is one of the main drivers of greenhouse gas emissions. In almost all households and in particular at the bulk consumer level cold storage is one of the key energy intensive stages and a burden on the GHG budget of our food consumption (cf. Garnett, 2008). It does however also reduce spoilage.

Food waste management must also be considered as a GHG emitter. Noleppa & von Witzke (2012), and more recently also Kranert et al. (2012) have shown that despite the widespread use of modern food preservation technology in Germany large quantities of food end up in the waste bin, much of it avoidably so. The transport and possible further treatment of this waste require additional energy and generate further emissions on the way from the producer to the consumer.

Significant amounts of GHG emissions

are also generated as a result of household

food waste, with a quarter of all

food ending up in the waste bin – 80 kg

per person per year.

14

It is di�cult to measure all GHG emissions, ...It can be seen that agricultural GHG emissions can at least roughly be estima-ted while emissions arising in other segments of the value chain can not. This is due in part to the complexity of the individual refining processes. Often it is not possible to say exactly whether a particular transport should be assigned to the processing or the trading stage or to which stage in the processing chain emissions resulting from storage should be assigned. A further reason for these difficulties lies, once again, in the large uncertainty harboured by such an analysis (cf. Carlsson-Kanyama & Gonzales, 2007; Smith et al., 2008; Wreford et al., 2010). There are no standardized procedures with respect to processing, packaging, transport, storage or the distribution of foods and due to insufficient statistics, more often than not it is not possible to deduce reliable averages.

… but it can be done by way of meta-analysisIt is not the aim of this study to conduct analyses with a view to generating its own emissions survey data. Nonetheless, in order to answer the questions posed at the outset, at least value chain emissions data estimates are required.

To this end, available but uncertain data are culled from other studies, in the sense of a meta-analysis. Figure 2.1 below represents the entry point into the discussion on the potential direct food value chain emissions in Germany. It shows the shares of the different stages in the supply chain in food-related total emissions.

It can be seen from the above that each of the analyses assigns between 45 and 60 % of direct GHG emissions and thus a significant share of our total food-related emissions to agriculture including its inputs.

Figure 2.1:Shares of food supply

chain stages in food-related GHG

emissions (not yet considering emissions

arising from land use change) (in %)

Source: Own illustration and calculations based

on data and information by Garnett (2008, 2010),

Audsley et al. (2009), SWC (2011),

Nieberg (2009) & Meier & Christen (2012).

* Including pro-rata end-consumer level GHG emissions not cited in the sources but which other sources give as 20 % on average.

** Calculated using a reasoned average per value chain segment as cited in the source text which draws on information given by other authors.


0

Meier & Christen (2012)*

Nieberg (2009)**

SWC (2011)*

Audsley et al. (2009)

Garnett (2008; 2010)

Agriculture incl. inputs ProcessingPackaging

Transport and storageTrade

End-consumer (Catering, households, waste)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

In other words, agricultural production and its inputs give rise to more GHGs than all of the downstream value chain segments taken together. End consumers are in second position, with both bulk consumers and private households also producing waste. After that, the uncertainties mentioned above clearly come into play as it is difficult to assign emissions to the different stages of refinement from raw material to final food product. This is evidenced by the in part strongly divergent emissions shares assigned to the different segments.

Up to 2.5 tons CO2-equivalents of direct GHG emissions per personDespite these uncertainties we can conclude that total direct GHG emissions resulting from food consumption are likely to be twice as high as direct GHG emissions caused by the farming sector, with figures for the latter being relatively well established. For Germany they are estimated at between 72 and 115 Mt CO2eq (see above). Not all but most of these emissions may be attributed to food production and feed production for livestock kept for food production. It would therefore be reasonable to estimate the direct GHG emissions of food consumption in Germany at a total of 150-200 Mt CO2eq. With a population of more than 80 million, the annual per capita emissions would therefore be in the order of 2.0-2.5 tons of CO2-equivalents. This litera-ture-derived value range can be compared to data given by other authors:

» Meier & Christen (2012) give figures of approximately 1.800 and 1.300 kg CO2-equivalents for men and women in Germany respectively, with the gender differences, according to the authors, primarily resulting from different eating habits. These figures do not however include the emissions generated at the level of the end consumer but only consider the value chain up to and including the retailers. If one includes the 20 % share of emissions determined above for the end consumer level, one arrives at a gender average of 1.900 kg CO2-equivalents of emissions along the entire value chain.

» Eberle (2008) gives a figure of 4.360 kg CO2-equivalents per household in Germany. With an average household size of just over two people (Destatis, 2012), each inhabitant would therefore generate just under 2.150 kg CO2-equivalents of direct emissions as a result of their food consumption.

» Relating the British direct GHG emissions along the food value chain after Audsley et al. (2009) to the German population, the resulting figure is 2.440 kg CO2-equivalents per person.

The above comparisons roughly confirm the magnitude of food-related direct GHG emissions to be in the order of 2.0-2.5 tons of CO2-equivalents per person in Germany, i.e. the figure previously determined by an iterative process. This puts the uncertainty mentioned at the outset somewhat into perspective. This figure must of course be further confirmed, and highlighted where necessary, with explicit calculations (see the following Chapter 3).

16

Nationale THG-Inventare vernachlässigen Im- und Exporte The following paragraph will address a significant aspect in the determination of food-related GHG emissions. National inventories determine, model or estimate GHG emissions in a largely standardized manner based on IPCC (2006) and with reference to the country concerned (cf. Venkat, 2012). However, foods in particular often originate wholly or in part in other regions of the globe. People of course do not only eat domestically produced foods but also imported ones; similarly not all domestically produced foods are consumed in the country concerned but many are exported. While national inventories are useful they do not consider this factor because, by definition, they determine domestic emissions by sector and do not follow a consumption-based footprint logic.

Emissions resulting from land use change not given due considerationThe fact that the so-called indirect land use changes are not considered in national inventories or other standards is of particular concern (cf. i.a. Sonesson et al., 2010). They are only taken into account – in the form of direct agricultural GHG emissions – if they occur in the country itself. Examples in Germany would include cases where grassland is converted into cropland for the purpose of biofuel production or where wetlands are drained for farming. The resultant GHG emissions are taken into account in the national inventories (IPCC, 2006; also see Isermeyer et al., 2010; Risku-Norja et al., 2010).

In this respect, even the IPCC (2006) sees room for improving the methodology, and quite rightly so: This WWF project (cf. von Witzke et al., 2011) as well as Audsley et al. (2009) and Meier & Christen (2012) have clearly demonstrated that, at the very least, virtual land use in other countries and therefore also indirect land use change must be included in the calculations. Otherwise it will not be possible to give a true account of GHG emissions resulting from our diet and from the way we deal with agricultural commodities.

Excursus on system boundaries and imprecise definitions in classic analysis

Despite the uncertainties involved, the value chain emissions described so far mark the current state of knowledge as based on the meta-analysis of the scientific literature. Assessments of food-related GHG emissions often also include Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) data for individual products, i.e. foods in this context. While this method has largely been standardized, primarily based on ISO Standards (cf. Sonesson et al., 2010), problems do arise due to the major scope in terms of delineating the production systems to be analysed and in terms of the analysis methods themselves.

Nieberg (2009) lists a number of significant points that render a targeted deter-mination of GHG emissions difficult and leave room for subjective interpretation. These include the following: different statistical and survey methods and different timeframes; divergent analytical methods (e.g. input-output analyses, material flow analyses); different degrees of analytical detail (in some cases individual products are taken to represent whole food groups while in other cases as many individual products as possible within a group are analysed). It is these imprecisions in the LCA system and other classic analysis methods that hamper the comparability of available information. Moreover, in many cases there is a lack of clarity as to which data have been used, or the rationale for significant assumptions is missing.


The distinction between indirect and direct GHG emissions In addition to the direct GHG emissions discussed so far, indirect GHG emissions resulting from indirect land use change must definitely be considered. For a truly comprehensive analysis of eating habits, and especially of changes in eating habits and the resultant impacts, these can not be ignored and must be integrated. Why is this important?

» This project has demonstrated that our dietary style causes supra-regional land use changes in other parts of the world (cf. von Witzke et al., 2011).

» It is eminently important to include both regional and supra-regional GHG emissions with respect to soils as a factor of production. Soils and biomass hold three times as much carbon as the atmosphere (Scherr & Sthapit, 2009). Minor changes in land use can therefore result in relatively major changes in the atmospheric carbon emissions balance (Schaffnit-Chatterjee, 2011).

It is useful therefore to base the further analysis on causes of direct and indirect food-related GHG emissions as outlined in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2:Categories and

causes of direct and indirect food-related

greenhouse gas emissions

Source: Own illustration

Direct greenhouse gas emissions

Carbon dioxide emissions resulting from energy use for the production of agricultural inputs, from agricultural production itself, and from the packaging, storage, transport, preparation and disposal of food.

Nitrous oxide emissionsresulting from inorganic and organic nitrogen fertilizer use.

Methane emissionsresulting from (ruminant) digestion as well as organic fertilizer use in rice paddy farming.

Indirect greenhouse gas emissions

Carbon dioxide emissionsresulting from (indirect) land use change, i.e. the conversion of natural areas into farmland or the conversion of grassland into cropland.

18

Agricultural land-use change responsible for 10-12 % of global GHG emissionsDecomposition processes following land conversions result in significant amounts of CO2 being released. Aside from legitimate uncertainty (cf. e.g. DG Energy, 2010) there are considerable differences between the amounts of GHG emissions released by agricultural production (e.g. resulting from fertilizer usage) and those released as a result of the conversion of natural ecosystems to agricultural land. In Germany, agricultural production is responsible for several hundred kilogram CO2-equivalents per hectare. Land conversion however, such as grassland to cropland conversion, results in several hundred t CO2/ha (cf. DG Energy, 2010).

Consideration must be given to the fact that commercial agriculture is responsible to a great extent for these CO2 emissions resulting from land use change. Percentages cited in the literature range from 58 % (Audsley et al., 2009) to 75 % (Blaser & Robledo, 2007) to 80 % (Gibbs et al., 2010). Globally, the indirect, agriculturally induced land use change emissions contribute approximately 10-12 % (cf. Garnett, 2008) to global anthropogenic GHG emissions. They are thus of the same order of magnitude as direct agricultural GHG emissions.

How can indirect GHG emissions be integrated?To date only a few authors have attempted to include emissions associated with land use change in food-related GHG emissions figures. This may be due to the fact that this area of research is quite new and as yet no scientific standard has been set. It may also be due to the major uncertainties in establishing land use change emissions. But what certainly makes things difficult is that land use change can only be analysed if is triggered by changes in another system, in this case by changes in eating habits. It therefore refers to a time period and not to a fixed point in time, as in the case of direct GHG emissions. Two studies in particular have attempted this complex task in the context of food and changes in food consumption. They form the starting point for our own analysis:

» Audsley et al. (2009) determine annual global land use change and identify the proportions of global land use change attributable to (a) global agricultural activities and (b) global growth in demand for food. They then provide estimates of the GHG emissions attributable to farming and food-related land use change, pointing out, however, the uncertainty of these estimates. From this the authors estimate the proportion of global land use change emissions attributable to the British share in global food consumption. This complex approach is presented in a comparatively transparent manner and is suited to calculating initial approximations for our indirect food-related GHG emissions. Nevertheless, there are two points of criticism. Firstly, the approach is based only on global averages. In particular, it does not establish regional land use change CO2 emissions and therefore does not establish the specific emissions resulting from the production of individual commodities in different regions of the world. Secondly, and more significantly, the approach is based on the premise that resource use is a matter of global responsibility. A country’s share, the UK’ share in this instance, in indirect land use change emissions is a function of its share in global food consumption.

Agriculture accounts for an

estimated 58-80 % of CO2 emissions

resulting from land use change.


It follows that the food-related indirect land use change emissions can not be attributed to eating habits and changes in food consumption in a specific region, as indeed they should.

» Meier & Christen (2012) use another methodology which is, however, intransparent and not entirely comprehensible (cf. Meier & Christen, 2011). The authors similarly appear to start out from the assumption of a form of global responsibility but they focus on calculated figures for indirect land use change emissions resulting from increased soya bean production and a global expansion of livestock production. Footprint effects resulting from overall increases in concentrate feeds for livestock have evidently been included in the calculations (also see Leip et al., 2010) but land use change due to other factors, such as cereal consumption, has not. The authors do point out uncertainties associated with the data.

Inclusion of indirect emissions paints a bigger picture Figure 2.3 illustrates the results of the two studies, vague as they must be due to the limitations outlined above. Based on the work by Audsley et al. (2009) and Meier & Christen (2012) it shows the ratio of food-related indirect GHG emissions resulting from land use change to food-related direct GHG emissions as illustrated in Fig. 2.1.

According to Audsley et al. (2009), the figure for GHG emissions arising from the UK food system (see also Garnett, 2008) would increase by approximately two-thirds if land use change emissions were added to the food-related direct GHG emissions. In other words, the authors estimate that global land use change emissions account for 40 % of the emissions embedded in UK consumed food. Meier & Christen (2012) cite a figure of 15 % which is much lower but nonetheless substantial. This lower figure is due the fact that the authors only considered land use change resulting from increases in livestock and soya bean production. Von Witzke et al. (2011) have shown, however, that other land uses also play a significant role in food crop production.

Figure 2.3:Potential relative

significance of direct and indirect

food-related green-house gas emissions

(in %)

Source: Own illustration and calculations

based on Figure 2.1 as well as data by

Audsley et al. (2009)and Meier & Christen

(2012)

20

0

Meier & Christen (2012)

Audsley et al. (2009)

direct GHG emissions indirect GHG emissions

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

The following chapter will address the relative importance of indirect GHG emissions of food consumption in Germany compared to the direct emissions. It will not be the aim to address these as part of an overall global responsibi-lity but to highlight indirect GHG emissions arising from specific changes in food consumption in Germany. But first the above findings should be summa-rized and condensed, looking at them from two angles:

Does our food consumption cause up to 40 % of our overall greenhouse gas emissions?The German Federal Environment Agency (UBA, 2010), based on the national inventory, puts Germany’s total GHG emissions at 959 Mt CO2eq. According to the literature review, our direct food-related GHG emissions alone (caused i.a. by production, processing, and food preparation) can be estimated at an enormous 150-200 Mt CO2eq, depending on the underlying definitions, or 16-21 % of all statistically reported national emissions. These figures are in keeping with the benchmarks given at the outset. But perhaps a figure of 30 % or an even higher figure may be more appropriate, as Bellarby et al. (2008) suggest, especially if indirect GHG emissions are also accounted for.Clearly a certain amount of GHG emissions are unavoidable since we all do have to eat, but their magnitude is very much determined by our choice of foods, e.g. whether our diet is heavy on livestock-based or on plant-based foods. The way these foods are produced, transported and prepared is also of significance, as is the proportion of wasted food.

Food production gives rise to

greenhouse gas emissions.

The amount of emissions produced depends very much

on what type of foods dominate in our diet..


Major di�erences in GHG intensity of individual food types A theme of this chapter has been the “uncertainty” in estimating and attri-buting emissions. Given that the aim of the following chapter is to determine the actual GHG intensity of individual types of food, this chapter should be concluded by illustrating this uncertainty more clearly. Using six examples, Figure 2.4 shows the range in direct GHG emissions attributed to individual food types by different authors.

