1st Response to Dr. Sailesh Rao

9:01 PM Monday.

My comment on Dr Sailesh Rao | Seeing the Big Picture on Climate Change:

Greetings, Sailesh. You and Will Tuttle have certainly given the vegan community a very controversial pair of presentations to consider! While I find myself in resounding agreement with much that you have shared, I also have major questions about each of the four foundational "Planet B" truths that you refer to in your book on Amazon. As far as your fourth truth is concerned - "Animal husbandry is the leading cause of climate change, while stopping fossil fuel use now is suicidal" - I wonder if you have found public support for this two-fold view among any PhD-level climate scientists in the Global South, and in India and China specifically? I myself held and argued a methane abatement-intensive version of this two-fold view in a challenge to James Hansen back in 2013 but did not get very far with it before I was overtaken by a psychiatric disability. (I am recovering reasonably well thanks to God and good American clinical care). Now it seems to me that climate scientists in the Global South, especially in China and India, should be very interested in your research, and should in fact be taking the lead on it. There are nuances to debate, of course (exactly how much of man-made climate change is caused by fossil fuel use, and how much by animal husbandry; exactly how quickly or slowly do we need to phase out specific fossil fuel types; exactly how should we handle our global dimming "Faustian bargain"), but nuances aside, the case for near-term vegan transition in response to a climate emergency seems rock solid. 

Are you aware of any movement to get your two-fold logic model on the agenda in a serious way at COP31, and during the 2026 US midterm elections? What about a World Health Organization PHEIC declaration like we had for COVID-19? I am guessing you have given all of this due consideration.

I know it's hard to do more than estimate some crude rules of thumb, but do you think if 1 in 3 people worldwide go vegan, 1 in 3 go vegetarian, and 1 in 3 go flexitarian by 2050, that will be fast enough to solve the climate emergency, or do you think we need a lot more people to go vegan a lot sooner than 2050? 

I have many other questions for you but let me leave it here for now. Please feel free to respond in public or in private, whichever you prefer. You should have my email by now. Namaste.

End 9:05 PM.

Addendum 5:38 PM Tuesday 23 December 2025. Sailesh replied:

Namaste! I have found support for the fourth foundational truth among academics around the world in private, but most decline to support it in public due to financial and societal pressures. As you point out, the case is rock solid for a global near-term Vegan transformation in response to not just the climate emergency, but also the larger ecological emergency in which the climate is embedded. And these academics are smart people who have reached the same conclusions as you and I.

At Climate Healers, we are planning to go full steam ahead with promoting our Planet B systems engineering framework in the lead-up to and during UN COP31. Our academic paper on this topic just got published in the Journal of Planetary Health and you can find the link on our home page.

With respect to your 2050 question, here is my response. When two of the seven planetary boundary transgressions on biosphere integrity (loss of wildlife) and novel entities (chemical pollution) are rated at high risk of destabilizing the life-support systems of the planet, it is suicidal to take decades to do the needful transformation. In fact, if we can wave a magic wand to eliminate the animal agriculture industry and convert into a 100% plant-based Vegan world overnight, it is unclear that biodiversity will fully reverse its current extinction spiral. In my systems engineering estimation, we won't know if we have caused irreversible damage to the planet's life-support systems already until we all go Vegan and verify.  

We are currently running a planetary-scale experiment in which humans are the laboratory mice.

I responded in turn:

Thank you so much for your response and for your UN COP31 leadership, Sailesh. I had a feeling that my 1-in-3 vegan by 2050 rule of thumb was much too lax, but it helps to hear you confirm it, especially in the context of the broader ecological emergency of which the climate emergency is just one part. Theoretically, I am compelled by the evidence to agree with you that it would be best for the planet if 100% of the Earth's population went vegan in 2026. I certainly felt this way back in 2013. But in terms of a practically achievable political target, your input now has me reaching with heavily guarded optimism toward something like 50% vegan by 2030 and 100% vegan by 2035. This is a daunting enough political miracle to envision. As you say in your book title, it would be the greatest transformation in human history. I cannot imagine it happening without a UN Security Council resolution and a WHO PHEIC, which many libertarians in America will likely reject as an authoritarian UN power grab. But we must follow the evidence, despite the inevitable obstacles. I look forward to reading your paper over the holidays.

With respect to your book, I need to confess that I was somewhat perplexed by your first three foundational Planet B truths as I read the description on Amazon. I thought most plant-foods were incomplete proteins; that eating enough calories alone does not always guarantee enough calcium; and that we don't know yet whether to engineer for purpose-driven degrowth or purpose-driven green growth. Is this a common reaction to your Planet B framework? Are my hesitations fully addressed in your book?

One final question and then I will let you go for the holidays. I understand you think net zero by 2050 is a misplaced way to frame the goal. But do you agree with the IPCC that at some point along the road we need to get to net zero/net negative? It seems important to align as much as possible with the IPCC consensus, even while blowing the whistle on IPCC blind spots.

End 5:40 PM.

Addendum 5:09 AM 24 December 2025. Sailesh replied:

When our house is on fire, we must do what is necessary, not just what is possible. 

All plant foods have all amino acids, both essential and non-essential, and therefore, complete protein. For more details, please look for Christopher Gardner et al's journal article from 2019 entitled, "Maximizing the intersection of human health and the health of the environment with regard to the amount and type of protein produced and consumed in the United States." 

For the calcium myth, please check out Dr. John McDougall Foundation's web page on the #2 Deadly Dietary Deception: Calcium. From the web page, I quote, "...calcium deficiency is not known to occur in humans on any natural diets." 

Yes, certainly, we need to aim for net zero and get to net negative as soon as possible, with proper accounting.

End 5:10 AM.