Cut meat production by 13% in wealthy countries 'to slash global carbon emissions'

A farmer and cow near the RWE Niederaussem coal-fired power plant, near Bergheim, Germany. Getty Images

A 13 per cent reduction in meat production in wealthy countries would remove three years’ worth of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the atmosphere, a study has found.

Using remote sensors to calculate the amount of gas produced by livestock, researchers discovered that returning even a small portion of pastureland to forest would result in the removal of 125 billion tons of CO2 via absorption by trees and soil. Significant regrowth and carbon capture could begin within just a few years in many areas and last for decades until forests are almost mature, they said.

“We can achieve enormous climate benefits with modest changes to the total global beef production,” said Matthew Hayek, an assistant professor at New York University’s Department of Environmental Studies and the lead author of the analysis, which appeared in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). “By focusing on regions with potentially high carbon sequestration in forests, some restoration strategies could maximise climate benefits while minimising changes to food supplies.”

High and upper middle income countries are ideal candidates, researchers said, because some pasture areas there do not produce much grass per acre and they often have a short growing season. This differs significantly from other regions, including sub-Saharan Africa and South America, where far more pasture can grow all year round, producing more feed for animals per acre than in northern countries, they added.

“This isn’t a one size fits all solution,” Mr Hayek said. “Our findings show that strategic improvements in the efficiency of cattle herds in some areas, coupled with decreased production in others, could lead to a win-win scenario for climate and food production.”

But going further and removing cattle, sheep, and other grazing animals from all potentially forested areas globally could remove 445 gigatons of CO2 by the end of this century – which is equivalent to more than a decade of current global fossil fuel emissions.

“Importantly, this approach would allow livestock grazing to remain on native grasslands and dry rangelands, which are places where crops or forests cannot easily grow,” says Mr Hayek. “These areas support more than half of global pasture production, meaning that this ambitious forest restoration scenario would require cutting global cattle, sheep, and other livestock herds by less than half. These findings underscore the immense potential of natural forest restoration as a climate solution.”

Lower-income regions could potentially increase the efficiency at which cattle are fed and raised on grass to help offset the minor loss in production from higher-income countries.

The researchers used remote sensing technology to work out how much gas is produced by livestock and to calculate the benefits reductions would bring. “Even if two different areas can regrow the same amount of carbon in trees, we can now know how much pasture, and hence beef production, we would have to lose in each area to grow those trees back,” said Johannes Piipponen, a doctoral candidate at Finland’s Aalto University and co-author of the study.

“For many consumers in high-income regions, like Europe and North America, reducing excessive meat consumption benefits both their health and the environment. However, until now, it has remained rather unclear where the required decreases in production could begin.” Reducing pastureland should not be seen as a substitute for efforts to reduce fossil fuel emissions. But it could be a “powerful complement”, said the researchers.

In some areas regrowth could occur with the natural dispersal of seeds, without human involvement. “However, in some places, with especially degraded environments or soils, native and diverse tree-planting could accelerate forest restoration, giving regrowth a helping hand,” said Mr Hayek. “This long-term regrowth would benefit the climate for decades to come, with significant regrowth and carbon capture beginning within just a few years in many areas, and lasting for 75 years or more until forests nearly mature.”

The strategy could help the world meet its climate mitigation targets, while still addressing food security concerns. “As countries worldwide commit to ambitious reforestation targets, we hope that this research can help identify and prioritise the most effective areas for carbon sequestration efforts while considering global food needs,” Mr Hayek said.