Two aspects of Figure 2.4 are particularly striking:

» The lowest and highest values respectively given for individual food types diverge by at least 100 % and in some cases by several multiples of the lowest values. This is due to uncertainty which must always be borne in mind as this analysis is continued. Uncertainty originates in individually set system boundaries and also in the study’s individual definitions of “average” or “typical” ways of preparing certain foods (cf. Garnett, 2010; Sim et al., 2007; Williams et al., 2006).

» There are also major differences between food types. The overall direct GHG emissions arising from the production of livestock-based foods are considerably higher than those caused by plant-based foods, and within the livestock-based foods, the GHG intensity of beef is much greater than that of pork for example.

Almost 41 % of our food-related direct

greenhouse gas emissions are due to

meat production while potato production

only accounts for 3 %.

22

What conclusions can be drawn with respect to Germany’s food-related GHG emissions? The following deliberations and further calculations with respect to the German situation build on the international comparative data given in this chapter. However, it is important to always bear in mind that the methodologies chosen for the different studies, the system boundaries set, the assumptions made and not least the quality of the data employed vary considerably between studies (Garnett, 2010) and thus impact the results. The following deliberations must always be considered against this background and should not be cited without commentary!

Figure 2.4:Direct greenhouse gas

emissions of individual food types (in kg CO2-equivalents

per kg of product)

Source: Own illustration based on data by

„C (2009)“ – Carlsson-Kanyama and

Gonzales (2009), „F (2007)“ –

Fritsche and Eberle (2007),

„R (2009)“ – Reinhardt et al. (2009),

„R (2010)“ – Risku-Norja et al. (2010),

and „V (2012)“ –

Venkat (2012)


Beef

R (2009) F (2007) V (2012) R (2010) C (2009)

30

10

10

30

10

10

25 25

20

8

8

20

8

8

15

6

6

15

6

6

10

4

4

10

4

4

5

2

2

5

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

R (2009) F (2007) V (2012) R (2010) C (2009)

R (2009) F (2007) V (2012) R (2010) C (2009)

R (2009) F (2007) V (2012) R (2010) C (2009)

R (2009) F (2007) V (2012) R (2010) C (2009)

R (2009) F (2007) V (2012) R (2010) C (2009)

Milk

Potatoes

Pigmeat

Wheat

Vegetables in general

In 2008, Germany’s total GHG emissions amounted to 959 million tons. Our food consumption gave rise to about 164 million tons of direct greenhouse gas emissions.

3.1 Direct emissions resulting from food production and preparationThere are many indications that Germany’s food-related GHG emissions are high, a hypothesis to be examined in detail below. The data and information on food consumption put forward by von Witzke et al. (2011) serve as a baseline for

calculating these GHG emissions. In a two-step process, the consumption data are related to reasoned GHG emissions per unit of food consumed:

» In the first step the analytic focus is on food-related direct GHG emissions (production, processing, preparation etc.).

» This is followed by the determination of indirect emissions resulting from land use change.

The data underlying the determination of direct GHG emissions of our food consumption …First of all we must ensure consistency in terms of the points of reference for consumption of and direct GHG emissions caused by individual foods:

» It is significant whether food consumption data are based on consumption levels of agricultural commodities or on consumption levels of foods ready to be consumed.

» Similarly it is important to distinguish between direct GHG emissions attributed to a final product in the food supply chain, such as dried pasta or a pork roast, and the agricultural primary product, such as wheat or raw pigmeat.

In the most favourable case, both consumption and emissions data area based on the same underlying data. These baseline data would also need to include Germany’s virtual land use in other countries, the calculation of which is primarily based on foreign trade data. In this way, the important indirect GHG emissions resulting from indirect land use change would also be taken into account. An analytical approach of this nature is feasible, with some minor concessions, and will be described below.

By way of reminder, the German’s food-related land use as determined by von Witzke et al. (2011) and Noleppa & von Witzke (2012) is based on foreign trade data and other information, such as food consumption data, that primarily rely on data on agricultural primary products. Wherever possible the following GHG emissions calculations should similarly relate to the relevant agricultural primary product or should at least easily be attributable to same, e.g. with the help of suitable conversion factors.

3 Current German green-house gas emissions resulting

from food consumption


… are food consumption statistics for Germany …Von Witzke et al. (2011) have shown that, based on agricultural commodities, approximately 57 million tons of food are consumed, equating to an annual per capita gross consumption of just under 700 kg. The figures are based on BMELV (2011) and refer to 2009. More recent figures for 2010 (BMELV, 2012) paint a similar picture and show that per capita food consumption in Germany stands at 677 kg. The second column of Figure 3.1 shows current annual per capita consumption levels by food type. Those data will later be used to calculate the climate impact of our food consumption.

… and scientific findings on GHG emissions per kg of individual food products.The third column of Figure 3.1 shows the direct, but not the indirect, GHG emissions by food type after Meier & Christen (2012) and Audsley et al. (2009), on which further calculations are based. These figures are used for pragmatic reasons as direct GHG emissions can easily be attributed to almost all of the food types shown, eliminating to need to perform elaborate conversions from processed foods back to agricultural commodities. The results are given in the right-hand column of Figure 3.1. The GHG emissions data taken from the authors above basically fall within the expected range shown in Figure 2.4 above, i.e. they are not extreme values.

Moreover, the data by Meier & Christen (2012) in particular are quite current which is why they are chiefly utilized for this study. However, some of the information is incomplete in that direct GHG emissions data are missing for some of the food groups, primarily for rice, beans and pulses, cocoa liquor, nuts and nut-like seeds, and dried fruit. The missing data were taken from Audsley et al. (2009). Together, these data form the basis for further calculations.

Figure 3.1: Data underlying the calculation of direct GHG emissions resulting from food consumption in Germany

Source: Own illustration based on BMELV (2012), Meier & Christen (2012) and Audsley et al. (2009) as well as own calculations.

* Fruit and vegetables produced for the marketplace excluding home garden produce and traditional, extensively managed orchards.

26

food consumption Per capita (in kg)

GHG emissions (in kg CO2-equivalents per kg of food)

Direct GHG emissions resulting from per capita consumption (in kg CO2-equivalents)

Cereal products

Wheat flour 66.4 1.68 111.6

Rye flour 8.9 1.68 15.0

Other cereal products 16.4 1.68 27.6

Rice, beans and pulses, potatoes

Rice 4.9 6.20 30.4

Beans and pulses 1.0 2.75 2.7

Potatoes 65.5 0.62 40.9

Potato starch 6.5 3.12 20.3

Sugar, honey and cocoa

Sugar 33.9 2.81 95.2

Honey 1.0 ––– –––

Cocoa liquor 3.2 2.79 8.9

Fruit and vegetables

Vegetables from horticulture* 92.7 0.90 83.4

Fruit from horticulture* 70.9 0.98 69.8

Citrus fruit 43.2 0.98 42.5

Nuts and nut-like seeds 4.1 1.77 7.3

Dried fruit 1.4 3.12 4.4

Meat and meat products, fish and fish products

Beef and veal 12.6 20.65 260.2

Pigmeat 54.4 7.99 434.8

Sheepmeat and goatmeat 0.8 14.90 11.9

Poultrymeat 19.3 4.22 81.5

Other meat 2.2 11.94 26.3

Fish and fish products 15.7 4.12 64.6

Milk and dairy products

Fresh milk products 84.6 1.76 149.2

Cream and cream products 5.7 3.28 18.7

Condensed milk products 2.7 3.28 8.8

Whole milk powder 1.3 14.70 19.1

Skimmed milk powder, powdered buttermilk

0.7 14.70 10.3

Cheese 22.8 7.84 178.7

Fats and oils, eggs and egg products

Butter 6.0 14.77 88.6

Vegetable fats (margarine, vegetable oil)

15.1 2.48 37.5

Eggs and egg products

13.1 2.00 26.3

Totals 676.9 n.a. 1,976.3


Our food consumption generates 2 t CO2-equivalents per person per yearOn this basis it is possible to attribute adequate direct GHG emissions to almost all statistically recorded food consumption. The only exception is honey which is however considered negligible.

Figure 3.2 shows the food consumption-related direct GHG emissions per person and the proportion of these emissions contributed by individual food groups.

Excursus on using information on GHG emissions by food type

Given the uncertainty, as described earlier, with respect to GHG emissions per kilogram of food (cf. Figure 2.4) it is inherently difficult to determine such emissions for Germany. Nonetheless, that is exactly the aim of this study. As shown in Figure 3.1. these definitions should preferably refer to the direct GHG emissions of value chain commodities. Emissions attributable to individual foods in the German context are not “measured” for the purpose of this study but culled from the scientific literature.

While a number of sources yield such data, e.g. Eberle (2008), Fritsche & Eberle (2007), Meier & Christen (2011, 2012), Nieberg (2009), Reinhardt et al. (2009) and Wiegmann & Schmidt (2007), this study primarily draws on Meier & Christen (2012). However, not even these data are “perfect”. It is an aim of this study, as a first step, to determine the direct GHG emissions resulting from food consumption, i.e. without including land use change emissions. From the data provided by Meier & Christen (2012) on all relevant value chain emissions up to and including the retail trade, one must therefore subtract the proportion of emissions relating to partial land use change (due to soya bean cropping and livestock production). Moreover, the data do not include direct GHG emissions arising at the end consumer level. In keeping with the discussion on Figure 2 these are considered to amount to an additional 20 % of the direct GHG emissions already taken into account.

Figure 3.2: German per capita

direct greenhouse gas emissions resulting

from food consumption

Source: Own calculations and illustration

28

Meat, meat products: 40.7%

Fish, fish products: 3.2%

Eggs, egg products: 1.3%

2,003 kg CO2-equivalents

/person

Other foods: 1.8%

Sugar, sweets: 4.8%

Fruit, fruit products: 6.2%

Vegetables, vegetable products: 4.2%

Potatoes, potato products 3.1%

Cereals, cereal products: 9.3%

Vegetable oils and fats: 1.9%

Milk, dairy products: 23.6%

For reasons of methodology, the different foods are not grouped in the same manner as in Figure 3.1 but follow Noleppa & von Witzke (2012). For this reason, the direct GHG emissions of “missing” products such as coffee and tea were added above using data by Audsley et al. (2009). Based on this set of data it can be stated that each person in Germany is responsible for almost precisely 2.0 t CO2-equivalents of food consumption-related emissions per year.

Vast majority of GHG emissions due to livestock-based foodsAt 40 %, the largest share of emissions is due to meat consumption. As was shown in the “land footprint” discussion, it is evident that our strongly meat-based diet has a major adverse environmental impact. A further 28 % of the emissions is due to other livestock-based foods. A total of almost 70 % of the food-related direct GHG emissions is therefore due to livestock-based foods, with plant-based foods only accounting for just under a third of the emissions.

Food consumption directly causes 164 Mt CO2-equivalents in emissionsFigure 3.3 gives a somewhat more nuanced picture of food consumption- related direct GHG emissions. Providing a first interim conclusion, it summarizes Germany’s total specific emissions. The current population of 81.75 million (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2012) cause, as a result of their food consumption, approximately 164 Mt CO2eq in direct emissions. Their meat consumption alone accounts for almost 67 million tons of these emissions, while fruit and vegetables only account for a tenth. The total figure is in good agreement with the speculative benchmark of 150-200 million tons discussed in Chapter 2. For comparison, according to the latest figures put forward by the Federal Environment Agency (UBA, 2010) Germany’s total GHG emissions stood at 959 million tons in 2008 with the transport sector being responsible for approximately 156 million tons of the total.

Figure 3.3:Direct greenhouse gas

emissions resulting from overall food

consumption in Germany


Almost 70% of the direct GHG

emissions resulting from our food

consumption can be attributed to livestock-based

foods, while plant-based foods

only account for just under a third.


Meat, meat products

Fish, fish products

Eggs

Milk, dairy products

Vegetable oils and fats

Cereals, cereal products

Potatoes, potato products

Vegetables, vegetable products

Fruit, fruit products

Sugar, sweets

Other foods

0 30 60

million metric tons

90 120 150 180

First interim conclusion on current GHG emissions resulting from our food consumption:

Livestock-based foods, and meat consumption in particular, determine the level of direct GHG emissions associated with food consumption.Almost 70 % of the direct GHG emissions resulting from our food consumption can be attributed to livestock-based foods. It is evident that, in addition to having a sizeable land footprint, our strongly meat-based diet is a significant trigger of adverse environmental impacts. In contrast, plant-based foods only account for about a third of these emissions. Germany’s currently 81.75 million inhabitants cause, as a result of their food consumption (production, processing, food preparation etc.), approximately 164 Mt CO2eq in direct emissions. Meat consumption accounts for almost 67 million tons of these emissions, while fruit and vegetables only account for a tenth.

30

3.2 Indirect emissions resulting from land use changeThe deliberations so far have dealt with direct GHG emissions resulting from the production and consumption of food along the supply chain. Additional food consumption leads to an additional need for agricultural land. The associated land use change in turn results in an additional release of CO2 emissions. It is generally held that these indirect GHG emissions are of major significance (cf. Garnett, 2008; and also Burney et al., 2010).

Indirect GHG emissions are di�cult to determine for a static stateAs was mentioned earlier, indirect GHG emissions have been considered in other analyses, even if only marginally. These studies have interpreted food consumption in a given region, such as Germany (see Meier & Christen, 2012) or the UK (cf. Audsley et al., 2009) as part of overall global consumption. This consumption results in land use change, a certain proportion of which is attributable to the region in question. Land use change is thus understood as a matter of collective responsibility in terms of the utilization of resources, with each region carrying responsibility in accordance with their consumption levels.

Specific changes in land use or those occurring within a particular time period are of particular interestBut this view poses difficulties in that each land use change is due to specific causes which should be taken into account in the analysis. As was indicated in Chapter 2, it is not easy to determine indirect land use change emissions by looking at the status quo, i.e. the current level of food consumption in this instance.

It is important to note that “land use change” implies the conversion of land from one type of land use to another. In order to assess the impact of food consumption on land use change and the associated indirect GHG emissions, one must therefore assess changes in food consumption. Figure 3.1 however portrays a static condition – that of the year 2010. Indirect GHG emissions can therefore not be deduced from these data.

But it is possible to estimate indirect GHG emissions for 2010 by identifying changes in food consumption between 2009 and 2010, as illustrated in Annex 1. From that comparison it can be seen for example that the consumption of wheat products and poultrymeat increased by 3.6 kg and 0.5 kg respectively, while the consumption of citrus fruit decreased by 2.o kg (BMELV, 2012).

Small changes in food consumption have a great impact on land use and climateThese changes vary from year to year and must therefore always be cited with reference to a particular timeframe. They allow us analyse the connections between consumption (at a particular point in time) and land use change (at this same point in time) because the current dynamic agricultural markets place an ever increasing pressure on land resources. Productivity increases per unit area in global farming are not keeping pace with the vast increase in global demand for agricultural commodities (Foresight, 2011; Schwarz et al., 2011). Farmers in practically all farming regions of the world are therefore


forced to expand their utilisable agricultural area, i.e. to convert more and more land into cropland. In Germany, this takes place in the form of grassland to cropland conversion, such as for the production of biofuel crops. In other regions of the world forests are cut down to this end, tropical rainforests in particular, or natural grassland areas such as the Brazilian Cerrado or the Argentinean Chaco (von Witzke et al., 2011) are converted into cropland. As part of such an overall constellation, an increase in food consumption in Germany will lead to further land conversions while a reduction in consumption is likely to merely slow down this process.

