Last updated 1/27/20.

Should I stop eating beef?

In short, yes, and lamb too.

The production of beef and lamb is far more environmentally stressful for the planet than other meats and that is true of their greenhouse gas emissions as well. With people in the U.S. eating three times as much meat as the global average, changing how we eat in Chicago can make a difference. Replacing that beef with vegetarian options is the best choice for lowering emissions and helping the environment in general, but even switching to pork, chicken, or seafood can help. Cutting back on milk and cheese, is also useful, having about the same effect as cutting back on chicken, pork, and seafood. As a bonus, less beef production will free up land that can be covered with CO2 absorbing vegetation!

As the researchers Poore and Nemecek say, “With current diets and production practices, feeding 7.6 billion people is degrading terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, depleting water resources, and driving climate change”. This is something we can all help with.

For details about the research, click here.

CO2 emissions per tonne of protein consumed. Beef and lamb emit about 10 times more greenhouse gas than pork and poulty. Grains and beans cause the fewest emissions.

In addition to considering the impacts of specific meats, it is helpful to understand the effects of meat production overall. Certain studies have totaled the greenhouse gas emissions from livestock in general. One study from Goodland and Anhang in 2009 described emissions from livestock as being responsible for 51% of total greenhouse gas emissions. That may seem shockingly high, but the arguments of Goodland and Anhang are reasonable. The factors they take into account include meat production’s contribution to deforestation, the strong warming effect of methane on a short time scale, and even the effect of the collective respiration of the billions of animals raised for food every year. With this perspective in mind, it is paramount that we in the U.S. drastically reduce our consumption of beef and other meat.

In addition, the amount of land used for livestock is not efficient in terms of the creation of calories and protein. Fifty percent of habitable land is used for livestock. Seventy-seven percent of that is used for meat and dairy, and yet these foods only generate eighteen percent of the world’s calories. Finally, consider this from an analysis by Our World in Data, “If we were to achieve equitable diets using less land than we currently do, we can see that the world would have to converge towards the dietary compositions of countries across South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and some Latin American countries…it would be ecologically impossible for everyone to eat the diet in North America…”

Diagram shows that 50% of habitable land is used for agriculture. Seventy-seven percent of that land is used for meat and dairy production, which only provides 18% of the world's calories and 37% of the world's protein.

How much of an effect on emissions does not eating beef have?

A note on units of measurement can be found here.
The numbers here do not include land-use change (like deforestation), or other effects like short-term methane release. We do this because in the media, it is common to see numbers calculated without these additional effects. As discussed above, land use and other factors can contribute dramatically to emissions. 

Giving up one burger a week for a year will save you 0.189 to 0.442 MT (metric tons) of CO2-eq  emissions. The range is due to variations in the research; see the details page.

The average person in the U.S. eats 0.5 kg (about a pound) of beef every week. That is 26 kg of beef per year. What if they stopped completely? This would reduce their emissions by 0.832 to 1.950 MT of CO2-eq emissions per year.

For comparison, the average CO2-eq emissions of a person in the U.S. is 16.2 MT. So, cutting out one hamburger a week would reduce the average person’s emissions by 1% to 3%. Cutting out beef entirely would reduce this average person’s emissions by about 5% to 12%.

One to three percent doesn’t sound like much, but here are two things to consider:

First, although seemingly a small reduction in emissions, it is something, and it’s not too hard to achieve. Once you’ve adjusted to a little less beef in your diet, you can try cutting out even more. Plus, by talking about your reduced beef consumption and why you’ve made that choice, you can get your family and friends to follow along. Before you know it, your decision to cut back is starting to have a real effect. Cutting back on beef also has the potential to open up resources and options that can help other industries become more climate friendly.

Second, if we return to our numbers and add in land-use-change, the emissions savings could be considered much higher, in fact, as much as ten times higher. So that 1% cut becomes a 10% cut, or the 5% from cutting out all beef becomes 50%. Something to consider!

Suggestions for cutting back

The good news is that there are more vegetarian options widely available than ever before. With the arrival of Beyond Meat products and Impossible Burgers at restaurant chains and grocery stores around the country, replacing the beef products you love with something that tastes almost the same and is great for the planet has never been easier. You can read about how they taste in the New York Times’ “How do the New Plant-based Burgers Stack Up?”.

We’ve tried Beyond Meat and everyone agreed it was quite good. (Several of us were genuinely surprised.) The dedicated meat-eater of the group said they’d have no problem eating Beyond Meat instead of hamburger. And as the meat alternative market has grown recently, there have been more and more brands and choices appearing.

Further Information

6 Pressing Questions About Beef and Climate Change, Answered is an excellent blog post by Waite et al. of the World Resources Institute site. The writers address each question with a short answer followed by an explanation and links to references.

The article “Study claims meat…” by the Independent and an untitled review by A Well-fed World provide an easy-to-read review of the arguments made by Goodland and Anhang which lead to the possibility of livestock being responsible for 51% of greenhouse gas emissions.

The book “We are the Weather” by J. Foer is an easy-to-read, moving text on how we deal with climate change and how what we eat, especially meat, matters.  An appendix again discusses the work of Goodland and Anhang and how they attribute about 50% of emissions to livestock.

There are two fascinating podcasts by Outrage and Optimism, one about plant-based beef and the other about food and climate more broadly.

Sources

The 2019 Science paper by Poore and Nemecek

The 2014 study by Eshel et al. published in PNAS

The 2016 article by Waite et al. in World Resources Institute

The 2009 article “Livestock and Climate Change (pdf)” by Goodland and Anhang and their response to questions about the article (pdf). While these articles are more technical, they are relatively easy to read.

The 2017 article “How much of the World’s Land would We Need…” on land use in agriculture by Our World in Data