Halving Meat and Dairy: A Path to Saving Forests and Cutting Emissions
Reducing animal products by half worldwide could nearly stop forest loss and greatly lower greenhouse gas emissions, benefiting climate and biodiversity.
Halving Meat and Dairy: A Solution for Forests and Climate
The global food system is a major driver of climate change, biodiversity loss, and deforestation. Recent research reveals that substituting half of global meat and dairy consumption with novel plant-based alternatives could lead to profound benefits: emissions from agriculture and land-use would decline by 31%, and the conversion of natural lands—and forests—to more farmland could be almost entirely stopped. This article explores the research, the mechanisms behind these benefits, regional distinctions, challenges, and the broader context for tackling climate and biodiversity targets.
Why Are Animal Products a Problem?
- Animal-sourced foods (especially beef, pork, chicken, and milk) are responsible for a large share of global land-use change. Their production often means forest clearance, habitat loss, and large-scale greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
- Livestock production uses vast areas of the planet, directly for grazing and indirectly for growing feed crops. This drives deforestation and depletes natural ecosystems.
- Animal agriculture contributes to soil degradation, water overuse, and fertilizer-driven pollution.
The Research: Cutting Animal Products by Half
Analysis published in Nature Communications modeled what would happen if people worldwide substituted 50% of their meat and dairy diet with plant-based protein alternatives such as soy protein and vital wheat gluten. Key findings include:
- Deforestation and land conversion could nearly stop, as less new farmland would be needed for grazing and feed crops.
- Agricultural and land use GHG emissions would decrease by 31% compared to 2020 levels by the year 2050.
- If abandoned farmland is restored to forests, climate benefits could double, approaching 92% of the estimated mitigation potential from the land sector often cited in climate strategies.
- Restored areas could contribute up to 25% of the global land restoration targets outlined in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework by 2030.
Mechanisms of Change
- Reduced demand for livestock and feed frees up vast amounts of agricultural land.
- Abandoned farmland can be restored through reforestation and ecological management, providing both carbon sequestration and habitat recovery.
- Shifts in the food system decrease the use of fertilizers, water, and other inputs, especially in countries with intensive animal agriculture.
Biggest Impact: Cutting Beef Consumption
Among animal foods, beef has the largest environmental footprint. Substituting even just a portion of beef with plant-based alternatives:
- Leads to the greatest reduction in GHG emissions, land use, and loss of biodiversity compared to other animal products.
- But the study found that addressing all animal products together produces the strongest and most synergistic benefits—reducing beef, poultry, pork, and milk in combination amplifies results.
Regional Variations: Who Benefits Most?
Impact is not distributed equally around the world—it depends on population, diets, production, and exports. Key regional differences include:
- China: Would see the biggest reductions in crop fertilizer and water use, and a significant drop in agricultural emissions. In the scenario where animal food consumption falls by 50%, China alone accounts for 25% of cropland abandonment and 22% of global agricultural emission reductions.
- Sub-Saharan Africa & South America: Have the highest potential for restoring natural lands. Sub-Saharan Africa could yield 37% of the global reduction in natural land loss and 47% of cuts to land-use change emissions.
- Biodiversity gains are also concentrated where restored lands provide large, contiguous habitats for wildlife.
The following table summarizes major regional effects:
| Region | Main Benefits | Share of Global Impact |
|---|---|---|
| China | Reduced fertilizer, water, and emissions | 25% cropland abandonment, 22% emission drop |
| Sub-Saharan Africa | Natural land restoration, cuts to land emissions | 37% loss reduction, 47% cut in land-use change emissions |
| South America | Forest restoration, carbon sequestration | Largest areas restored, big biodiversity gain |
What others are reading
Beyond 50% Substitution: Diminishing Returns
Interestingly, moving beyond the 50% plant-based substitution threshold results in only marginal additional reductions in deforestation and emissions. The conversion of natural land for agriculture pauses at this level. Further substitution shifts the challenge toward how to best use abandoned farmland. At very high substitution rates, other unintended consequences (like reduced livestock productivity and new emission dynamics) may arise.