If people in Germany consume more food, land use change is triggered which results in carbon dioxide being released that had previously been sequestered in the form of soil carbon or in above-ground biomass. If people consume less, these carbon losses can be reduced or avoided altogether. Indirect GHG emissions accounting must therefore consider both additionally released CO2 (in the case of increased consumption) and retained carbon stocks (in the case of decreased consumption). To this end, one must determine exactly which changes in land use are triggered by partial changes in food consumption. The next step is to attribute to these changes in land use carbon levels that are either released into the atmosphere or retained as terrestrial carbon stocks. The procedure is outlined below.

Dietary changes in Germany result in 200,000 ha of land being converted to cropland The first step involves the calculation of land use change triggered by dietary changes. The methodology developed by Witzke et al. (2011) and used by Noleppa & von Witzke (2012) to calculate changes in food consumption in Germany can be directly employed to this end. Figure 3.4 shows the extent to which relatively small dietary changes trigger significant impacts on land resources. As Germany does not have the capacity to increase its domestic agricultural area, it relies on “virtual land imports”. The additional land needed must be drawn on in other countries (cf. Noleppa & von Witzke, 2012).

Figure 3.4:Additional land footprint

resulting from changes in food consumption in Germany between 2009

and 2010 (in 1,000 ha)


Germany needs “virtual land imports” – it

relies on additional cropland in other

countries.

32

Wheat 71

Grain maize 49

Other cereals, rice, beans/pulses -4

Oilseeds 0

Coffee, cocoa, tea and tobacco 0

Fruit, vegetables, potatoes, sugar 7

Beef 22

Pigmeat 24

Poultrymeat 27

Sheepmeat -32

Milk and eggs 52

Total 216

Second interim conclusion on current GHG emissions resulting from our food consumption:

The way we eat has an immediate impact on land consumption.Minor changes in dietary habits in Germany between 2009 and 2010 have increased the demand for agricultural land outside of Germany by more than 215,000 ha. This was primarily attributable to increases in the consumption of cereal products, dairy products and meat (beef, pork and poultrymeat). Only the drop in sheepmeat consumption has created a small “buffer”. Other product categories had no impact or the impact was too small to depict. These 215,000 ha of land equate to almost the size of the Federal State of Saarland or the combined areas of the city states of Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg.

The slight increase in German food

consumption in 2010 required an

additional 215,000 ha of cropland outside of

Germany.


Impacts of land use change vary strongly between regions The second step involves the attribution of carbon release figures or indirect GHG emissions to individual land use changes.

While Audsley et al. (2009) based their assessment on global averages, more recent research allows us to differentiate between different world regions, albeit with some limitations (see the excursus below).

Excursus on CO2 releases caused by land use change

The concept of calculating land use change emissions originates from the initial works of Searchinger et al. (2008) and Searchinger & Heimlich (2008) which have since been complemented by other research and, in part, been revised (see the initial critiques by, amongst others, Wang & Haq, 2008; Sylvester-Bradley, 2008). Recent research has shown that many of the data are controversial and must be treated with caution. This also applies to the ability of certain ecosystems or vegetation zones to sequester carbon:

»The works of Searchinger et al. (2008) and Searchinger & Heimlich (2008) for example cite rather high values, which have also been used by Burney et al. (2010).

»DG Energy (2010) in contrast have shown that significantly lower values may be appropriate.

Undeniably there is much uncertainty. For this analysis, CO2 release rates per unit area of additionally utilized agricultural land will therefore be based on those given Tyner et al. (2010) for land use change in different world regions. The Tyner data are up to 50 % (!) lower at a regional level than the data by Searchinger and thus imply a much lower impact of our food consumption on indirect GHG emissions than the Searchinger data would.

Figure 3.5 depicts the CO2 emissions per hectare caused by land use change in different world regions based on the data by Tyner et al. (2010); the data do not allow for a finer breakdown. These values provide the baseline for further analysis.

Figure 3.5: CO2 emissions resulting

from land use change by world region in metric

tons of CO2/ha

Source: Tyner et al (2010)Own illustration

The amounts of CO2 emissions resulting from land

use change di�er between world

regions.

Rest of

the world

34

CO2/ha

296195

113

169146

151

Small changes in food consumption generate vast amounts of additional GHG emissionsIn this next step, the relevant CO2 values are multiplied with the regionalized land footprints as given in Figure 3.4 and specified in Annex 2, resulting in a figure for the global indirect land use change emissions caused by changes in food consumption in Germany between 2009 and 2010.

Excursus: An example of how indirect GHG emissions are calculated

As was stated earlier, the recent changes in food consumption in Germany have resulted in the “occupation” of an additional 215,000 ha of agricultural land outside of the country. According to the calculations as part of this study (see Annex 2) 37,000 ha of these would appear to be located in South America. This is primarily due to the higher consumption of soya (c. 15,000 ha) and grain maize (c. 11,900 ha) as well as an additional need for grassland to meet the demand for imported beef (c. 4,300 ha). Multiplying the 37,000 ha with the regionally specified emissions factor of 151 t CO2/ha yields a figure of approximately 5.6 million metric tons of CO2 emissions for South America. The figures for other world regions are calculated in the same way.

Figure 3.6 juxtaposes the indirect GHG emissions thus determined and the direct GHG emissions of our food consumption as determined earlier.

Indirect GHG emissions increase greenhouse gas balance by 20 % In addition to the food-related direct GHG emissions of approximately 164 Mt CO2eq for 2010 there are 40 Mt of indirect GHG emissions resulting from recent land use change. Total food-related GHG emissions thus stand at 203.1 Mt CO2eq, 20 % of which are land use change emissions. This percentage is higher than that estimated by Meier & Christen (2012) but lower than the estimate by Audsley et al. (2009). This may be due in part to the more conservative figures used for this study (Tyner et al., 2010). This study’s estimate represents a share of more than 21 % in Germany’s overall annual GHG emissions of 959 Mt CO2eq.

Figure 3.6: Direct and indirect GHG

emissions resulting from food consumption

in Germany in 2010 (in Mt CO2-equivalents)



0 50 100 150 200 250

direct GHG emissionsindirect GHG emissions

German per capita food-related emissions therefore stand at 2.5 tons of CO2-equivalents instead of 2.0 tonsOur individual food-related CO2 footprint therefore stands not at 2,003 kg but at 2,484 kg CO2-equivalents. For comparison: This figure is equivalent to the emissions caused by a new car, emitting 120 g CO2/km and a total mileage of 20.000 km per year.

215,000 ha of additional

agricultural land results in 40 million

tons of CO2 being released,

which is equivalent to half of Austria’s

total 2010 GHG emissions.

Conclusions on our current food-related GHG emissions Our current food carbon footprint stands at approximately 2.5 tons of CO2-equivalents per person. About four fifths of this is due to direct GHG emissions generated along the food value chain from production to food preparation, i.e. from farm to fork. A major proportion of this carbon footprint is attributable to meat and other livestock-based foods while fruit and vegetables contribute relatively little. Recent changes in food consumption in Germany contribute 20 % of the current food carbon footprint due to the associated land use change emissions: Dietary changes in Germany between 2009 and 2010 have increased the demand for agricultural land by 215,000 ha – an area the size of the Federal State of Saarland – which in turn results in indirect GHG emissions from global land use change. Again, increased meat consumption and also increased grain consumption are largely responsible for these changes. Our total food-related GHG emissions stand at more than 200 Mt CO2eq. This figure is equivalent to the emissions caused by 17 million new cars, emitting 120 g CO2/km and driving a total distance of 100.000 km each.

36

Greater need for agricultural land due to higher food consumption


2010: 677

kilogram*

2009:

667kilogram*

Result: increase in virtual land use

+215,000 ha(almost the area of Saarland)

* per person and year in Germany** 40 Mt CO2-equivalents is as much as half of Austria’s total 2010 greenhouse gas emissions (EEA 2012)

+40million tons CO2**

If all of Germany’s inhabitants ate a diet based on scientific recommendations, 27 million tons CO2-equivalents of emissions could be saved – twice as much as Luxembourg’s total emissions output in 2010.

4.1 A healthier diet lowers direct emissionsNoleppa & von Witzke (2012) have shown that food consumption in Germany is very much at odds

with scientific recommendations for healthy eating. A healthier diet would involve lowering consumption of certain food groups, meat in particular, and increasing consumption of others. Consequently:

» it is reasonable to assume that dietary changes would (a) alter the relative contributions of individual food groups to direct GHG emissions, and (b) alter the overall quantities of GHG emissions.

» it is also reasonable to assume that a healthier diet would contribute to avoiding indirect land use change emissions, since Noleppa & von Witzke (2012) have shown such a change would remove the need to convert vast acreages of natural ecosystems into additional farmland.

Can these assumptions be confirmed? And what exactly is the impact of dietary changes on the greenhouse gas balance? These questions will be tackled below.

Healthier eating: less meat, more fruit, vegetables and grainsFigure 4.1 demonstrates the changes that would need to be made to bring the average German diet in line with scientific recommendations for a healthy diet, such as those issued by German Nutrition Society (DGE). These data were also used by Noleppa & von Witzke (2012):

» Scenario Ia precisely represents a diet based on scientific recommendations.

» Scenario Ib represents a toned-down variant including one day per week without meat consumption and corresponding increases or decreases in the consumption of other food groups on a pathway towards a healthier diet.

4 Healthy eating is good for the climate

Food group Szenario Ia: Comprehensive change in diet

Szenario Ib: Gradual change in diet

Meat, meat products –44.0 –14.3

Fish, fish products –1.4 –0.4

Eggs, egg products 17.0 5.5

Milk, dairy products 15.6 5.1

Vegetable oils and fats 37.5 12.2

Cereals, cereal products 44.0 14.3

Potatoes, potato products –32.4 –10.5

Vegetables, vegetable products 75.4 24.5

Fruit, fruit products 6.4 2.1

Sugar, sweets –34.1 –11.1

Figure 4.1: Changes in food consumption in

Germany resulting from the adoption of a health

diet (in %)

Source: Noleppa & von Witzke (2012)


Figure 3.1 gave an overview of food consumption in Germany and the resultant direct GHG emissions. In combination with the scenarios given in Figure 4.1 it is now possible to attribute direct GHG emissions to the various food groups as part of different dietary styles.

Healthy eating lowers direct GHG emissions by 8 % It is worth taking note of two particular results shown in Figure 4.2. Firstly, the adoption of a healthier diet in Germany has a noticeable effect on direct GHG emissions, with a comprehensive change in diet yielding savings in the order of 8 %. The lowered consumption of certain foods (such as meat) offsets, in part, the required increase in the consumption of other foods (such as milk). Secondly, the relative contributions of individual food groups to direct GHG emissions change, in some instances significantly so. For example, in Scenario Ia meat accounts for “only” about a quarter of the emissions while under the status quo it accounts for 40 %. In this scenario, milk trades places with meat as the biggest emissions contributor, with milk and dairy products accounting for approximately 30 % of total emissions; under the status quo milk and dairy products account for “only” a quarter. Under the two scenarios, the consumption of certain plant-based foods would increase significantly, resulting in a corresponding increase in their emissions contributions from currently about 30 % to 40 % under Scenario Ia.

Figure 4.2: Annual per capita

food-related direct greenhouse gas

emissions in Germany under the status quo

and under healthy eating scenarios

(in kg CO2-equivalents)


Changes in diet could lower direct GHG emissions

by 8 %.

40

Meat, meat products

Fish, fish products

Eggs, egg products







Sugar, sweets

Other foods

Scenario Ia

Scenario Ib

Status quo

0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000

First interim conclusion on reducing GHG emissions by adopting healthier diets:

Savings equate to more than 100 billion car kilometres.A healthy diet in accordance with scientific recommendations would lower emissions in terms of CO2-equivalents per person by approximately 162 kg or 8 %. For the total German population this would equate to 13.3 million tons annually. Two comparisons help to visualize the magnitude of such savings: 13.3 Mt is equivalent to the emissions caused by 1.1 million new cars, emitting 120 g CO2/km and driving a total distance of 100,000 km each. It also equates to Luxembourg’s total GHG emissions (EEA, 2012).


4.2 A healthier diet lowers indirect emissionsIt has already been outlined in Chapter 3.2 that indirect emissions result from land use change. If food consumption increases, land use change follows which in turn increases emissions. A decrease in food consumption has the opposite effect. In analogy to the approach taken in Chapter 3 it is possible to determine indirect GHG emissions, i.e. by multiplying regional land use change triggered by dietary changes by regional indirect land use change emissions.

Dietary changes can spare vast amounts of landIf the German population adopted a healthy diet (Scenario Ia) 1,836 million hectares of land in other regions of the world could be spared from being converted to agricultural land, an area roughly equating to the size of the Federal State of Saxony. A partial change towards a healthier diet (Scenario Ib) would spare 595,000 ha, an area roughly the size of the Black Forest region (cf. Annexes 3 and 4 as well as Noleppa & von Witzke, 2012).

Carbon sequestered in natural areas of this scale would not be released, thus avoiding significant amounts of indirect GHG emissions. Noleppa & von Witzke (2012) have calculated the area of land needed for the production of individual agricultural commodities. A diet lower in meat in accordance with Scenario Ia would “yield” 1,696 million ha of land from avoided pork consumption alone. However, 541,000 ha would need to be subtracted from this figure as additional land would be needed to meet the demand for the rise in grain consumption under this scenario.

Noleppa & von Witzke (2012) did not however determine changes in virtual land use with reference to different world regions. This type of information is important because CO2 release rates vary strongly between regions, depending on the type of vegetation that is being converted into cropland. Chapter 3 has shown that such information can indeed be determined (cf. Tyner et al., 2010).

At this point, mention must be made of a special feature considered, but not discussed, in Chapter 3: In reality, land consumption for livestock-based food means land consumption for feed crops. This land consumption for crop plants must be determined with reference to the region of origin – otherwise a correct regional allocation of land areas is not feasible.

If the Germans ate a healthier

diet, 1.8 million ha of land worldwide

could be spared from

conversion – an area the size

of Saxony.

42

Excursus on attributing regional virtual land use in the case of livestock-based products

Von Witzke et al. (2011) attribute certain land areas for the production of agricultural commodities to producer countries. If Germany imported soya bean meal from Brazil, the calculations used so far would attribute the area needed to produce the soya beans to Brazil. Similarly, if Germany exported beef, the calculations used so far would be based on the assumption that Germany provides the land base needed to feed the requisite beef cattle. However, the cattle feed does not solely originate in Germany. In fact, all the soya fed in Germany is being imported. Germany has therefore initially “imported” the land required to produce the soya bean crop before exporting its beef. An export preceded by importation is termed a re-export.

In order to arrive at undistorted figures for indirect GHG emissions these re-exported acreages must be identified and weighted appropriately, given that CO2 release rates vary strongly between world regions (cf. Tyner et al., 2010). Re-imports to Germany must be similarly treated.

The following example serves to illustrate the process: According to Witzke et al. (2011), one kilogram of pork requires for its production approximately 8.9 m² of land. If Germany exported this one kilogram of pork it would initially also virtually export these 8.9 m² of land seemingly located within its borders. But where is this land really? It is certainly not all to be found in Germany. One kilogram of pork requires for its production c. 648 g of soya bean meal, but the soya beans are not produced in Germany. Weighted with the relevant yields per unit area (cf. von Witzke et al., 2011) it can be said that 2.6 m² of soya bean cropland is situated outside of Germany and must therefore be subtracted from the figure of 8.9 m² given above.

