Smaller reductions in meat production in wealthier countries can help combat climate change

Scientists and environmental activists repeatedly call for a drastic reduction in meat production in order to reduce emissions and thus combat climate change. But a new analysis finds that smaller reductions, driven by wealthier nations, could remove 125 billion tons of carbon dioxide – more than the total number of global fossil fuel emissions over the past three years – from the atmosphere.

Smaller cuts in higher-income countries – about 13% of total production – would reduce the area needed for livestock grazing, the researchers say, allowing natural forest regrowth on current rangeland.

The return of trees – which have long been known to effectively absorb or sequester carbon dioxide (CO).₂) – would lead to significant declines in fossil fuel emissions, which the study's authors estimate would be roughly equivalent to three years' worth of global emissions.

“We can achieve enormous climate benefits with modest changes to total global beef production,” says Matthew N. Hayek, an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Studies at New York University and lead author of the analysis that appears in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“By focusing on regions with potentially high carbon sequestration in forests, some restoration strategies could maximize climate benefits while minimizing changes to food supplies.”

The analysis found that rangelands, particularly in areas that were once forests, offer great potential for mitigating climate change. Removing livestock from these “potential native forest areas” allows ecosystems to return to their natural forest state and capture carbon in trees and soils.

The paper's authors see high- and upper-middle-income countries as suitable candidates for reducing beef production because they currently have some rangelands that do not produce very much grass per hectare and where grass is only produced during a short period of time Growing season growth is in areas that could instead grow vast, lush forests with deep soils that sequester carbon.

This differs significantly from other regions, including sub-Saharan Africa and South America, where much more pasture can grow year-round and more feed for animals is produced per hectare than in northern countries. Additionally, the research team sees ways in which low-income regions could increase efficiency in feeding and raising cattle on grass to offset the small production losses in higher-income countries.

“This is not a one-size-fits-all solution,” emphasizes Hayek. “Our results show that strategic improvements in cattle herd efficiency in some areas, coupled with reduced production in others, could lead to a win-win scenario for climate and food production.”

The study shows an even more dramatic potential for climate protection if the scope of remediation were expanded. The researchers found that removing cattle, sheep and other grazing livestock from all potentially native forest areas could sequester an incredible 445 gigatons of CO2 worldwide₂ by the end of this century – equivalent to more than a decade of current global fossil fuel emissions.

“Importantly, this approach would continue to allow livestock grazing on native grasslands and dry pastures, places where crops or forests cannot easily grow,” says Hayek.

“These areas are home to more than half of global pasture production, meaning this ambitious forest restoration scenario would require reducing global cattle, sheep and other livestock populations by less than half. These results highlight the immense potential of natural forest restoration as a climate solution.”

The study used remote sensing technology to track pasture productivity – the amount of grass produced annually that livestock can consume – to estimate the climate benefits that reductions would bring.

“Even if two different areas can regrow the same amount of carbon in trees, we can now know how much pastureland, and therefore beef production, we would have to lose in each area to regrow those trees,” explains Johannes Piipponen, a doctoral student at Aalto University in Finland and co-author of the study who drove this technical advance.

“For many consumers in high-income regions such as Europe and North America, reducing excessive meat consumption benefits both their health and the environment. However, it has so far remained unclear where the necessary production declines could begin.”

Maps created by the team's research can identify areas where policy actions to reduce beef production and accelerate forest recovery could be prioritized – for example, by offering incentives to protect forest land or buyouts for beef producers.

The authors recognize that ecosystem regrowth is not a substitute for efforts to reduce fossil fuel emissions. But it can serve as an effective complement to combat climate change.

“In many places, this regrowth could occur through the natural dispersal of seeds and the regrowth of trees without human intervention,” says Hayek.

“But in some places with particularly degraded environments or soils, planting native and diverse trees could accelerate forest restoration and help regrowth. This long-term regrowth would benefit the climate in the coming decades, with significant regrowth and carbon.” Trapping begins within a few years in many areas and continues for 75 years or longer until forests are nearly mature.

The authors also emphasize that while the findings do not require extreme changes to global food production and trade patterns, rapid action is needed to meet climate goals.

“Over the next two decades, countries are striving to achieve key climate change goals under international agreements, and restoring ecosystems on converted rangelands can be a critical part of this,” Hayek notes.

“The results of our study could pave the way for policymakers who want to address both climate change mitigation and food security. As countries around the world commit to ambitious reforestation goals, we hope this research can help identify the most effective areas for carbon sequestration efforts and prioritize global food needs.”