US agriculture was modeled to determine impacts of removing farmed animals on food supply adequacy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The modeled system without animals increased total food production (23%), altered foods available for domestic consumption, and decreased agricultural US GHGs (28%), but only reduced total US GHG by 2.6 percentage units. Compared with systems with animals, diets formulated for the US population in the plants-only systems had greater excess of dietary energy and resulted in a greater number of deficiencies in essential nutrients.

Establishing that major carbon producers are causally contributing to climate impacts and climate harms is only the first step in accountability. The question remains: can we hold them responsible?

KATHMANDU: Global warming is not only posing a serious threat to glaciers, it will also result in a loss of 33 per cent of total ice volume in the Hindu Kush Himalayan (HKH) region by the end of th

Global warming is expected to intensify the Earth’s hydrological cycle and increase flood and drought risks.

A critical question for agricultural production and food security is how water demand for staple crops will respond to climate and carbon dioxide (CO2) changes, especially in light of the expected increases in extreme heat exposure. To quantify the trade-offs between the effects of climate and CO2 on water demand, we use a ‘sink-strength’ model of demand which relies on the vapour-pressure deficit (VPD), incident radiation and the efficiencies of canopy-radiation use and canopy transpiration; the latter two are both dependent on CO2.