In this manner, a regional breakdown of the entire land base required for the production of livestock-based foods can be produced. For the purposes of this study, it was possible to undertake these calculations for wheat, grain maize, other grains, soya and other oilseeds, given that data on average livestock feed rations had been provided by von Witzke et al. (2011). Other feedstuffs, such as feed potatoes and fodder beet as well as green feed are treated as “domestically produced feedstuffs of indeterminate origin”. In some instances the latter only account for a minor share of the land area, as illustrated by the pigmeat example: Of the 8.9 m² needed to produce a kilogram of pork, 2.6 m² are required for soya beans, 0.9 m² for wheat, 0.6 m² for grain maize, 1.9 m² for other grains and 1.7 m² for other oilseed crops, resulting in a total of 7.7 m². The shortfall of 1.2 m² is accounted for as domestically produced feedstuffs of indeterminate origin.


Healthy eating helps avoid almost 300 million tons of indirect CO2 emissions

Figure 4.3 illustrates the quantities of indirect GHG emissions which could be avoided in different parts of the world if the Germans adopted a healthier diet.

As can be seen from Figure 4.3, healthier eating habits in Germany could result in avoided indirect GHG emissions worldwide in the order of almost 300 Mt. Compared to just over 13 Mt CO2eq in savings in direct GHG emissions calculated earlier (cf. Chapter 3.1) this figure seems to be very high. Given that in comparisons of direct and indirect GHG the time horizon is of major importance, hasty conclusions must be avoided. This issue will be discussed further down.

Figure 4.3 also shows that under both scenarios less additional agricultural area would be needed in two world regions in particular, i.e. South America and Europe. Under both scenarios this is primarily due to two agricultural commodities. The situation under Scenario Ia is as follows:

South America: 640,000 fewer hectares of soya cropland and grassland entail 100 million tons of avoided indirect GHG » In South America, the most striking impact would be the redundant soya cropland. Lower meat consumption in Germany would considerably lower the demand for soya beans and these savings would more than offset increased demand for plant-based foods. Under Scenario Ia this alone would result in “savings” of 370,000 ha or 20 % of the 1.836 million ha of soya bean cropland worldwide (see Annex 3). This decrease in demand for cropland would result in 56 Mt CO2eq in avoided indirect GHG emissions. In addition, a further 272,000 ha of grassland in South America would be redundant as beef imports to Germany decline under Scenario Ia. Overall, these changes explain more than 640,000 of the total of 670,000 ha of land released from production in South America – resulting in 100 Mt in indirect GHG emissions. Therefore it can be said that at least one third of all agricultural land which would not be needed if the German population adopted a healthier diet is situated in South America.

Figure 4.3: Avoided indirect greenhouse gas

emissions resulting from food consumption

in Germany if healthy eating habits were

adopted (by region, in million metric tons)


44

Scenario Ia

Scenario Ib

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

-50 Europe North America

South America

Asia Oceania Rest of the world

Totals

Europe: More grassland freed up for other types of land use » At 45 %, the share of grassland in Europe made redundant by a drop in German consumption would be even higher. Even just the lowered beef consumption renders unnecessary 0.8 million ha of grassland. To cater for a healthier diet, a large proportion of this would however be needed for the production of milk and dairy products. But the remainder of the grassland so “released” would not be needed for arable production as the balance sheet shows that there would also be a reduced demand for cropland. The surplus grassland could either be restored to a more natural state or it could remain in production under a less intensive regime.

Changes in our diet in accordance with Scenario Ia could avoid almost 286 Mt of CO2 emissions (cf. Figure 4.3). More than 1,8 million ha of valuable carbon stores such as savannahs, tropical rainforests, and grasslands could be retained. 286 Mt of CO2 equates to approximately 150 % of the annual GHG emissions resulting from German goods and passenger transport. Even if the Germans refrained from meat consumption only once a week and consumed other foods at adequate levels (Scenario Ib), savings of almost 93 million tons of indirect GHG emissions could be made.

South America: Savings of 100 million tons in indirect CO2 emissionsThe savings would be largely due to Germany’s reduced (virtual) land use in Europe and South America, as can be seen in Figure 4.3. If it wasn’t for the additional demand for agricultural land in Asia, even more indirect GHG emissions could be avoided. The additional demand in Asia would result from both the increased consumption of rice in Germany and the need for Asia to produce more milk domestically as Germany would consume more of its own dairy products rather than exporting them to the Asian markets.

Caution is needed when comparing direct and indirect GHG emissionsA comparison of the figures for avoided direct and indirect GHG emissions (13 Mt and 286 Mt respectively under Scenario Ia) could lead to the conclusion that the indirect emissions are of much greater significance. However, it is important to note that emissions savings resulting from the adoption of a healthier diet would be recurring on an annual basis, in the same way that households generate annually recurring savings from using power-saving appliances. In contrast, the indirect emissions occur only once when land use change, such as the destruction of a tropical rainforest to make way for cropland, leads to soil carbon losses.

Indirect GHG emissions are accounted for over a 20 year periodIn order to allow for a comparison of indirect and direct GHG emissions the former must be distributed over a time horizon. The fact that dietary changes would be more of a long-term prospect is also a plausible justification for this approach. Audsley et al. (2010) have argued for a 20 year time horizon, i.e. the only a twentieth of the indirect GHG emissions (from land use change) would be juxtaposed with the annual direct GHG emissions (from dietary changes). Figure 4.4 illustrates the results.

To allow for a comparison of

indirect and direct GHG emissions the

former are accounted for over

a 20 year period.


Faktische Einsparung pro Jahr: über 27 Mio. t THGUnder Scenario Ia, total annual savings of 27 Mt CO2eq would be generated. Of these savings, 13 Mt would be in direct and 14 Mt in indirect GHG emissions. The per capita savings would amount to 337 kg CO2 . By way of reminder, the current average German diet generates a total of almost 2.500 kg of emissions (cf. Chapter 3).

The result highlights once more the significant climate impact of indirect land use change. Moreover, it supports the results by Noleppa & von Witzke (2012) which indicated that our management of land as a resource represents a suitable basis on which to assess changes with respect to other environmental goods such as water or the climate. Undoubtedly, the calculated impact of indirect land use change emissions varies with the time horizon over which it is distributed.

The data are certainly not strictly comparable, as one set has a temporal dimension while the other refers to a point in time. However, it is reasonable to say that a healthy diet would reduce our current carbon footprint by almost 14 %.

Figure 4.4: Annual savings in

greenhouse gas emissions resulting

from food consumption in Germany under

healthy eating scenarios (in million metric tons)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30direct GHG emissionsindirect GHG emissions

Scenario Ia

Scenario Ib

A healthier diet would reduce our

current carbon footprint by

almost 14 %.

46

Second interim conclusion on reducing GHG emissions by adopting healthier diets:

Savings in indirect emissions almost equate to Spain’s total GHG emissions.The global demand for agricultural commodities continues to increase. Farmers around the world are forced to convert more and more meadows, pastures and forests into cropland. Those who eat less and eat a healthier diet therefore help prevent additional land conversions. As important carbon sinks, semi-natural grasslands and forests contribute to achieving climate protection objectives. Expressed in numerical terms, the connections between food consumption, land use and GHG emissions are as follows:

If the Germans adopted a healthier diet, this could save more than 1.8 million ha in cropland which translates into indirect CO2 emissions savings of almost 300 million tons. At least 100 million tons of these savings would be generated in South America alone. In the process, Germany’s carbon footprint would be reduced by the size of Saxony’s carbon footprint. The emissions savings would equate to Spain’s total GHG emissions (EEA, 2012).

However, indirect GHG emissions savings occur only once while direct GHG emissions are annually recurring. It is therefore appropriate to distribute the avoided indirect emissions over a time horizon. For the purposes of this study a time horizon of 20 years was chosen. The result: Total annual greenhouse gas emissions savings under Scenario Ia come to 13 Mt in direct emissions and 14 Mt in indirect emissions. The total savings of 27 Mt equate to the emissions output of 2.3 million new passenger cars driving a distance of 100,000 km each. Savings under Scenario Ib would come to about one third of the above.

27 million tons of emissions could be

avoided by adopting healthier diets – the

same amount as would be emitted

by 2.3 million cars driving a distance of

100,000 km each.


Meat and soya: Hugely significant for Germany’s indirect GHG emissions balance Meat and soya have already been recurrent themes in the first two studies of this WWF project (von Witzke et al., 2011; Noleppa & von Witzke 2012) and are similarly central to this study. Chapter 4.1 has shown that lowered meat consumption in particular can contribute to direct GHG emissions savings. This is also true for indirect GHG emissions, as can be seen from Figures 4.5 and 4.6.

Figures 4.5 and 4.6 show the reduction in meat consumption by type of meat under Scenario Ia, the resultant potential for a reduction in soya bean meal consumption, and the resultant savings in agricultural land, direct and indirect GHG emissions.

Figure 4.5: Reduced consumption of meat and soya bean

meal in Germany if a healthy diet based on

scientific recommenda-tions was adopted, and resultant reductions in

land consumption.


Figure 4.6: Reduced direct and

indirect* GHG emissions as a result of reduced consumption of meat and soya bean meal**

in Germany if a healthy diet based on scientific recommendations was

adopted.


Type of meat Reduction in meat consumption

Reduction in soya bean meal consumption

Reduction in land footprint for meat

Reduction in land footprint for soya

(in million metric tons) (in 1,000 ha)

Beef 0.47 0.11 1,415 43

Pigmeat 2.01 1.31 1,696 517

Poultrymeat 0.68 0.66 454 263

Sheepmeat 0.04 0.01 116 3

Meat, total 3.20 2.09 3,681 826

Type of meat Reduction in direct GHG emissions

Reduction in indirect GHG emissions (total)

of which reduction in indirect GHG emissions (soya bean meal only)**

Reduction in direct and indirect GHG emissions

(in Mt CO2-equivalents)

Beef 9.4 11.0 0.3 20.4

Pigmeat 15.7 13.2 4.0 28.9

Poultrymeat 2.9 3.5 2.1 6.4

Sheepmeat 0.4 0.9 0.0 1.3

Meat, total*** 28.4 28.6 6.4 57.0

* Per year over a time horizon of 20 years. ** Direct GHG emissions for soya bean meal are not shown separately here

as they are very minor and too low to be depicted (see Figure 4.7 and commentary).

*** Savings figures here are higher than those given in Figure 4.4. This is due to the fact that savings figures here refer solely to reduced meat consumption and not to overall dietary changes which also include increases in the consumption of other food groups such as fruit and vegetables.

48

Figure 4.5 summarizes the findings by Noleppa & von Witzke (2012) who have shown that the 3.2 million ton reduction in meat consumption as a conse-quence of a healthy diet would “free up” approximately 3.7 million ha of land. The drop in demand for soya as livestock feed alone would “free up” 826,000 ha of land. As can be seen in Figure 4.6, the resultant reduction in CO2 emis-sions over a 20 year period would amount to 6.4 Mt per year or almost half of the calculated overall indirect GHG emissions balance (see Figure 4.4). Soya is clearly highly significant in terms of resource and climate protection.

But land use change is not only due to soya bean production but also to oilseed meal. cereal meal and green feed production. Over a 20 year time horizon, the savings in combined land use change emissions due to feed production would amount to 28.7 Mt CO2 per year (cf. Figure 4.6).Again, in this instance, we can see that savings in indirect GHG emissions are roughly at par with savings in direct GHG emissions (cf. Figure 4.4). What is also evident is that meat has the biggest carbon footprint of all foods.

Excursus on the calculation of data given in Figure 4.6

The following example of pigmeat serves to illustrate the calculations. Under Scenario Ia, meat consumption, and therefore also consumption of pork, drops by 44 % (cf. Figure 4.1). The average German would then only consume 30.5 kg of pork per year instead of 54.4 kg (cf. Figure 3.1). The per capita direct GHG emissions (cf. Figure 3.1) would decline accordingly, from 434.8 to 243.5 kg CO2-equivalents, i.e. by 191.3 kg. At a population of 81.7 million, Germany’s direct GHG emissions would therefore drop by 15.7 Mt CO2eq (cf. Figure 4.6).

According to Noleppa & von Witzke (2012), every one of Germany’s inhabitants could reduce their land footprint for food by a total of 219 m², with a 63 m² reduction due to soya alone, if they could curb their appetite for pork. Germany’s total land footprint for food would thus be reduced by just under 1.7 million ha (of which 500,000 would be due to soya). Applying the regional GHG release rates after Tyner et al. (2010) to this figure, 13 Mt CO2eq per year, calculated over 20 years, of indirect GHG emissions resulting from land use change could be avoided. Soya alone would account for 4 Mt of these avoided emissions.

Out of all the food groups, meat

has the greatest impact on land and

climate.


50

Reduction ...

in meat consumption in Mt/year

in consumption of soya bean meal for

livestock feed production (in Mt)

in the land footprint for meat production,

excl. soya (in 1,000 ha)

in the land footprint for soya production for

livestock feed (in 1,000 ha)

in direct and indirect GHG emissions

(in Mt CO2eq)

Reductions in Germany’s land and carbon footprints resulting from the adoption of a healthier diet – the example of meat (based on a 44 % drop in meat consumption in line with scientific recommendations)

0.47

43

0.11

1,372

20.4

2.01

517

1.31

1,179

28.9

0.68

263

0.66

191

6.4

4.3 The impact of a healthier diet on the German carbon and land footprints A healthy diet helps protect both the climate and resources

This chapter has so far addressed the question as to the possible greenhouse gas emissions savings resulting from the German population adopting a healthier diet. A differentiation was made between a comprehensive (Scenario Ia) and a gradual (Scenario Ib) change in diet in line with scientific recommendations. The focus has so far been on climate protection. Noleppa & von Witzke (2012) have already addressed the impacts of the two scenarios in terms of resource protection. Figure 4.7 now combines these two perspectives.

Figure 4.7: Changes in the perso-

nal land and carbon footprints* for food

resulting from adopt-ing a healthier diet in

Germany

Source: Own illustration based on

Noleppa & von Witzke (2012) as well as own

calculations

Land footprint Status quo Scenario Ia Scenario Ib

(in m²/person)

Food, total 2,312 2,087 2,239

of which meat 1,030 577 883

of which soya 229 128 196

Carbon footprint of direct GHG emissions

Status quo Scenario Ia Scenario Ib

(in kg CO2-equivalents /person)

Food, total 2,003 1,841 1,951

of which meat** 815 456 698


* Carbon footprint: only including direct GHG emissions at this point. ** In contrast to Figure 4.6, the figures here include emissions caused by “other meat”.

As Noleppa & von Witzke (2012) have shown, meat and the soya bean meal fed to meat-producing animals strongly determine our land footprint. The same applies to direct GHG emissions as part of our carbon footprint, with 40 % of direct emissions being due to meat consumption. Under the healthy eating Scenario Ia this share drops to about 25 %. Reduced meat consumption can therefore lead to significant emissions reductions. Meat does indeed have a greater impact on both footprints than any of the other food groups.

Excursus on the minor importance of soya in terms of direct GHG emissions

In contrast to the land footprint of soya production, its carbon footprint in terms of direct GHG emissions is of lesser significance. This is due to the fact that soya’s relevance is limited to the first segment of the food value chain – it plays no role in the downstream processes from butchering to the preparation of dishes containing livestock-based foods. It is also worth noting that soya bean meal is insignificant for human nutrition, which is why it is not listed in Figure 3.1. The calculation of direct GHG emissions resulting from soya bean meal use in livestock feed is based on a factor of 721 g CO2-equivalents per kilogram of soya bean meal (cf. Dalgaard et al., 2008)


If each one of us ate a healthier diet, we could also reduce indirect GHG emissions as can be seen in Figure 4.8 which concludes this chapter.

