 We're living in a time where we really could, everyone in this room, live to be over a hundred years old. We could be thriving on this planet. We could have health and wellness. We could have sustainable food for all for the first time in human history. But as we've heard a lot about today, the ecological resources that we depend on are on the verge of collapse. And the dominant story is that the world's population is going to grow to 9 billion by mid-century, putting substantial demands on the planet's food supply. So we've got a double production. We've got to increase yields. And we've got to throw every tool in the box that we've got at that, and it's a race, more food. But this story is based on false assumptions because actually changing diets, not population growth, is the dominant driver of food demand that's putting pressure on our food systems and our environmental systems. So if two billion people come to join us here and they stay eating their traditional diets, that's not such a problem. Three to four billion people increasingly eating foods that are the most resource-intensive is putting tremendous pressure on our food and environmental systems. So why is it that we don't rally every entrepreneur and advocate and inventor and investor to address consumption? To address designing a food system that is designed to produce foods that nourish us and foods that make us thrive. It's time for a new story of food. And I want us to ask the question, how can we nourish all of humanity adequately, equitably and sustainably? And that largely depends on how we define this loosey-goosey mushy term of sustainable. And I actually have a proposal in the context of food of a definition and a framework that we might apply to looking at sustainable food. So if we like people, we want people to be fed, then I would suggest that a definition of sustainable food would be to nourish humanity while operating within planetary boundaries. So we heard a little bit today about the work at the Stockholm Resiliency Center to actually frame what are our planetary boundaries. So there are actual biophysical limitations. We can't infinitely increase more and more food forever. We can't just push out into our natural environments. There are biophysical boundaries. And there were some core areas that were identified, climate change, ocean acidification, nitrogen cycle, phosphorus cycle, biodiversity loss, changes in land use, and water, fresh water. So in all of these areas, some of these, there is a safe operating space in which humanity can operate to live sustainably on this planet. But there are thresholds. If we cross them, then we change these systems into a state that we cannot reverse them within our lifetimes. So climate change, the two degrees that we hear about, is one of those tipping points. But we have the same for biodiversity loss and for nitrogen and for phosphorus and for certain other things. So in order to adequately, equitably and sustainably nourish everyone in the world, we have to design a food system that nourishes humanity and sits within these boundaries. And to do that, we're going to have to take a look at what we eat. And we're going to have to take a look at what's in the center of our plates. And that's meat. We're going to have to talk about meat consumption. And that is because these animal-sourced foods are so resource-intensive, and they push against each of these planetary boundaries. So we're hearing a lot about climate change right now. But I want to touch briefly, while I will talk about climate change, I want to talk about deforestation, water stress, water pollution, biodiversity loss, and also touch on food security. And meat is hard to talk about. It makes people really uncomfortable, especially environmentalists. And it's uncomfortable for me to talk about meat in New Zealand. But we have to acknowledge that we have different dietary philosophies and also acknowledge the role that meat plays in our lives and in our cultures and set that over here for a second while we take a look at the facts. So what Malthus didn't talk about was the other population bomb. And that's raising 70 billion animals to feed 7.2 billion people. So globally, livestock weigh twice as much as all humans and all large animals on earth combined. That's a tremendous amount of biomass. That's nature flowing through livestock and into humans. So livestock dominate human land use. They occupy a third of the ice-free surface of the earth, and that's 75% of our global agricultural land. We're talking about a lot. I think it's hard for us to imagine the scale, but we're talking about a lot of meat and milk and eggs. And imagine now doubling that, because that's what we're projecting. We're projecting that we're going to have to produce twice as much animal-sourced foods as we do today, because we're experiencing this meatification of global diets and eating these foods in higher quantities than we ever have before. So what are the consequences of that? Well, deforestation. 80% of the deforested Amazon land is used for pasture or to grow feed for livestock. So a lot of times we're thinking cows, but I think it's also really important to say that we're growing quite a lot of grain. Most of the soy going from Brazil now is going to China to feed China's pigs. So it's not just cows that are a consequence for deforestation. And then we don't only lose those beautiful forests that are carbon sponges, as we tend to think about them now in the climate change debate, but we lose all the beautiful life forms that are living in those areas. And so livestock production is a huge threat to biodiversity. 