Professor Valérie Masson-Delmotte:

I just gave the example of those organisations from Denmark and Sweden. My understanding is that they moved from the food system assessment of emissions - farm and supply chain - to having a clear strategy to reduce them. It is also driven by the demand of their consumers. It is about having both sides working together, so they are basically exemplary in a way. The second point was about accounting for different gases. There are different ways of aggregating gases that have a long lifetime in the atmosphere like CO2 and N2O and those that have shorter lifetime such as methane. It depends on the time horizon. The committee may be familiar with CO2 equivalence, where it is calculated over 100 years, but if we look at 1.5° Celsius warming, which may happen in a few decades, it does not work. That is why, for the 1.5° Celsius report, we were very clear. We have CO2 on one side. Then we measure the other elements by their aggregated radiative forcing and we show that it is necessary to act on both; CO2 emissions to go to net zero and then a decrease of the radiative forcing of the others. That gives flexibility. It is hard to get out of N2O emissions due to the need for fertilisers for food production but there is strong potential for many aspects related to methane, including waste and other elements in addition to livestock. Due to the fact that methane has a short lifetime in the atmosphere of about ten years, there is also potential for almost immediate benefits of acting strongly on methane.