Figure 4.8: Per capita contributions

to carbon footprints resulting from land use

change under healthy eating scenarios in

Germany

Source: Own calculations and illustration.

Minus signs denote negative contributions.

Carbon footprint of indirect GHG emissions

Status quo Scenario Ia Scenario Ib


Food, total –481 175 57

of which meat –91 369 120

of which soya –43 79 26

Under the status quo, dietary changes in Germany between 2009 and 2010 increased the demand for cropland by more than 200,000 ha (cf. Figure 3.4). The annual per capita “cost” in additional indirect GHG emissions came to more than 480 kg CO2 ! In Figure 4.8 these additional emissions are identified as a negative contribution to climate protection. However, the change in meat consumption (and therefore also the change in soya feed consumption) only accounted for just under 20 % or 90 kg CO2 , as changes in meat consumption levels had been relatively minor (cf. Annex 1) and had only increased the land footprint by about 40,000 ha (cf. Figure 3.4).

Under Scenarios Ia and Ib, meat and soya are of much greater significance than under the status quo. According to Noleppa & von Witzke (2012) a total of 1.8 million ha of land would be “free up” under Scenario Ia. Applying the regional GHG release rates after Tyner et al. (2010) to this figure, indirect GHG emissions could be reduced by 175 kg CO2 per person per year over 20 years. Meat consumption levels assessed in isolation even have a reduction potential of approximately 3.7 million ha (cf. Figure 4.5). However, the increased consumption of dairy products, fruit and vegetables would in part offset these savings. The net acreage “released” comes to 1.8 million ha, which is equivalent to a per capita contribution to climate protection of almost 370 kg CO2 in emissions reductions. Reduced soya consumption for livestock feed accounts for just under 80 kg CO2 of these reductions.

52

Conclusions on reducing GHG emissions by adopting healthier diets:

Healthy eating is good for our climate; meat and soya have a particularly strong impact on GHG emissions.We must tackle climate change. Changing to a healthy diet in Germany can make a difference. Not only does a healthy diet lower direct GHG emissions resulting from food production and preparation, but it also reduces indirect CO2 emissions by averting land use change and preserving carbon sinks. 337 kg of CO2 emissions per person per year could be avoided in this way. The current average food-related per capita carbon footprint in Germany is 2,500 kg of CO2. By adopting a healthy diet 14 % of these emissions could be avoided. Similar savings could be made by a family of four if each year they travelled 11,000 fewer kilometres in their car emitting 120 g CO2/km.

Our meat consumption and the associated use of soya in livestock production strongly determine, for better or worse, our land and carbon footprints.


Climate benefits of a healthy diet*

2,484kilograms**

54

2,500km car journey

44 %*

-337kilograms***

* In accordance with scientific dietary recommendations. This would entail a 44 % reduction in meat consumption and a 75 % increase in vegetable consumption, amongst other changes.

** Annual per capita food-related direct and indirect emissions in CO2-equivalents. *** Annual per capita emissions savings in CO2-equivalents. Of these savings, 162 kg would be in direct emissions and c. 175 kg in indirect emissions.

Figure 4.9: Land footprint and

greenhouse gas emissions associated

with some typical dishes

Source: Own illustration based on von Witzke et al.

(2011) and own calculationseigenen

A grilled sausage “costs” more than 2 m² and almost 2 kg of CO2 The significance of meat can also be presented in a more striking and easy to grasp manner. Von Witzke et al. (2011) have calculated the land footprint of the following dishes: (1) Hamburger with French fries and salad, (2) roast pork with red cabbage and potato dumplings, (3) chicken curry with rice and veg-etables, (4) grilled sausage served with a bread roll, and (5) pasta with tomato sauce. They were able to show that meat dishes have a significantly larger land footprint than meatless dishes. In all meat dishes, the meat component accounted for considerably more than 50 % of the land footprint.

It is now possible to also determine the GHG emissions caused by each of these meals by applying the GHG emissions factors given in Figure 3.1. The results given in Figure 4.9 confirm the significance of the carbon footprint of meat in addition to its considerable land footprint.

Typical dish Land footprint (in m²) GHGs (in kg CO2-equiva-lents)

in total meat only in total meat only

Hamburger with French fries and salad 3.61 3.39 2.95 2.58

Roast pork with red cabbage and potato dumplings

3.12 2.25 3.42 2.00

Chicken curry with rice and vegetables 1.36 0.76 1.47 0.40

Grilled sausage served with a bread roll 2.26 1.97 1.88 1.64

Pasta with tomato sauce 0.46 0.00 0.63 0.00


* In accordance with scientific dietary recommendations. This would entail a 44 % reduction in meat consumption and a 75 % increase in vegetable consumption, amongst other changes.

** Annual per capita food-related direct and indirect emissions in CO2-equivalents. *** Annual per capita emissions savings in CO2-equivalents. Of these savings, 162 kg would be in direct emissions and c. 175 kg in indirect emissions.

Land footprint and greenhouse gas emissions associated with some meal favourites

Hamburger with French fries and salad (100 g beef)

Roast pork with red cabbage and potato dumplings (200 g pork)

2.58

2.95

3.61 3.12

2.00

3.42

Land footprint and greenhouse gas emissions associated with some meal favourites

Grilled sausage with a bread roll (100 g pork, 25 g beef)

Chicken curry with rice and vegetables (75 g chicken)

Pasta with tomato sauce

Land footprint (in m²)

Greenhouse gas emissions

Meat component

Meat component

1.88

2.26

0.40

1.47

1.36

0.63

0.46

1.64

If all of Germany’s inhabitants stopped throwing out food fit for human consumption, 40 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions could be saved per year. This equates to half of Austria’s emissions output in 2010.

5.1 Impact of food waste on direct emissions Noleppa & von Witzke (2012) have not only examined how the adoption of healthier diets

impacts on greenhouse gas emissions but they have also assessed the signifi-cance of a reduction in food waste. Based on a literature review they used an iterative process to determine the average proportion of food that is wasted at the consumer level, distinguishing between avoidable and unavoidable waste. The authors addressed the food waste issue in the same manner as the healthy eating issue by defining two scenarios:

» Scenario IIa examines the impact of a complete reduction in avoidable food waste at the consumer level.

» Scenario IIb assumes a 50 % reduction in avoidable food waste at the consumer level.

Much of our food waste is avoidableBased on detailed calculations, Noleppa & von Witzke (2012) presented possible reductions in food consumption under the different scenarios. These potential savings are given in Figure 5.1 below.

Figure 5.1:Reduction in food

consumption resulting from a reduction in food waste in Germany (in %)


5 Less food waste – fewer emissions

Food group Scenario IIa: Complete reduction of avoidable food waste

Scenario IIb: Partial reduction of avoidable food waste

Meat, meat products 8 4

Fish, fish products 12 6

Eggs, egg products 14 7

Milk, dairy products 12 6

Vegetable oils and fats 10 5

Cereals, cereal products 20 10

Potatoes, potato products 18 9

Vegetables, vegetable products 14 7

Fruit, fruit products 14 7

Sugar, sweets 14 7


The data given in Figure 5.2 are based on gross food consumption levels and the specific GHG emissions per kilogram of food (Figure 3.1) combined with the assumptions with respect reductions in food waste under Scenarios IIa and IIb.

Excursus on differences between the Noleppa/v.Witzke study and the recent study published by the Ministry for Food and Agriculture (BMELV)

Noleppa & von Witzke (2012) only determined food waste percentages, not absolute quantities. While they made reference to Cofresco (2011), who cites a figure of approximately 6.6 million tons of consumer-level food waste in Germany, no such calculations were undertaken by Noleppa & von Witzke (2012) as this was beyond the scope of the second study of the WWF project. Combining the food consumption levels as given in Figure 3.1 of the current study with the food waste percentages given Scenario IIa, a figure of 7.82 million tons of actual food waste results.

Shortly after the publication of the study by Noleppa & von Witzke (2012), the German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV) published their own study (Kranert et al., 2012) on this issue, providing a figure for comparison. According to the BMELV study, end consumers, i.e. households and bulk consumers, in Germany on average throw out 8.57 million tons of food per year. While this figure is greater than the one established above, Kranert et al. (2012) give a range of 7.30 to 9.84 million tons with reference to uncertainty. Clearly the figure established here falls within that range.

Moreover, the calculations as part of the present study are in keeping with those undertaken by Monier et al. (2010) who give a figure of 7.68 million tons of food waste. For this reason and due to the fact that some of the data underlying the calculations in Kranert et al. (2012) are somewhat vague, no attempt is made here to reassess the statements made in Noleppa & von Witzke (2012). In case of doubt, the estimates below and the results with respect to the GHG effects of food waste should be taken to be conservative estimates.

Figure 5.2:Annual per capita food-

related direct green-house gas emissions in Germany at present and

resulting from reductions in food waste

(in kg CO2-equivalents)


60

Meat, meat products

Fish, fish products

Eggs, egg products







Sugar, sweets

Other foods

Scenario IIa

Scenario IIb

Status quo

0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000

Food waste is responsible for 18.7 million tons in direct GHG emissionsThe avoidance of food waste can generate significant savings in GHG emissions. Under Scenario IIa there would be an 11 % reduction in food-related GHG emissions, equating to a per capita saving of 229 kg CO2-equivalents or 18.7 millions tons for Germany as a whole. The latter figure equates to the current level of carbon emissions generated by the farming sector according to the German Farmers‘ Association (DBV, 2011), which are largely due to fertilizers, pesticides, fuels and lubricants in addition to some other energy-consuming processes or inputs.

In contrast to the dietary change scenarios there would be no major structural shifts under the food waste scenarios in terms of the emissions generated by food groups. This is primarily due to the fact that gross consumption would drop across the board in all food groups. Given that the smallest relative drop in gross consumption would occur in the food group “meat” however, its relative share in GHG emissions under the waste reduction Scenario IIa would actually show a marginal increase of about 1.5 %.

The German population’s

“throw-away” mentality gives rise to as much

direct greenhouse gas emissions

as the whole of Slovenia.

First interim conclusion on the e�ect on direct emissions of avoiding food waste:

Approximately 11 % of food-related direct GHG emissions could be avoided.An 11 % reduction in food-related emissions equates to a per capita saving of 229 kg CO2-equivalents or 18.7 millions tons for Germany as a whole. This is a similar amount of carbon dioxide as that produced by Slovenia (EEA, 2012) or by the entire German farming sector due to its usage of fertilizers, pesticides, fuels, lubricants and other energy-consuming processes or inputs (DBV, 2011).


5.2 Impact of food waste on indirect emissions Food waste also impacts on indirect GHG emissions. How much of these emissions could be avoided is shown in Figure 5.3, contrasting once again the current emissions embedded in food waste with the reduction Scenarios IIa and IIb. A complete reduction of avoidable food waste (Scenario IIa) would actually save even more emissions than a comprehensive change to a healthier diet (Scenario Ia).

430 million tons of GHG emissions could be avoidedAvoided food waste translates into avoided land use change which, under the more stringent scenario, would result in 430 million tons of CO2 in the form of carbon being retained in a variety of ecosystems. Details are given in Annexes 5 and 6 for Scenarios IIa and IIb respectively.

In this instance close to half of the savings would occur in Europe. This is due to a number of reasons:

» Firstly, less grassland would need to be converted to arable land to meet the demand for food and feed by producing domestic crops such as cereals, oilseeds, potatoes and sugarbeet. If less of these crops are wasted, less additional cropland is needed.

» Secondly, a drop in gross consumption of livestock-based foods also means that less greenfeed is needed, thus providing scope for more semi-natural meadows and pastures that can continue to function as carbon stores.

Changes in other regions of the world would impact in a relatively minor way on this greenhouse gas balance. However, the drop in virtual land imports for broadacre crops (including soya) from regions outside of Europe does account for almost a quarter of the changes.

Figure 5.3:Avoided indirect

greenhouse gas emissi-ons of our

diet in Germany under food waste

reduction scenarios(in million metric tons)


62

Scenario IIa

Scenario IIb

0

100

200

300

400

500

Europe North America

South America

Asia Oceania Rest of the world

Total

Figure 5.4Annual reduction

in greenhouse gas emissions due to food

consumption in Germany under food

waste reduction scenarios (in million

metric tons)


Taking a twenty year view, 40 million tons annually of direct and indirect GHG emissions could be avoidedSimilar to the savings generated under the healthy eating scenarios described in Chapter 4, it is useful to calculate direct and indirect GHG emissions over a 20 year time horizon. The result is given in Figure 5.4. It shows that up to 40 million tons annually of GHG emissions could be avoided as a result of a reduction in food wastage at household level.

Evidently under these scenarios indirect GHG emissions are of greater significance than direct emissions. Under the healthy eating Scenarios Ia and Ib the two categories are roughly of equal significance. The food waste scenarios differ in that food wastage would drop across the board in all food groups. There would be no compensatory effects as under the healthy eating scenarios, such as lower meat consumption being offset in part by an increase in the consumption of dairy products. Under Scenario IIa, the per capita savings in Germany of indirect GHG emissions would come to 260 kg CO2; savings in direct and indirect emissions taken together would be in the order of 500 kg CO2-equivalents.

Those who don’t throw out food fit

for human consumption help

avoid land conversion over

an area the size of Mecklenburg-

Western Pomerania.

Second interim conclusion on the e�ect on indirect emissions of avoiding food wastage:

Avoidance of land use change avoids a further 21.5 million tons of CO2 emissions.Those who avoid food wastage make a significant contribution to reducing our land footprint. If German consumers stopped throwing out perfectly edible food, up to 2.4 million ha of arable land, an area about the size of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, would be redundant and could be put to other uses. Throwing out less food also benefits our climate. Calculated over a 20 year period, annual savings of 21.5 million tons in indirect GHG emissions could be made – almost as much as Lithuania’s total national greenhouse gas emissions (EEA, 2012).


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

direct GHG emissionsindirect GHG emissions

Scenario IIa

Scenario IIb

5.3 The impact of food waste on the German land and carbon footprints Eating a healthier diet + avoiding food waste = resource and climate protectionChapter 4 has demonstrated that a healthy diet benefits both resource and climate protection. The “meat and dairy complex” plays an important role in this respect. Similar conclusions, although with some different nuances, can be drawn with regard to avoidable food waste, as can be seen from Figures 5.5 and 5.6.Figure 5.5 gives a summary of the German per capita land footprint as determined by Noleppa und von Witzke (2012) for the different food waste scenarios, and adds the direct GHG emissions’ carbon footprint.

Figure 5.5:Per capita land

and carbon footprints under food waste

avoidance scenarios at the consumer level in

Germany

Source: Own illustration based on Noleppa & von

Witzke (2012) and own calculations

Land footprint Status quo Scenario IIa Scenario IIb

(in m²/person)

Food, total 2,312 2,018 2,165

of which meat 1,030 941 984


Carbon footprint of direct GHG emissions

Status quo Scenario IIa Scenario IIb


Food, total 2,003 1,774 1,889

of which meat 815 750 782


By way of reminder, Noleppa & von Witzke (2012) have shown that even just the unnecessary wastage of meat at the end consumer level costs 90 m² of agricultural area per person per year. Soya bean meal accounts for 20 m² of this area or 7 % of the total land footprint reduction of just under 300 m² under Scenario IIa. Evidently it is even more important in this respect to avoid unnecessary wastage than to eat a healthier diet; the latter would reduce the land footprint by at most just under 230 m². While the role of meat and soya feedstuffs is not quite as significant in terms of food waste as it is for dietary changes, these two items strongly determine our land footprint: Almost half of our land footprint for food is due to meat, and almost a quarter of the land footprint for meat is due to soya.

