REGARDLESS of our intentions, almost all our actions contribute to climate change in one way or another. Even by sitting still, as long as we have a light, fan or air-conditioner on, we are actively contributing to the problem.

Unfortunately, there isn’t really too much one can do to ensure that running our apartment or house doesn’t result in significant emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

We can buy and install solar panels but these can be expensive, and the majority of us will still be dependent on Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) for most of our domestic electricity needs.

And if TNB continues to invest heavily in fossil fuels for power generation, what power do we, as citizens, really have in mitigating our contributions to climate change?

While we may not be able to affect the electricity generation decisions of a massive entity like TNB, we do have full control over what goes onto the plate of food in front of us whenever we sit down to a meal. And this plate of food can significantly impact our personal carbon footprint.

Vermeulen et al (2012) find that just under 30% of man-made greenhouse gas emissions arise from the life-cycle of food production.

The effect of food production on the environment extends beyond merely emissions. Around 25% of land on Earth is dedicated to livestock grazing, a third of farmland is used to grow animal feedstock (i.e. food that’s fed to the livestock that humans eventually consume), around 80% of global deforestation is driven by the land-use requirements of agriculture, and half of the annual water consumption in the United States is attributable to meat, dairy, and egg farming alone.

These numbers illustrate just how huge an impact the food production industry has on the environment and the climate.

More importantly, it highlights the enormous potential that sustainable diets can have on mitigating some of the worst effects of climate change.

So what counts as part of a sustainable diet? Let’s consider an example. There is, for instance, a very large difference in the carbon footprints of nasi lemak with chicken rendang and nasi lemak with beef rendang. The reason? Beef.

Hamerschlag (2011) finds that producing 1kg of beef results in 27kg of CO2-equivalent emissions (and uses around 15,000 litres of water), while the same quantity of chicken (and most poultry) produces 6.9kg CO2 equivalent.

These results, confirmed by numerous other studies looking into the life-cycle emissions of various foods, illustrate the striking impact of beef on the environment. Put into a local context, replacing beef rendang with chicken rendang cuts the carbon footprint of one’s nasi lemak dish by almost 75%.

Now let’s dig a little deeper into this nasi lemak example, and throw in a vegetarian alternative to rendang as the source of protein for the dish – soy-based rendang.

Mejia et al (2016) find that the production of 1kg of such soy-based artificial meat results in emissions of 2.4kg CO2 equivalent. Replacing beef with soy-based artificial meat leads to an emissions reduction of 91%, and replacing chicken with the vegetarian alternative cuts emissions by more than 65%.

If vegetables, such as spinach, are used instead of soy-meat, these reductions are even more prominent. The truth is that vegetarian diets are by and large far less harmful to the environment than diets which heavily emphasise the consumption of meat.

The high baseline figures of the impact of food production on the environment indicate that there is tremendous potential in effective climate action through reductions in the carbon intensity of our food consumption choices. Yet, most of us are completely unaware just how significantly our dining decisions affect climate change.

Here, there is ample space for the government to intervene. One option would be the implementation of a policy whereby supermarkets and restaurants are required to display the carbon footprint of the products and/or dishes they sell.

This move would serve to expose the public to the environmental impacts of their food purchasing decisions on a very regular basis. With such information, consumers may be nudged towards more sustainable eating habits.

At the end of the day, short of a carbon tax imposed on emissions-intensive producers, there is a limited scope of policies that the government can implement in a way that doesn’t infringe upon the freedom citizens have to privately decide what they want to have for dinner. Addressing the issue of imperfect information through clear labelling is good enough.

At present, food is a necessity which causes the planet tremendous harm, but it really doesn’t have to be. Cutting the carbon footprint of our meals is an entirely personal choice and it is one of the few areas in life in which we can have full control over our contribution to the issue of climate change. We should exercise this power to reduce our negative impact on the planet.

On the dinner table, going green literally involves going for the greens – not the white, and certainly not the red. – September 18, 2018.

* Darshan Joshi is an Analyst at Penang Institute in Kuala Lumpur. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Economics from the University of New South Wales, and a Master’s degree in Public Policy from the University of Chicago. His true passions lie in the analyses of global energy- and environmental-related issues. He views climate change as the most significant issue to face contemporary society.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.