> Repurposed to use more modern AND sustainable agriculture techniques This answers my question. I was wondering if you were suggesting that arable land be re

> Repurposed to use more modern AND sustainable agriculture techniques This answers my question. I was wondering if you were suggesting that arable land be repurposed for carbon capture rather than food production, thus the question, how to feed 11 billion people (projected peak world population). In any case, I think we're making arguments in slightly different directions. Surely, there are more sustainable farming approaches such as no-till, etc, which saves the CO2 emissions. Let's presume we've use those approaches and have a field full of corn (or wheat, or what have you) ready to harvest with zero carbon emissions and slightly reduced yield. Then what? That corn still needs to be harvested at 3.8 gallons of diesel per acre and then transported to market. > questionable appetite for meat As most other countries, especially developing ones consume way less meat, this is a US specific problem, though admittedly it makes a significant contribution to greenhouse gasses. > The problem of world hunger is NOT a "global food production limit" problem The basis of my arguments has less to do with world hunger as a problem that exists today and more to do with the fact that peak global population is estimated to be 11 billion folks. Feeding that population will be difficult to do with yields well below current industrial farming practices. > we won't, since we have established that the traditional methods are unsustainable. People will die, either from hunger or from climate-related catastrophes. We should hit ~10 billion by 2050, I doubt there'll be massive climate change related catastrophes by then. 11 billion is projected by 2100, and well, unless something changes then we likely would. In any case, thanks for engaging in this discourse. Likely, we agree more than not that more sustainable agriculture practices will be needed.