The easiest way to do that is to create two forces, simulating a zombie apocalypse. One force is the "good" guys who want to maximize the number of survivors and the "bad" guys who want to maximize the amount of resources per survivor.

You can then see how, as the climate change destroys habitats, forcing good guys and bad guys into closer quarters, the tension between resource allocation and survivability naturally creates strife.

Also, the models can't do shit about predicting volcanos, eruptions, ocean burps and a bunch of aperiodic events that can expel methane and CO2 all without billionaires flying their jets around convincing everyone that Technology Jesus will save us.

Anyway, it's a seriously bad position to think that "if only we accepted climate change" that there'd suddenly be an agreement on how to implement "fair" controls on the drivers of change.

Climate change is a species consuming too many resources and causing their environment to not sustain their population.

Humans will survive, underground with the use of basic climate control tech. the earth will cool again, “humans” come back to the surface.

except, humans decided to create artificial materials that are destructive to reproduction. the genome will be so far removed that humans as we know them now wont exist. the fallout universe is an accurate representation.

Agriculture, total, is 10% of current US estimated greenhouse gas emission: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

Of that 10%, a lot of that is livestock, I've heard as high as 75-90%, but vegetable agriculture is still a part of that 10%, too.

But assuming all of that was livestock, it's still only 10%.

One of the reasons for the emphasis on "go vegan" as an individual choice is that the current industrial approach to cattle (cows for milk and beef) produces more methane than carbon and in some scenarios methane will have a 10x/100x impact on outcomes (making them much, much worse) per volume than carbon. But you can't just rely on eliminating methane production to "solve" climate change, because atmospheric carbon still "sets the tone", the question of atmospheric methane is how bad the "runaway" effects get after carbon has done more than enough damage on its own.

The rough number is that apparently 10% of CO2 equivalent comes from meat farming, but don’t trust this.

What did surprise me though is that a much larger benefit would result from repurposing the feed stock and grazing land, together comprising ~25% of the earths habitable land. Land and ecosystem restoration would likely result in feedback loops in the opposite direction.

I have a friend in Denmark that used to run a small carbon neutral farm, where the carbon offsets were all generated by other activities on his land. His all in cost for a kilo of pork was 700kr, or over $100 dollars. Meanwhile, you can but a kilo of port at a supermarket for ~$20. He could only sustain this because he ran a farm restaurant selling the best burgers in town, and even these were probably a loss leader for his best-in-town fries and mayonnaise making up the difference.

"...following a phaseout of livestock production would, through the end of the century, have the same cumulative effect on the warming potential of the atmosphere as a 25 gigaton per year reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, providing half of the net emission reductions necessary to limit warming to 2°C." (emphasis mine)

It would be the equivalent of people in the 1970s deciding to not move away from ozone-layer destroying CFCs and deciding to fit all humans and animals with permanent sunglasses to prevent cataracts instead.

Yeah, what could go wrong...