The impact of meat and soya feedstuffs on the carbon footprint of our direct GHG emissions is of a similar magnitude, with 40 % of our current food-related carbon footprint being due to meat. If we ate a healthy diet or adopted a more prudent attitude to dealing with food, we could significantly reduce our carbon footprint. Soya bean meal again plays a relatively minor role here. It makes its only “appearance” in the first stage of the food value chain where it causes about 721 g in direct GHG emissions per kilogram of soya bean meal. However, this is not to downplay the importance of meat and soya in terms of climate protection. The 750 kg CO2-equivalents per person for meat under Scenario IIa still roughly equate to the emissions caused by a car being driven all the way from Berlin to Mumbai in India.

64

Figure 5.6:Per capita contributions

to climate protection through avoided land

use change emissions as a result of avoiding

consumer level food wastage in Germany.


Minus signs denote negative contributions.

Finally it is time to determine the contribution to climate protection each one of us can make by helping to avoid land use change and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. Again the data in Figure 5.6 have been calculated with reference to a 20 year time horizon.

Carbon footprint of indirect GHG emissions

Status quo Scenario IIa Scenario IIb


Food, total –481 263 131

of which meat –91 72 36

of which soya –43 16 8

Once again, additional indirect land use change occurs under the status quo, giving rise to additional indirect greenhouse gas emissions and thus resulting in a negative per capita contribution to climate protection. Figure 5.5 shows that 90 m² per person could be “gained” if consumers only just stopped throwing out meat unnecessarily. If all avoidable food waste was cut, our indi-vidual carbon footprint in terms of indirect GHG emissions could be reduced by 263 kg CO2 . At over 70 kg CO2-equivalents, meat would account for about a quarter of this positive contribution. While the proportional roles of meat and soya played in this respect are not as high as in the healthy eating scenarios, they are still significant. This is once again due to the fact that dietary changes would lead to a major reduction in meat consumption while reduced food wastage would yield fairly balanced reductions across all food groups.


Conclusion on reductions in GHG emissions as a result of avoiding food waste:

If consumers cut avoidable food waste, we could reduce our GHG emissions by 40 million tons per year.A more prudent attitude to dealing with food in Germany could substantially reduce the country’s land footprint and avoid vast quantities of climate-relevant emissions. The per capita land footprint could be reduced by 290 m². This seemingly small figure is deceiving: the 61 kg of potatoes consumed by the average person per year have a land footprint of only 15 m² (cf. von Witzke et al., 2011).

The conclusions with respect to Germany’s carbon footprint are similar. Under Scenario IIa, annual per capita savings of almost 500 kg CO2-equivalents could be made. Given a total food-related carbon footprint of 2,500 kg CO2-equivalents per person, these savings would equate to a 20 % reduction, with meat accounting for 140 kg or 30 % of the savings. For comparison, similar savings could be achieved if the aforementioned new car was to clock up 4,100 fewer kilometres per year. The savings under Scenario IIb would still be about half as big.

Unnötige Abfälle zu vermeiden, ist noch

bedeutsamer für Fläche und Klima,

als sich gesünder zu ernähren.

66

Climate benefits of a more prudent attitude to dealing with food

2,484kilograms**

4,100km car journey

-492kilograms***

*


* Given a 50 kg reduction in annual per capita food waste. ** Annual per capita food-related direct and indirect emissions in CO2-equivalents.*** Annual per capita emissions savings in CO2-equivalents. Of these savings, 229 kg would be in direct emissions and c. 263 kg in indirect emissions.

A healthier diet and a more prudent attitude to dealing with food could free up more than 4 million ha of arable land and grassland in Germany and abroad. These 4 million ha of land could contribute to meeting global challenges such as the protection of resources and ecosystems and the security of world food supplies. At the same time this would result in total emissions savings of up to 67 million tons CO2-equivalents.

The land footprint of our strongly meat-based diet is very large indeed. This is the conclusion drawn from the first study as part of this WWF project

which examines the linkages between food consumption, meat consumption and land consumption, the protection of natural resources and climate change (von Witzke et al., 2011). We must adopt a more prudent attitude to dealing with food in order to reduce our land and carbon footprints. The second study as part of the WWF project looked at the question as to whether a change to a healthy diet and reductions in food waste could generate any considerable sa-vings in agricultural land consumption. Both questions were clearly answered in the positive (Noleppa & von Witzke, 2012).

This third and final study as part of the WWF project now demonstrates that a healthier diet and reductions in food waste are similarly positive in terms of climate protection. Our food-related carbon footprint has two components – direct and indirect emissions. Direct emissions are caused by the production, processing, transport and preparation of food. Indirect emissions are released as a result of land use change, such as when rainforests are cut down to make way for farmland.

In 2010, every inhabitant of Germany caused, as a result of their food con-sumption, approximately 2,500 kg CO2-equivalents of direct (c. 2,000 kg) and indirect (c. 500 kg) greenhouse gas emissions.

The German per capita food-related direct and indirect emissions thus amount to almost 2.5 tons. Figure 6.1 demonstrates how these emissions compare to the overall per capita carbon footprint which according to UBA (2010) stands at approximately 11.7 tons CO2-equivalents.

It can be seen from the above that food-related GHG emissions account for almost a quarter of the total per capita emissions. The emissions due to meat consumption alone account for a tenth of total emissions.

While it is not entirely correct to correlate these figures, given that they are based on different survey methods and modes of calculation, it is more than obvious that our strongly meat-based diet significantly contributes to Germany’s anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

A healthy diet and the avoidance of food waste can considerably reduce direct and indirect GHG emissions and thus our carbon footprint, as illustrated in Figure 6.2.

6 Conclusions

Figure 6.1:Food-related and total carbon footprints per

person in Germany in 2010 (in kg CO2-

equivalents)

Source: Own calculations and UBA (2010)

Total GHG emissions

of which food-related GHG

emissionsof which

meat-related GHG emissions


12,0009,0006,0003,0000

The images above speak for themselves. What we can take away from this is that if the German population adopted a more prudent attitude to dealing with their food and if, in particular, they cut down on their meat consumption, they could make a very significant contribution to resource and climate protection. Society at large should be concerned with fostering and implementing such attitudes and behavioural changes.

Noleppa & von Witzke (2012) have shown that a healthier diet and a more prudent attitude to dealing with food could free up more than 4 million ha of arable land and grassland in Germany and abroad for other types of land use. These 4 million ha of land could contribute to meeting global challenges such as the protection of resources and ecosystems and the security of world food supplies. At the same time these changes could significantly contribute to climate protection as their combined impact would result in total emissions savings of up to 67 million tons CO2-equivalents . A similar amount of annual CO2-equivalents would be generated by 5.5 million new cars emitting 120 g CO2/km and driving a distance of 100.000 km each. The potential savings also equate to the entire emissions output of Portugal in 2010 (EEA, 2012).

The potential annual emissions savings are in the order of 800 kg CO2-equivalents. To put this into perspective: To achieve the same levels of emissions savings, every year each German inhabitant would have to travel over 6,500 fewer kilometres by car, or 26,000 fewer kilometres in the case of a family of four. Or they could simply eat a healthier diet and throw out less food. It would be best of course if they did both.

Figure 6.2:German per capita

food-related carbon footprint at present and as a result of a healthy diet and the avoidance of consumer-level food

waste respectively (in kg CO2-equivalents)

Source: Own calculations

Carbon footprint of a healthy diet

Carbon footprint if food waste is avoided

70

Carbon footprint of a healthy diet taking into account reductions in direct and indirect GHG emissions

0

0

500

500

1,000

1,000

1,500

1,500

2,000

2,000

2,500

2,500

Carbon footprint if food waste is avoided, taking into account reductions in direct and indirect GHG emissions

Carbon footprint of a healthy diet taking into account reductions in direct GHG emissions

Carbon footprint if food waste is avoided, taking into account reductions in direct and indirect GHG emissions

Carbon footprint of our diet at present

Carbon footprint of our diet at present


A comparison of food consumption, land consumption, and emissions

Savings resulting from a healthier diet

Savings resulting from a more prudent attitude to dealing with food

27million tons*

40million tons*

204million tons

2.4million ha*

18.8million ha

Total food-related land consumption

Total food-related emis-sions

55,3million tons

Food consumption

1.8million ha*

* The cumulative impact is not a matter of simple addition; the image depicts the effects in a simplified form.

Healthy eating can significantly contribute to climate and environmental protection. Be good to your body and the environment. Eat less meat.

The land and carbon footprints of our strongly meat-based diet are large and have negative repercussions for the environment. Moreover, at an average annual per capita consumption of 60 kg of meat we would also be well advised to reconsider our eating habits from a health point of

view. WWF therefore puts forward the following recommendations:

Eat plenty of vegetables, eat meat in moderationEvery step counts, no matter how small. Even small changes in our daily eating habits contribute to climate protection and to the preservation of unique ecosystems. Let us get away from meat as everyday fare and go back to the traditional Sunday roast.

Cook with the seasonsSeasonal products reduce greenhouse gas emissions because they do not need to be imported from abroad and can be grown outdoors without the need for artificially heated greenhouses.

Give preference to organic productsSome of the hallmarks of organic farming include largely closed nutrient cycles, no mineral fertilizers, and no synthetic plant protection products. Organic agriculture is considered to be particularly prudent in the use of resources and more environmentally sound than non-organic farming. It also provides much more room for achieving conservation objectives.

Watch out for animal welfare and sustainability when buying meat Generally meat should be chosen that has been produced to the standards of the EU Organic Regulation, the organic farming associations or the Neuland producer association. Another alternative is “pasture-raised meat” from livestock kept on pasture year-round.

It is the view of the WWF that key criteria for “good” meat are as follows: » In the production of feedstuffs no synthetic fertilizers, synthetic plant protection products, or genetically modified crop plants are used and material and energy cycles are closed to the greatest extent possible.

» Livestock management fulfils the animals’ welfare requirements. This includes i.a. that the animals enjoy sufficient space for movement throughout the year and have access to pasture/outdoor runs year-round. Fully slatted houses are not permitted.

» Painful procedures may only be carried out under anaesthesia and with pain treatment.

» The use of conventional medication is only permitted in exceptional cases. Preventive use of antibiotics and the use of antibiotics for fattening are prohibited.

» Live transports of livestock must not exceed a duration of four hours.

For further information please see: wwf.de/themen/landwirtschaft/

WWF recommendations on healthy eating


A broad and long-term information campaign on household food waste:IInformation campaigns at the political and social levels are generally useful. However, one might doubt whether information campaigns of short duration would truly be able to impact on

the fundamental lack of awareness on how to correctly deal with food. The process of altering engrained behaviour, such as our attitude to dealing with food, is premised on a change in values. Such a change in values will either be born out of shortages brought on crisis situations or out of the knowledge of the consequences of our wasteful behaviour. To achieve the latter, the findings presented in this study would need to become common knowledge, just like energy-savings options have become common currency. Changes in either area impact positively on household budgets. It has proven useful to highlight that financial savings can result from a more prudent attitude to dealing with food. Possible savings are therefore an essential part of the message and should encourage a more prudent attitude to dealing with food. A family of four could save about 1.200 Euro per year by making the most of the food they buy.

Promoting an appreciation of foodAttitudes to dealing with food are instilled in childhood. In addition to the homeplace, kindergartens and schools should be given greater scope for conveying practical knowledge on food production, storage and preparation so as to enable them to promote an appreciation of food amongst children from an early age. To this end, kindergartens and schools would need greater financial resources for e.g. school gardens and kitchens

Encouraging a shift in values in the catering sector Leftovers arising in the catering sector significantly contribute to overall food wastage. More often than not, portions served or offered at buffets and in catering in general are too large. Restaurants and canteens should offer different portion sizes or adapt portion sizes more closely to actual requirements. Caterers’ associations could issue recommendations and run campaigns to promote such changes. Retailers: Less XXL – more M, S or XS Advertising and pricing often lead consumers to buy extra large portions. The bigger the individual packages and the larger the pack or case sizes, the lower the price per unit. As a result, consumers buy more than they need and originally intended to buy. A course correction in the retail sector is badly needed in this respect.

Improved coordination along the food value chain, from production to processing, transport and tradeThe marked division of labour in food production gives rise to large amounts of avoidable losses along the food value chain. We would argue for a fundamental rethink of trade standards. Many of the retailers’ requirements, such as the increasing standardization of food items in upstream segments of the value chain, lead to perfectly edible foods being discarded. Food waste is similarly generated as a result of the retailers’ ambition to continuously reduce storage costs while having supplies at hand around the clock at the same time. There is an urgent need for action in this regard on the part of the business world and political representatives.

WWF recommendations on avoiding food waste

74

Revise food grades and standardsMany foods, including fruit and vegetables, baked goods and livestock-based products, are discarded along the food value chain as a result of food grades and standards. While the number of specific EU marketing standards for fruit and vegetables has been reduced from 36 to 10 this has made very little difference on the ground. Both the processing industry and the traders continue to work on the basis of standards which require that produce must fit into standardized packaging and must be of a uniform quality and appearance. The decision as to whether a product ends up on the supermarket shelf or in the bin is often determined solely by its colour and size. There are also other specific standards, such as the fat content of meat, which give rise to increased wastage. Current standards must urgently be reconsidered. This is another task jointly to be tackled by politicians and the business world.

Too small, misshapen, or just “wonky”: Business

standards result in fruit and vegetables being discarded simply be-

cause they do not meet cosmetic standards or

don’ t fit into standardized packaging.

It makes no difference whatsoever to their food

value. Nevertheless, “perfect” fruit ‘n’ veg

makes it to the super-market shelf while

“wonky” produce ends up in the bin.


ReferencesAudsley, E.; Brander, M.; Chatterton, J.; Murphy-Bokern, D.; Webster, C.; Williams, A. (2009): How low can we go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope for reduction by 2050. Godalming: WWF UK.

Audsley, E.; Chatterton, J.; Graves, A.; Morris, J.; Murphy-Bokern, D.; Pearn, K.; Sandars, D.; Williams, A. (2010): Food, land and greenhouse gases: the effect of changes in UK food consumption on land requirements and green-house gas emissions. A report prepared for the United Kingdom’s Government’s Committee on Climate Change. Cranfield: Cranfield University.

Bellarby, J.; Foereid, B.; Hastings, A.; Smith, P. (2008): Cool farming: climate impacts of agriculture and mitigation potential. Amsterdam: Greenpeace.

Blaser, J.; Robledo, C. (2007): Initial analysis on the mitigation potential in the forestry sector. Bonn: UNFCCC.

BMELV (Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz) (2008): Bericht des BMELV für einen aktiven Klimaschutz der Agrar-, Forst- und Ernährungswirtschaft und zur Anpassung der Agrar- und Forstwirt-schaft an den Klimawandel. Berlin: BMELV.

BMELV (Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz) (2011): Statistisches Jahrbuch über Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten. Berlin: BMELV.

BMELV (Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz) (2012): Nahrungsverbrauch und Verbraucherausgaben. Berlin: BMELV.

Burney, J.A.; Davis, S.J.; Lobell, D.B. (2010): Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107, pnas.0914216107.

