FAQ

Does everyone have to completely stop eating meat to save the planet?

No, because meat is such a powerful pollutant that simply reducing the amount we consume would make a big difference. And there are a few impoverished areas of the world where local populations depend on animals to get their protein requirements because a single animal can provide the amino acids that only a combination of plants do. The number of locations where meat is necessary for human survival, however, is small.

If we stop eating meat won’t we have to use even more farmland to grow crops?

No, because we have to feed far more crops to livestock than we get back in terms of calories and protein. A new report from Our World in Data shows that 75% of the land we currently use for agriculture could be returned to nature.^​1​

If animal agriculture is so bad for the planet, why I didn’t know about it? Why don’t governments do more about it?

Studies show that most people are not aware that animal agriculture is one of the principal drivers of climate change,^​2​ and there are many theories behind this. One is that journalists themselves are not aware, have their own biases and do not want to antagonise their audience with uncomfortable truths – and the same goes for governments.^​3​ Another is that the multi-billion dollar industry has successfully suppressed information from reaching the public in the same way that fossil fuel companies did earlier.^​4​  Meat and dairy corporations have successfully lobbied governments to continue subsidising their businesses while avoiding legislation that would hold them accountable for their carbon footprints.^​5​

How much of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions come from animal agriculture?

The most widely cited estimate, from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, is that livestock account for around 14.5% of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions — a share comparable to the exhaust from every car, truck, ship and plane on the planet combined.⁶ Some more recent research puts the figure higher still: a 2021 study calculated that animal-based foods produce roughly twice the emissions of plant-based foods.⁷ The exact percentage depends on what is counted — particularly whether the clearing of forests for pasture and feed is included.

Is beef really worse than chicken or pork?

Yes, and by a wide margin. Gram for gram of protein, beef and lamb generate several times more greenhouse gas than pork, and many times more than chicken.⁸ This is mostly because cattle and sheep are ruminants — their digestion produces large quantities of methane — and because they require far more land and feed for each kilogram of meat. Reducing beef and lamb consumption therefore delivers the single biggest dietary saving, even before giving up meat altogether.

Is it better for the climate to buy local meat?

Surprisingly little, if at all. What you eat matters far more than how far it travelled. Transport typically accounts for less than 10% of the emissions from food, and for beef it is a tiny fraction of the total; the overwhelming majority comes from the farming itself.⁹ A plant-based meal shipped across the world generally has a smaller carbon footprint than local beef.⁸ Buying local is worthwhile for other reasons, but it is not an effective way to cut the climate impact of a meat-heavy diet.

Isn’t the methane from cows just part of a natural carbon cycle?

It is true that methane breaks down in the atmosphere over time, and that the carbon in it originally came from plants. But this argument overlooks two things. First, the sheer scale: the world’s roughly 1.5 billion cattle, together with other ruminant livestock, vastly exceed the wild ruminant populations of the pre-industrial past, so their methane is a large net addition rather than a natural balance. Second, while it is in the atmosphere, methane is a powerful warming agent — at least 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a century, and considerably more over the first two decades.¹⁰ A continuous, elevated supply keeps atmospheric concentrations high and continues to drive warming.

Can’t “sustainable” or regenerative farming solve the problem without eating less meat?

Better practices can reduce the emissions of livestock farming, but the evidence indicates they cannot reconcile current levels of meat consumption with a stable climate. Claims that grass-fed or “regenerative” grazing is carbon-neutral do not survive scrutiny: a major Oxford review found that the soil-carbon storage from grazing is limited, temporary and easily reversed, and is far outweighed by the methane the animals emit.¹¹ The UN’s own climate-and-land report concludes that eating less meat offers some of the largest available opportunities to cut emissions — in a way that efficiency improvements alone cannot match.¹² This is why claims of “sustainable” animal agriculture should be treated with caution; too often they serve to reassure consumers rather than reflect the science.