Maximizing Climate and Biodiversity Benefits
The effects of halving animal product consumption extend beyond climate:
- Restored land can sequester carbon through reforestation and improved management.
- Forest ecosystems recovery results in major gains for biodiversity, reducing global ecosystem integrity declines by more than half by 2050.
- If best practices for afforestation are followed, the total potential emissions reduction could reach 6.3 gigatons CO2 equivalent per year under the 50% replacement scenario, and more under higher substitution.
Social and Economic Considerations
Shifting away from animal farming raises challenges:
- Supporting farmers—Transitioning livelihoods is crucial. Policies such as ecosystem service payments (compensating farmers for sustainable land management or restoration rather than livestock production) can ensure rural incomes while serving environmental goals.
- Equitable land restoration policies are particularly important in the global South, where the impacts and potential benefits are greatest.
- Ensuring food security, nutrition, and accessibility of affordable, high-quality plant-based alternatives is crucial.
The Need for Policy and Incentives
- Concerted government and industry effort is necessary to develop plant-based food supply chains, nudge dietary change, and reward sustainable land management.
- Collaborative approaches must safeguard existing farmer livelihoods—by financing restoration, providing retraining, and facilitating market access for new plant-based products.
Meeting Global Agreements
Scaling such a dietary shift would contribute directly to international environmental targets:
- Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF): 13-25% of the world’s land restoration needs under GBF target 2 could be met by restoring farmland no longer needed for livestock.
- Climate change mitigation targets: Achieving 92% of the estimated global land sector GHG abatement potential required for the 1.5°C temperature target.
Why Plant-Based Alternatives?
Novel plant-based meat and dairy alternatives—made from ingredients such as soy, gluten, and legumes—provide protein-rich options with far smaller land footprints and lower emissions. Innovations in taste, texture, nutrition, and price point are driving greater adoption worldwide. However, regional, economic, and cultural differences shape the pace and nature of change.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q: What foods count as ‘novel plant-based alternatives’?
A: These include products that mimic meat or dairy using soy, wheat gluten, peas, or other legume proteins, and are produced using radically less land and energy compared to animal farming.
Q: Will halving global meat and dairy consumption really stop deforestation?
A: The model predicts that it would almost fully halt the conversion of forests and natural land for agriculture globally, with further land spared available for restoration.
Q: Which animal product is most important to reduce?
A: Beef—because it requires the most land and releases the most emissions per calorie or protein produced. But reducing all animal products is better for compound benefits.
Q: How can farmers be supported in the transition?
A: Through ecosystem service payments, land restoration incentives, food system diversification, and retraining, farmers’ livelihoods can be safeguarded while restoring nature.
Q: Are the environmental impacts of plant-based alternatives always positive?
A: While the model shows dramatic improvements in land use and GHG emissions, sustainable management of croplands and minimizing chemical input use remain important priorities.
Takeaway: Transforming Diets for a Sustainable Future
Swapping half of humanity’s meat and dairy consumption for plant-based alternatives is not just a theoretical plan—it’s a critical intervention that could deliver outsized climate and biodiversity gains, providing restored forests, slashed emissions, and healthier ecosystems. While region-specific policies and equitable transitions are essential, the science is clear: our plates are powerful tools for restoring the planet.
References
- https://www.carbonbrief.org/halving-reliance-on-meat-and-dairy-could-could-cut-land-use-emissions-by-31/
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-40899-2
- https://www.frontiersplanetprize.org/news/blog-post-title-four-93k9t-87bsr-ae4yh-m3ktl-cpyt3-93cnl-e2s6n-xd3kd-rhwkr-ztcnp-gdcdd-ynhz5-r6kpe-mnkb2-jwljh-8yhsy-wxezp-xyf4l-anjz8-z4dha
- https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/substituting-meat-for-plant-based-alternatives-to-cut-global-emissions-378729
- https://imananimaltoo.com/2020/02/17/confession-of-a-tree-hugger/
Similar Articles
Read full bio of medha deb