Carlsson-Kanyama, A.; Gonzales, A.D. (2007): Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions associated with food production: methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). KTA report Trita-IMA 2007:22. Stockholm: IMA (KTH).

Carlsson-Kanyama, A.; Gonzales, A.D. (2009): Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change. In: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 89, p. 1704S-1709S.

Cofresco (2011): Vermeidbare Lebensmittelverschwendung in europäischen Haushalten: Erkenntnisse und Lösungs-ansätze. Minden: Cofresco.

Dalgaard, R.; Schmidt, J.; Halberg, N.; Christensen, P.; Thrane, M.; Pengue, W.A. (2008): LCA for Food Products: Case Study LCA of Soybean Meal. In: International Journal for Life Cycle Assessment 13, S. 240-254.

DBV (Deutscher Bauernverband) (2011): Situationsbericht 2011/12: Trends und Fakten zur Landwirtschaft. Berlin: DBV.

Destatis (Statistisches Bundesamt) (2012): Gebiet und Bevölkerung – Haushalte. Wiesbaden: Destatis.

Doyle, U. (2011): Wie wir überleben? Ernährung in Zeiten des Klimawandels – Fokus Fleisch. Berlin: Sachverständi-genrat für Umweltfragen.

DG Energy (2010): The impact of land use change on greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels and bioliquids: literature review. Brussels: European Commission.

EEA (2012): Annual European Union greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2010 and inventory report 2012. Technical report No 3/2012. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Eberle, U. (2008): Die Klimaauswirkungen unserer Ernährung. Vortrag auf dem Verbraucherpolitischen Forum „Essen eine Klimasünde? Wie Ernährung und Klima zusammenhängen“. Berlin: Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband.

European Commission (2006): Environmental impacts of products: analysis of life cycle environmental impacts. Technical report EUR 22284. Brussels: EC.

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2012): Global greenhouse gas data. Washington, DC: EPA.

Flessa, H. (2010): Klimaschutz und Landwirtschaft: Wo bestehen Handlungsbedarfe und wo gibt es Handlungsansät-ze? Braunschweig: vTI.

FOEN (Federal Office for the Environment) (2011): Environmental impacts of Swiss consumption and production: a combination of input-output analysis with life cycle assessment: Bern: FOEN.

Foresight (2011): The future of food and farming: Final project report. London: The Government Office for Science.

Fritsche, U.R.; Eberle, U. (2007): Treibhausgasemissionen durch Erzeugung und Verarbeitung von Lebensmitteln. Darmstadt: Öko-Institut e.V.

Garnett, T. (2008): Cooking up a storm: greenhouse gas emissions and our changing climate. Surrey: University of Surrey.

Garnett, T. (2010): Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (includ-ing the food chain)? In: Food Policy (2010). Doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.010.

Gibbs, H.K.; Ruesch, A.S.; Achard, F.; Clayton, M.K.; Holmgren, P.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J.A. (2010): Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. September 2010.

76

Haenel, H.D. (Hrsg.) (2010): Berechnungen der Emissionen aus der deutschen Landwirtschaft. Nationaler Emissions-bericht (NIR) 2010 für 2008. Sonderheft 334. Braunschweig: vTI.

IEA (International Energy Agency) (2008): CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. Paris: IEA.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2005): Corrigendum (GPGAUM-Corr.2001.01). Geneva: IPCC.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2006): IPCC guidelines for greenhouse gas inventories. Geneva: IPCC.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007): Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.

Isermeyer, F.; Freibauer, A.; Flessa, H.; Osterburg, B.; Schmidt, T.; Weigel, H.J.; Köhl, M.; Grünberg, J.; Nieberg, H. (2010): Landwirtschaft und Klimaschutz. Antworten des Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Instituts (vTI) für die öffentliche Anhörung des Ausschusses für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz des Deutschen Bundestages in Berlin am 22. Februar 2010. Braunschweig: vTI.

KfW (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau) (2008): Tropenwaldschutz als Klimaschutz: eine Positionsbestimmung. Frankfurt: KfW.

Kim, B.; Neff, R. (2009): Measurement and communication of greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. food consumption via carbon calculators. In: Ecological Economics (2009). Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.08.07.

Kramer, K.J.; Moll, H.C.; Nonhebel, S.; Wilting, H.C. (1998): Greenhouse gas emissions related to Dutch food con-sumption. In: Energy Policy 27, p. 203-216.

Kranert, M.; Hafner, G.; Barabosz, J.; Schuller, H.; Leverenz, D.; K, Kölbig, A.; Schneider, F.; Lebersorger, S.; Scherhau-fer, S. (2012): Ermittlung der weggeworfenen Lebensmittelmengen und Vorschläge zur Verminderung der Wegwerf rate bei Lebensmitteln in Deutschland. Stuttgart: Institut für Siedlungswasserbau, Wassergüte- und Abfallwirtschaft.

Leip, A.; Weiss, F.; Wassenaar, T.; Perez, I.; Fellmann, T.; Loudjani, P.; Tubellio, F.; Grandgirard, D.; Monni, S.; Biala, K. (2010): Evaluation of the livestock sector’s contribution to the EU greenhouse gas emissions (GGELS). Final report. Brussels: European Commission.

Marklund, L.G.; Batello, C. (2008): FAO datasets on land use, land use change, agriculture and forestry and their applicability for national greenhouse gas reporting: a background paper for the IPCC expert meeting on guidance on greenhouse gas inventories of land uses such as agriculture and forestry. Rome: FAO.

Meier, T.; Christen, O. (2011): Umweltwirkungen der Ernährung: Ökobilanzierung des Nahrungsmittelverbrauchs tieri-scher Produkte nach Gesellschaftsgruppen in Deutschland. Beitrag zur Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaus (GEWISOLA). Halle (Saale).

Meier, T.; Christen, O. (2012): Gender as a factor in an environmental assessment of the consumption of animal and plant-based foods in Germany. In: International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2012). Doi: 10.1007s/s11367-012-0387-x.

Monier, V.; Mudgal, S.; Escalon, V.; O’Connor, C.; Gibson, T.; Anderson, G.; Montoux, H.; Riceinger, H.; Dolley, P.; Ogil-vie, S.; Morton, G. (2010): Preparatory study on food waste across EU-27, Executive Summary. Brussels: European Commission.

Murphy-Bokern, D. (2010): Understanding the carbon footprint of food. In: Complete Nutrition 10, p. 61-63.

Nieberg, H. (2009): Auf den Nahrungskonsum zurückzuführende THG-Emissionen. In: Osterburg, B.; Nieberg, H.; Rüter, S.; Isermeyer, V.; Haenel, H.D.; Hahne, J.; Krentler, J.G.; Paulsen, H.M.; Schuchardt, F.; Schweinle, J.; Weiland, P. (Hrsg.): Erfassung, Bewertung und Minderung von Treibhausgasemissionen des deutschen Agrar- und Ernährungs-sektors. Arbeitsberichte aus der vTI-Agrarökonomie 03/2009. Braunschweig: vTI.

Noleppa, S. (2012): Agrarmärkte heute und morgen: Herausforderungen, Lösungsoptionen und Handlungsempfehlun-gen. Vortrag auf der BGA-Agrartagung Hamburg. Berlin: HFFA e.V.

Noleppa, S; von Witzke, H. (2012): Tonnen für die Tonne: Ernährung – Nahrungsmittelverluste – Flächenverbrauch. Berlin: WWF-Deutschland.

Popp, A.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Bodirsky, B. (2010): Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production. In: Global Environmental Change 20, p. 451-462.

Reinhardt, G.; Gärtner, S.; Münch, J.; Häfele, S. (2009): Ökologische Optimierung regional erzeugter Lebensmittel: Energie- und Klimabilanzen. Heidelberg: IFEU.

Risku-Norja, H.; Kurppa, S.; Helenius, J. (2010): Impact of consumers’ diet choices on greenhouse gas emissions. In: Koskela, M.; Vinnari, M. (eds.): Future of the consumer society. Turku: Finland Future Research Centre.

Schaffnit-Chatterjee, C. (2011): Minderung des Klimawandels in der Landwirtschaft: Ein ungenutztes Potenzial. Frankfurt am Main: Deutsche Bank Research.


Scherr, S.J.; Sthapit, S. (2009): Mitigating climate change through food and land use. In: Worldwatch report 179. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.

Schmidt, T.; Osterburg, B. (2010): Berichtsmodul „Landwirtschaft und Umwelt“ in den umweltökonomischen Totals-rechnungen: Tabellenband für die Berichtsjahre 1991, 1995, 1999, 2003 und 2007. Braunschweig: vTI.

Schwarz, G.; von Witzke, H.; Noleppa, S. (2011): Impacts of future energy price and biofuel production scenarios on international crop prices, production and trade. In: Schmitz, A., Wilson, N. (eds.): Economics of alternative energy sources and globalization. Oak Park, IL: Bentham Science Publishers.

Searchinger, T.; Heimlich, R.; Houghton, A.; Dong, F.; Elobeid, A.; Fabiosa, J.; Tokgoz, S.; Hayes, D.; Yu, T.-H. (2008): Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

Searchinger, T.; Heimlich, R. (2008): Estimating greenhouse gas emissions from soy-based US biodiesel when factor-ing in emissions from land use change. In: Outlaw, J.L.; Ernstes, D.P. (eds.): The lifecycle carbon footprint of biofuels. p. 35-45. Miami Beach, FL: Farm Foundation.

Sim, S.; Barry, M.; Clift, R.; Cowell, S.J. (2007): The relative importance of transport in determining an appropriate sustainability strategy for food sourcing. In: International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12, p. 422-431.

Smith, P.; Martino, D.; Cai, Z.; Gwary, D.; Janzen, H.H.; Kumar, P.; McCarl, B.; Ogle, S.; O’Mara, F.; Rice, C.; Scholes, R.J.; Sirotenko, O.; Howden, M.; McAllister, T.; Pan, G.; Romanenkov, V.; Schneider, U.; Towprayoon, S.; Wattenbach, M.; Smith, J.U. (2008): Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. In: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B. 363, p. 789-813.

Sonesson, U.; Davis, J.; Ziegler, F. (2010): Food production and emissions of greenhouse gases. SIK report no. 802 2010. Gothenburg: SIK.

Statistisches Bundesamt (2012): Bevölkerungsstand. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.

Stern, N. (2007): The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

SWC (Small World Consulting) (2010): The greenhouse gas footprint of Booths. Lancaster: SWC.

Sylvester-Bradley, R. (2008): Critique of Searchinger (2008) and related papers assessing indirect effects of biofuels on land-use change. Cambridge: ADAS Boxworth.

TLL (Thüringer Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft) (2009): Standpunkt zu Treibhausgas-Emissionen in der Landwirt-schaft und Potenziale ihrer Minderung in Thüringen. Jena: TLL.

Tukker, A.; Huppes, G.; Guinée, J.; Heijungs, R.; de Koning, A.; van Oers, L.; Suh, S.; Geerken, T.; van Holderbeke, M.; Jansen, B.; Nielsen P. (2006): Environmental impact of products (EIPRO): analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to the final consumption of the EU-25. Main report. Brussels: European Commission.

Tyner, W.E.; Taheripour, F.; Zhuang, Q.; Birur, D.; Baldos, U. (2010): Land use changes and consequent CO2 emissions due to US corn ethanol production: A comprehensive analysis. West Lafayette. In: Purdue University.

UBA (Umweltbundesamt) (2009): Nachhaltige Flächennutzung und nachwachsende Rohstoffe. Dessau-Roßlau. UBA.

UBA (Umweltbundesamt) (2010): Entwicklung der THG-Emissionen in Deutschland nach Sektoren. Dessau-Roßlau. UBA.

Venkat, K. (2012): The climate change and economic impacts of food waste in the United States. Portland, OR: CleanMetrics Corp.

von Witzke, H.; Noleppa, S.; Zhirkova, I. (2011): Fleisch frisst Land: Ernährung – Fleischkonsum – Flächenverbrauch. Berlin: WWF Deutschland.

von Witzke, H.; Noleppa, S. (2007): Methan und Lachgas – Die vergessenen Klimagase. Wie die Landwirtschaft ihren Beitrag zum Klimaschutz leisten kann: Ein klimaschutzpolitischer Handlungsrahmen. Berlin: WWF Deutschland.

Wang, M.; Haq, Z. (2008): Letter to Science. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

Wiegmann, K.; Schmidt, K. (2007): Treibhausgasemissionen durch Erzeugung und Verarbeitung von Lebensmitteln. Freiburg: Öko-Institut.

Williams, A.G.; Audsley, E.; Sandars, D.L. (2006): Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Main Report. Defra Research Project IS0205. Bedford: Cranfield University.

Wreford, A.; Moran, D.; Adger, N. (2010): Climate change and agriculture. Paris: OECD.

78

Annex 1: Per capita food consumption in Germany in 2009 and 2010

Food items 2009 (in kg)

2010 (in kg)

Cereal products

Wheat flour 62.8 66.4

Rye flour 9.3 8.9

Other cereal products 12.5 16.4

Rice, beans and pulses, potatoes

Rice 4.7 4.9

Beans and pulses 0.8 1.0

Potatoes 65.2 65.5

Potato starch 6.5 6.5

Sugar, honey and cocoa

Sugar 34.0 33.9

Honey 0.9 1.0

Cocoa liquor 3.1 3.2

Fruit and vegetables

Vegetables from horticulture* 91.8 92.7

Fruit from horticulture* 69.9 70.9

Citrus fruit 45.2 43.2

Nuts and nut-like seeds 3.9 4.1

Dried fruit 1.4 1.4

Meat and meat products, fish and fish products

Beef and veal 12.5 12.6

Pigmeat 54.1 54.4

Sheepmeat and goatmeat 0.9 0.8

Poultrymeat 18.8 19.3

Other meat 2.4 2.2

Fish and fish products 15.2 15.7

Milk and dairy products

Fresh milk products 85.2 84.6

Cream and cream products 5.9 5.7

Condensed milk products 2.7 2.7

Whole milk powder 1.6 1.3

Skimmed milk powder, powdered buttermilk 0.7 0.7

Cheese 22.3 22.8

Fats and oils, eggs and egg products

Butter 5.9 6.0

Vegetable fats (margarine, vegetable oil) 15.3 15.1

Eggs and egg products 13.0 13.1

Totals 668.8 676.9

Source: Own illustration based on BMELV (2012).* Fruit and vegetables produced for the marketplace excluding home garden products and traditional, extensively managed orchards

Annexes

Annex 2: Additional land footprint by region and agricultural product resulting from changes (2009-2010) in per capita food consumption in Germany (in 1,000 ha)

Whe

at

Gra

in m

aize

Feed

gra

in

Ric

e

Soy

a

Pal

m

Oils

eed

rape

Oth

er

oils

eeds

Cof

fee/

coco

a

Tea/

toba

cco

Frui

t

Vege

tabl

es/

pota

toes

Bea

ns a

nd

puls

es

Sug

ar

Bee

f

Pig

mea

t

Pou

ltrym

eat

She

epm

eat

Eggs

Milk

Tota

ls

North America 4.6 3.0 0.2 0.2 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 14.3

South America 0.7 11.9 0.2 0.6 15.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 –0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.9 –0.7 0.0 0.2 36.9

of which

Brazil 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 –0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.9

Argentina 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 –0.2 –0.1 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.1 –0.1 0.0 0.0 8.8

Asia 4.9 0.8 0.2 2.6 0.0 –0.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 –0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.9 12.6

