You cannot use that page alone to make this determination. You need to click through the links, where they show how they derived those numbers. In general, th

You cannot use that page alone to make this determination. You need to click through the links, where they show how they derived those numbers. In general, they aren't breaking down sources of emissions, they're breaking down potential solutions with reasonable adoption rates. E.g. look at this for electric vehicles. https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/transport/electric-vehicles https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/transport/electric-vehicl... The 10 gigatons of reduced CO2 is assuming 16% adoption if EV's. Therefore its not claiming 10 gigatons of CO2 comes from ICE engines. This is probably a better link for greenhouse gas sources, at least for the USA: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... Edit: this view also ignores that lard is mostly thrown away currently. Using it would actually reduce waste. It won't realistically be a problem until the demand for lard outstrips demand for other animal products such as meat and their hides.