30% of biodiversity lost worldwide is directly attributable to livestock, although that number could be much higher. So this here is actually drawn to scale from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. The large bubble is all the ocean water on earth, all the water on earth. The next one is all the fresh water. And the smallest one is all the water available to us here on the planet, drinking water. So 70% of this global fresh water is dedicated to agriculture. And one hamburger takes almost 10 bathtubs of water to produce. So, you know, with 2.5 billion people who already live in areas subject to water stress, and by 2025 it's projected to be half of all humanity. Is this how we want to use our precious water resources? I think we need to start thinking about that. And that it's not, again, it's not just cows, because if you look here, plant-based proteins require significantly less water than every type of animal product. And it's not just about water depletion, but it's also about water pollution. And the livestock sector is the leading contributor to water pollution, and that comes largely from all the fertilizers that are applied to the grains, but also from the manures and washing down into the water systems. So there's 404 dead zones where no ocean life can live, and that number is doubling every decade since the 1960s. Phosphorus, so it's something we don't talk about very much, but it's a finite resource, we can't synthesize it like we do nitrogen, and it's predicted to peak in the 21st century. And 72% of our global phosphorus footprint comes from livestock foods. Climate change, as we learned today, agriculture and energy production are the two largest contributors to global warming, and animal agriculture contributes the lion's share of those emissions from agriculture. And 14.5%, it may not sound like much, but to put it in perspective, it's about equivalent to all the fuel that's burned to power the world's transportation. So think shipping of boats and planes and trains and cars. That's a tremendous amount of emissions. And it's also the largest single source of non-CO2 emissions, which if we do nothing are predicted to triple by 2055. So how do livestock contribute to climate change? We think a lot about cow farts, and it's a funny joke, and everyone talks about it a lot, and that's part of it. Definitely 40% of the problem is the inter-affirmation of ruminants. But actually we have to look all the way back from forest to fork, from the land that is cleared to create space for the livestock, fertilizers that are applied to the feed, the energy that's used through this whole system, the manure is going to be off-gassing, and the transport and processing afterwards, we hear a lot about local foods, but really just that's a very small emissions footprint relative to the emissions that come from the production of feed and from the inter-affirmation of the animals themselves. So if current global dietary trends continue, then emissions could be up to 80% greater by 2050. And that would occupy about 70% of our global emissions budget to keep us in line with our two-degree target. So this is not staying within planetary boundaries. And globally, public awareness is really low. We actually supported some global research, which is the largest ever public survey test people's awareness on meat consumption and climate change, and relative to all other drivers of climate change, awareness of this was very, very low. And also it's not on the global climate agenda. So we don't see our climate leaders and advocates talking about this. We don't see it included in our climate policies. So whereas there's a race to innovate around energy and transportation, there is no race to innovate around low emissions, animal-sourced foods, or race to figure out how to move our dependency on animal-based foods out of our diets when it's so urgent. But the research shows us that it's actually this incredible opportunity that we could actually cut the cost of mitigating climate change in half if we were to include the livestock sector. So this is a tremendous opportunity for those of us who care about dealing with climate change so quickly and swiftly and efficiently. But the cornucopia in Mantra still wins the game, and that world wants more meat and we must produce it. We absolutely must produce it. And so we're trying to do so as sustainably as possible and as efficiently as possible. And we have to be so careful here because the sustainability language gets used to promote things like feedlots. You can find yourself saying, how is this sustainable? This is a feedlot in Texas, not far from where my mother grew up, and there's about 15,000 of them in the U.S., and some of them have over 100,000 animals on them, and they're very efficient. They take very little land relative to all the space that cows take if they're left out of the grass, and I'll get actually a little bit more into that. But efficiency, this idea of efficiency, it's a model pig farm in Brazil. And I'm not showing this for animal cruelty, I'm just sharing that this is something that is celebrated that we can produce, take all the waste from these animals, and put it into an anaerobic digester and produce energy from it. So, you know, a lot of ag tech investment is going into biogas right now, and I think what a lot of people don't realize is that biogas depends on factory farming. And because you can't go capture all those emissions from the happy cows out in the fields, they have to be enclosed in an environment, and if they're enclosed in an environment, that means they're fed a lot of grain. And that grain takes a lot of space and produces a lot of emissions, as we learned as well, and takes a tremendous amount of water. And if the goal is to optimally nourish people sustainably, a grain-dependent livestock system is a major concern for food security. And it's not just an environmental problem, it's a global food justice problem, an environmental justice problem, and there's also a human health cost to producing all of this grain. So yes, because the human health cost of people living near factories that are suffering from the air and water quality, but also because grain takes these grain, producing it in this way requires a tremendous amount of pesticides. So the agrochemicals going on to this grain has a real