Middle East/North Africa

11.7 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 –0.4 0.1 0.0 –0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 14.1

Sub-Saharan Africa

8.3 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 –0.3 –0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 11.1

EU 37.4 33.1 4.2 1.2 4.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 –0.2 6.0 0.7 –0.7 10.9 2.1 3.6 –6.6 0.0 20.6 117.9

Europe excl. EU 3.7 4.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 –0.7 2.9 0.2 0.0 2.0 0.5 0.6 –0.9 0.0 3.9 17.7

CIS 8.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.4 –0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 12.8

Oceania 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 –0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 –22.2 0.0 0.5 –21.3

Totals 79.4 54.4 6.3 4.8 24.3 –0.1 2.2 7.0 0.0 0.0 –2.0 9.9 1.3 –0.8 19.5 3.3 6.0 –30.5 0.1 31.1 216.3


Annex 3: Additional land footprint by region and agricultural product resulting from a healthier diet (Scenario Ia) in Germany (in 1,000 ha)

Whe

at

Gra

in m

aize

Feed

gra

in

Ric

e

Soy

a

Pal

m

Oils

eed

rape

Oth

er

oils

eeds

Cof

fee/

coco

a

Tea/

toba

cco

Frui

t

Vege

tabl

es/

pota

toes

Bea

ns a

nd

puls

es

Sug

ar

Bee

f

Pig

mea

t

Pou

ltrym

eat

She

epm

eat

Eggs

Milk

Tota

ls

North America 20.2 –3.3 –9.8 2.3 –89.5 0.0 –0.5 –2.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 –0.2 5.7 0.0 –20.6 –5.2 –0.1 0.0 0.1 23.9 –78.7

South America 3.3 –13.0 –7.3 7.6 –370.2 0.3 –0.1 –12.7 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.4 1.0 0.0 –272.3 –1.9 –14.1 –2.5 0.0 2.9 –672.3

of which 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Brazil 0.0 –10.5 –1.3 0.2 –267.3 0.0 0.0 –2.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.0 –48.7 0.0 –12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 –339.9

Argentina 0.3 –2.0 –2.6 0.3 –58.1 0.0 –0.1 –7.9 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.0 –136.6 0.0 –1.3 –0.4 0.0 0.0 –206.7

Asia 21.4 –0.8 –9.1 35.0 –1.0 3.2 0.0 –11.6 0.0 0.0 2.2 3.3 6.1 –0.3 –6.7 –13.7 –3.2 –0.1 0.0 29.6 54.1


51.4 –0.7 –18.9 0.7 –8.1 0.0 –0.3 –3.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 2.0 0.7 –7.4 –20.8 –0.1 –1.5 –0.1 0.0 14.8 8.8

Sub-Saharan Africa

36.4 –0.6 –3.1 0.5 –2.4 0.3 0.0 –3.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.6 0.3 –1.0 –28.2 –1.5 –1.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 12.1

EU 164.7 –36.0 –181.9 15.9 –105.5 0.4 –26.2 –38.4 0.0 0.0 13.0 4.5 14.2 –79.3 –698.0 –144.8 –58.7 –23.3 1.0 321.6 –856.7

Europe excl. EU 16.3 –4.3 –24.0 3.4 –4.2 0.0 –4.0 –7.1 0.0 0.0 3.6 6.1 5.6 –4.0 –131.0 –35.7 –10.0 –3.1 0.1 61.5 –130.7

CIS 36.1 –0.4 –14.1 0.2 –20.9 0.0 –6.8 –4.5 0.0 0.0 1.6 –1.0 11.3 –0.1 –51.0 –30.6 –9.9 –0.1 0.0 9.9 –80.2

Oceania 0.0 –0.1 –2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 –3.8 –0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.5 0.1 0.0 –18.1 –0.2 0.0 –78.2 0.0 8.4 –92.5

Totals 350.0 –59.2 –270.6 65.6 –601.7 4.1 –41.7 –83.5 0.0 0.0 26.3 21.3 45.1 –92.2 –1246.7 –233.8 –98.6 –107.4 1.3 485.8 –1836.0

Source: Own calculations and illustration. “–“ denotes a reduction in land footprint.

Annex 4: Additional land footprint by region and agricultural product resulting from a healthier diet (Scenario Ib) in Germany (in 1,000 ha)

Whe

at

Gra

in m

aize

Feed

gra

in

Ric

e

Soy

a

Pal

m

Oils

eed

rape

Oth

er

oils

eeds

Cof

fee/

coco

a

Tea/

toba

cco

Frui

t

Vege

tabl

es/

pota

toes

Bea

ns a

nd

puls

es

Sug

ar

Bee

f

Pig

mea

t

Pou

ltrym

eat

She

epm

eat

Eggs

Milk

Tota

ls

North America 6.6 –1.1 –3.2 0.7 –29.1 0.0 –0.2 –0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 –0.1 1.9 0.0 –6.7 –1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 –25.5

South America 1.1 –4.2 –2.4 2.5 –120.3 0.1 0.0 –4.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.3 0.0 –88.5 –0.6 –4.6 –0.8 0.0 0.9 –218.4

of which 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Brazil 0.0 –3.4 –0.4 0.1 –86.8 0.0 0.0 –0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 –15.8 0.0 –3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 –110.4

Argentina 0.1 –0.7 –0.8 0.1 –18.9 0.0 0.0 –2.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 –44.4 0.0 –0.4 –0.1 0.0 0.0 –67.2

Asia 7.0 –0.3 –3.0 11.4 –0.3 1.0 0.0 –3.8 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.1 2.0 –0.1 –2.2 –4.5 –1.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 17.6

Middle East/ North Africa

16.7 –0.2 –6.1 0.2 –2.6 0.0 –0.1 –1.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.2 –2.4 –6.8 0.0 –0.5 0.0 0.0 4.8 2.9

Sub-Saharan Africa

11.9 –0.2 –1.0 0.2 –0.8 0.1 0.0 –1.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.1 –0.3 –9.1 –0.5 –0.3 0.0 0.0 4.3 4.0

EU 53.6 –11.7 –59.0 5.2 –34.3 0.1 –8.5 –12.4 0.0 0.0 4.3 1.5 4.6 –25.8 –226.9 –47.0 –19.1 –7.6 0.3 105.1 –277.6

Europe excl. EU 5.3 –1.4 –7.8 1.1 –1.4 0.0 –1.3 –2.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.0 1.8 –1.3 –42.6 –11.6 –3.3 –1.0 0.0 20.1 –42.3

CIS 11.7 –0.1 –4.6 0.1 –6.8 0.0 –2.2 –1.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 –0.3 3.7 0.0 –16.6 –10.0 –3.2 0.0 0.0 3.3 –26.0

Oceania 0.0 0.0 –0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 –1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 –5.9 –0.1 0.0 –25.4 0.0 2.7 –30.0

Totals 113.8 –19.2 –87.8 21.3 –195.5 1.3 –13.5 –27.1 0.0 0.0 8.6 7.0 14.6 –30.0 –405.2 –76.0 –32.1 –34.9 0.4 158.8 –595.3


Annex 5: Additional land footprint by region and agricultural product resulting from a reduction in food waste (Scenario IIa) in Germany (in 1,000 ha)

Whe

at

Gra

in m

aize

Feed

gra

in

Ric

e

Soy

a

Pal

m

Oils

eed

rape

Oth

er

oils

eeds

Cof

fee/

coco

a

Tea/

toba

cco

Frui

t

Vege

tabl

es/

pota

toes

Bea

ns a

nd

puls

es

Sug

ar

Bee

f

Pig

mea

t

Pou

ltrym

eat

She

epm

eat

Eggs

Milk

Tota

ls

North America –22.4 –5.8 –9.0 –0.9 –36.7 0.0 –0.6 –2.9 0.0 0.0 –0.9 –0.7 –3.0 0.0 –4.1 –1.0 0.0 0.0 –0.1 –19.3 –78.6

South America –3.7 –23.2 –6.7 –3.1 –152.0 –0.1 –0.1 –19.6 0.0 0.0 –9.1 –1.3 –0.5 0.0 –54.0 –0.4 –2.8 –0.5 0.0 –2.3 –454.2

of which 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Brazil 0.0 –18.8 –1.1 –0.1 –109.7 0.0 0.0 –3.7 0.0 0.0 –1.9 –0.2 0.0 0.0 –9.7 0.0 –2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 –206.4

Argentina –0.3 –3.6 –2.4 –0.1 –23.8 0.0 –0.1 –12.3 0.0 0.0 –1.2 –0.3 –0.4 0.0 –27.1 0.0 –0.3 –0.1 0.0 0.0 –73.4

Asia –23.7 –1.5 –8.3 –14.2 –0.4 –1.0 0.0 –20.7 0.0 0.0 –6.3 –2.1 –3.2 –0.2 –1.3 –2.7 –0.6 0.0 0.0 –24.0 –185.8


–57.1 –1.2 –17.3 –0.3 –3.3 0.0 –0.3 –3.7 0.0 0.0 –2.6 –5.0 –0.4 –4.6 –4.1 0.0 –0.3 0.0 0.0 –12.0 –97.7

Sub-Saharan Africa

–40.4 –1.0 –2.9 –0.2 –1.0 –0.1 0.0 –5.5 0.0 0.0 –3.1 –0.9 –0.2 –0.6 –5.6 –0.3 –0.2 0.0 0.0 –10.6 –298.9

EU –182.7 –64.4 –166.6 –6.4 –43.3 –0.1 –29.3 –42.0 0.0 0.0 –36.6 –45.5 –7.6 –49.0 –138.3 –28.7 –11.6 –4.6 –0.9 –260.6 –1.006.8

Europe excl. EU –18.1 –7.7 –21.9 –1.4 –1.7 0.0 –4.5 –8.2 0.0 0.0 –10.0 –2.7 –3.0 –2.5 –26.0 –7.1 –2.0 –0.6 –0.1 –49.8 –194.7

CIS –40.1 –0.8 –12.9 –0.1 –8.6 0.0 –7.5 –5.1 0.0 0.0 –4.5 –1.6 –6.0 –0.1 –10.1 –6.1 –2.0 0.0 0.0 –8.1 –54.5

Oceania 0.0 –0.2 –2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 –4.2 –0.1 0.0 0.0 –1.0 –1.0 –0.1 0.0 –3.6 0.0 0.0 –15.5 0.0 –6.8 –29.1

Totals –388.2 –105.7 –247.8 –26.6 –247.0 –1.3 –46.5 –107.6 0.0 0.0 –74.1 –60.9 –23.9 –57.0 –247.1 –46.3 –19.5 –21.3 –1.2 –393.6 –2.405.8


Annex 6: Additional land footprint by region and agricultural product resulting from a reduction in food waste (Scenario IIb) in Germany (in 1,000 ha)

Whe

at

Gra

in m

aize

Feed

gra

in

Ric

e

Soy

a

Pal

m

Oils

eed

rape

Oth

er

oils

eeds

Cof

fee/

coco

a

Tea/

toba

cco

Frui

t

Vege

tabl

es/

pota

toes

Bea

ns a

nd

puls

es

Sug

ar

Bee

f

Pig

mea

t

Pou

ltrym

eat

She

epm

eat

Eggs

Milk

Tota

ls

North America –11.2 –2.9 –4.5 –0.5 –18.4 0.0 –0.3 –1.4 0.0 0.0 –0.5 –0.3 –1.5 0.0 –2.0 –0.5 0.0 0.0 –0.1 –9.7 –39.3

South America –1.8 –11.6 –3.4 –1.5 –76.0 0.0 0.0 –9.8 0.0 0.0 –4.6 –0.5 –0.3 0.0 –27.0 –0.2 –1.4 –0.2 0.0 –1.2 –226.9

of which 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Brazil 0.0 –9.4 –0.6 0.0 –54.9 0.0 0.0 –1.9 0.0 0.0 –0.9 –0.1 0.0 0.0 –4.8 0.0 –1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 –103.2

Argentina –0.2 –1.8 –1.2 –0.1 –11.9 0.0 0.0 –6.2 0.0 0.0 –0.6 –0.1 –0.2 0.0 –13.5 0.0 –0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 –36.6

Asia –11.9 –0.7 –4.2 –7.1 –0.2 –0.5 0.0 –10.3 0.0 0.0 –3.1 –1.0 –1.6 –0.1 –0.7 –1.4 –0.3 0.0 0.0 –12.0 –92.8


–28.5 –0.6 –8.6 –0.1 –1.7 0.0 –0.2 –1.9 0.0 0.0 –1.3 –2.4 –0.2 –2.3 –2.1 0.0 –0.2 0.0 0.0 –6.0 –48.7

Sub-Saharan Africa

–20.2 –0.5 –1.4 –0.1 –0.5 0.0 0.0 –2.7 0.0 0.0 –1.5 –0.3 –0.1 –0.3 –2.8 –0.1 –0.1 0.0 0.0 –5.3 –149.3

EU –91.4 –32.2 –83.3 –3.2 –21.7 –0.1 –14.6 –21.0 0.0 0.0 –18.3 –23.0 –3.8 –24.5 –69.2 –14.3 –5.8 –2.3 –0.5 –130.3 –503.6

Europe excl. EU –9.1 –3.9 –11.0 –0.7 –0.9 0.0 –2.2 –4.1 0.0 0.0 –5.0 –2.2 –1.5 –1.2 –13.0 –3.5 –1.0 –0.3 0.0 –24.9 –98.2

CIS –20.0 –0.4 –6.4 0.0 –4.3 0.0 –3.8 –2.6 0.0 0.0 –2.2 –0.9 –3.0 0.0 –5.1 –3.0 –1.0 0.0 0.0 –4.0 –27.3

Oceania 0.0 –0.1 –1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 –2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 –0.5 –0.2 0.0 0.0 –1.8 0.0 0.0 –7.7 0.0 –3.4 –14.2

Totals –194.1 –52.9 –123.9 –13.3 –123.5 –0.6 –23.3 –53.8 0.0 0.0 –37.0 –30.7 –12.0 –28.5 –123.5 –23.2 –9.8 –10.6 –0.6 –196.8 –1.203.1


© C

opyright WW

F International • October 2012

100%RECYCLED

WWF DeutschlandReinhardtstr. 14 10117 Berlin | Germany

Tel.: +49 (0)30 311 777 0Fax: +49 (0)30 311 777 199

Please support WWF

Offering Bank Account 2000

Bank für Sozialwirtschaft

BLZ 550 205 00

Why we are here

To stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment andto build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.

wwf.de | [email protected]

Healthy eating

67 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions – this is the amount the Germans could save by eating a healthy diet and avoiding food waste. It equals Portugal’s total GHG emissions in 2010.

Meat consumption

Food waste

Land use change

Dieticians recommend that we eat 75 % more vegetables and 44 % less meat. Healthier eating would reduce emissions by 27 million tons – as much as the emissions output of 2.3 million new passenger cars driving a distance of 100,000 km each

Agricultural land use change accounts for 10-12 % of global greenhouse gas emissions. The Germans’ eating habits impact on how land is used. Changes in German food consumption in 2010 alone increased demand for agricultural land by 215,000 ha, both domestically and overseas

Livestock-based foods account for almost 70 % of our food-related GHG emissions. Out of all the food groups, meat has the greatest impact on land and climate

Every year, the average German throws out 80 kg of food. Complete avoidance of food waste not only saves money but also helps the climate. 40 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions could be avoided every year

2012 - wwf · the emissions caused along this chain are called “direct” emissions. in addition...

Documents