human health impact. And there's also one of the greatest human health threats is that we are possibly looking towards a post-antibiotic era through antibiotic resistance. And a lot of our exposure to antibiotics is coming through the animal foods that we eat. 50 to 80% of all the antibiotics in the world are used on livestock that are raised in these intensive systems. But as I mentioned before, if we look here at the graph, the red bar all the way to the right is extensively raised, so it's grass-fed meat produced more emissions per gram of protein than an intensively raised cow. So when you're measuring it by emissions alone and per gram of protein, this is where that efficiency myth comes from. This is the data behind that story that factory farmers are able to tell how they're part of the sustainability solution. So efficiency, technical mitigation, what the data shows us is that even if we're to upgrade all the farms in the world to the most efficient technologies and if we were able to capture all the waste from those systems, we still could not meet our two-degree climate targets just by the increased demand for animal foods alone. So the only thing that gets us to that goal is an overall reduction in animal-sourced foods. So then, you know, people ask me, they're like, oh, you're so alarmist. Like, I don't have to worry about this. We're going to grow all our meat in the lab. And even robots are going to do it, and they're going to 3D print it. That's going to be awesome. So I don't know what you're worried about. And I know a lot of the guys working on this stuff and it'd be fantastic. If people want to eat meat and you can produce it without passing it through an animal and people would like to eat that, I think that's okay for the environment. No, I mean, you know, from an environmental perspective it would be a great thing. But, you know, we're still about 20 years out from that. In the meantime, we just keep consuming. The other one is grass-fed meat. So, you know, livestock play a really important, there's a lot of permaculture in the room. They play such an important role in integrated farming systems. I mean, we domesticated our plants at the same time that we domesticated these animals. And the whole system is designed to work in tandem with one another, just like nature does. It's a relationship between plants and animals and humans. But we can't just all switch our consumption to grass-fed meat. 7.2 billion people cannot all eat grass-fed meat in the way that we can, you know, that people do today. And that's, yes, because it produces more methane. So that's a problem for climate change. And also because of the land area needed to produce animals in this way. If we were to shift towards a predominantly plant-based diet, the research shows we could liberate so much land. We could liberate billions of acres of pasture, some of which could be reforested, and some of which could be used to produce food directly for humans. In fact, it's estimated that we could feed an additional 4 billion people if we were to feed food directly to humans. And also, we could feed another billion people just on food waste. So my point is that we, you know, in trying to raise to produce more and more and more food, we're missing out on these incredible opportunities that we don't need new technology for. They're here today, and it's an opportunity that's available to us today. And we could feed people abundantly, but we do need to redefine abundance. So right now, it's like a bounty of meat and a smorgasbord, and you go into Sizzler's Steakhouse and can have a plate of seafood and beef and everything you want, and that means, you know, wealth and prosperity. And, you know, if we start thinking of abundance in the sense of, you know, in the sense of what do we need to eat to be healthy and nourished and sustainably, we would grow very different foods. Because what we know is that eating mostly plants is what is beneficial for us to live long and healthy lives. There's a lot of debate about whether it's 100% or 10%, like at the margins of how much animal foods we need in our diet. There's a lot of debate there, but we do know that eating mostly plants is beneficial for us, and that's not the way most of us are eating today. So there's a tremendous amount of room. And by shifting towards a plant-based diet, we just, the lower we can go, the lower our food print from our food will be. And so the future of food is right for disruption. This comes from Bill Gates saying that only 8% of the world's plant proteins have been explored for human consumption. So imagine a whole diversity and variety of legumes and vegetables and seeds and bringing back a lot of the heirloom and native and traditional plant foods from all over the world. We haven't even begun to discover them because we have such a narrow idea of what we grow and what we can grow in large amounts. So the future of food could look like this beautiful, diverse, wide range of plant-based foods if we start thinking beyond just yields and we start thinking about people that are nourished per acre rather than how many calories we can get out of an acre. So the design challenge is to innovate around shifting consumption and innovate around distribution. It's not either science and technology or everybody's sacrifices for somebody else. It's yes and it's science and technology building us towards a future of abundant food for all. And there's a role for everyone. A role for governments and businesses and NGOs and the media. And there's a whole spectrum of activity and action happening in each one of these domains that I'll be happy to talk with anybody about and share afterwards. So in closing, through a transition to healthy and sustainable diets we can mitigate climate change swiftly, adapt to a climate impacted world, sequester emissions through liberating land and to transform our food system to one that values yields per acre to one that values people nourished per acre. Thank you.