How swapping your beefburger can cut emissions

The climate cost of everyday meals

Meat is everywhere. We’re so used to seeing it at the heart of our meals that many of us never think beyond the burger, schnitzel, or chicken breast on our plates to consider the huge environmental footprint of these and other animal-based products. 

The unfortunate fact is that meat production is one of the most resource-intensive elements of our food system, responsible for huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as for high land and water use. But if we swap just one meat-based meal for a plant-based alternative, we can all make a measurable difference.

Did you know, for example, that animal-based foods emit twice as much CO₂ globally as plant-based foods? In total, emissions from animal-based foods are responsible for up to 20% of global emissions¹. 

And if you think food choices don’t matter, then consider the fact that our food system as a whole contributes about a third of all global greenhouse gas emissions.^{2 3 4} Our food choices make a real difference – for better or for worse!

The disproportionate footprint of meat

In terms of protein sources, beef is by far the highest greenhouse gas emitter. By contrast, tofu, a prime source of protein for many people choosing to eat plant-based, sits at the opposite end of the scale, producing a tiny fraction of the emissions created by meat production.^{5 6}

This is where swaps matter. Choosing a plant-based option instead of meat cuts the footprint of your diet substantially.^{7 8} Consider the fact that a plant-based alternative to beef can produce up to 98% less emissions while using 99% less water and up to 97% less land.

The data shows that, on average, plant-based alternatives have about a 50% lower environmental impact than their animal-based counterparts,⁹  and, in some cases, the difference is up to six times greater. ¹⁰

Everyday examples

The difference can be seen in familiar foods. A soy schnitzel produces about 46% fewer emissions than a pork schnitzel,¹¹ while pea-protein balls generate far fewer emissions than meatballs made from beef.¹²

And plant-based alternatives have an even more significant environmental advantage, because while the environmental impact of animal-based products is largely driven by the farming stage and the requirements of specific species, more than three-quarters of the emissions from plant-based, cultivated, and fermented proteins come from processing and transport rather than from the growing of the ingredients. 

Why is that important? Because during the processing and transport stages, the emissions are primarily influenced by the source of electricity or fuel^{13 14} – which means that using renewable energy can significantly lower the final footprint and further reduce emissions to a much greater degree than is possible with meat production.

While these everyday choices to swap from meat to plant-based for protein already make a substantial difference, there is even better news on the horizon, with food innovations constantly being developed to further cut the climate cost of our food.

Simple protein swaps

The evidence is clear that plant-based alternatives have a significantly lower environmental impact. But what does it look like on your dining table? Making a switch doesn’t have to be complicated. Here are a few simple protein-rich swaps you can make in your regular diet:

• From beef mince to lentils or mushrooms: For a comforting bolognese, a hearty chili, or a rich shepherd’s pie, try replacing beef mince with lentils or finely chopped mushrooms. Lentils are packed with protein and fiber, while mushrooms add a savory, meaty texture. Or use plant-based mince from most supermarkets.
• From pork to soy schnitzel: As the data shows, a soy-based schnitzel produces far fewer emissions than its pork counterpart. If you enjoy a crispy breaded cutlet, you can find soy alternatives that deliver the same satisfying texture but with a much smaller footprint.
• From chicken to tofu: Tofu is a remarkably versatile protein source that easily absorbs the flavors of marinades and sauces. Use it in stir-fries, curries, or simply pan-fry it until crispy to add to salads and bowls.
• From meatballs to pea-protein balls: For dishes like spaghetti and meatballs, switching to pea-protein balls is a delicious and easy way to cut down emissions. They provide the same protein hit with a fraction of the environmental impact.

Each of these swaps is a simple step with a significant cumulative impact. To find recipes for delicious plant-based protein-rich meals, visit the protein-focused dishes on our recipe pages.

New protein sources

Other alternative protein sources are being developed alongside plant-based meat alternatives. While assessments are still scarce, first results look promising – Mycoprotein, made from naturally occurring fungi, is estimated to have a climate impact range of 0.7–2.1 kg CO₂ equivalent per kilogram of product – similar to plant-based alternatives.^{15 16}

Cultivated meat, though not yet on the market at scale, is also showing huge promise and is attracting massive investment globally. While research is still limited and often based on hypothetical production scenarios, first estimates show that it could reduce emissions from beef by up to 92% and cut land use by up to 90%. For pork, emissions could fall by up to 44%, and for chicken, land use could drop by as much as 64%.¹⁷ Cultivated meat can also satisfy the needs of those who want to change their eating habits to something more climate-friendly but who can’t quite take the step to going fully plant-based. It promises all the texture and flavor of conventional meat, but with a fraction of the emissions and land/water use, and none of the cruelty to animals.

These future-looking innovations show the incredible potential of protein alternatives. But we don’t have to wait for them to be widely available to make a substantial impact.

System-wide benefits

Even partial shifts, when made by millions of ordinary individuals, can deliver striking results. Substituting 50% of animal-based products with plant-based alternatives globally would cut emissions in half and reduce land use by 31%.¹⁸

Replacing just 20% of beef consumption with microbial protein by 2050 could halve deforestation-related CO₂ emissions.¹⁹

Small swaps, big impact

There’s no doubt that swapping out meat for plant-based alternatives reduces emissions, conserves water, and frees up land. Each swap may feel small, but collectively they can transform the food system. And with new protein alternatives coming down the line, there has never been a better time for each of us to take even small steps to swap out that beefburger.

To explore more data on the environmental impact of food choices, visit our Food Systems Data pages.

Simon Middleton

Senior Writer

1. Xu, X., P. Sharma, S. Shu, et al. (2021): Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nature Food 2(9), 724–732. Doi:10.1038/s43016-021-00358-x ↩︎
2. Ibid ↩︎
3. Crippa, M., E. Solazzo, D. Guizzardi, et al. (2021): Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food 2(3), 198–209. doi:10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9M., M. Springmann, M. Rayner, et al. (2022): Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(33), e2120584119. Doi:10.1073/pnas.2120584119 ↩︎
4. Babiker, M., G. Berndes, K. Blok et al. (2022): Cross-sectoral perspectives. In IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. Ristic, D. Pleissner, et al. (2023): Meat substitutes: Resource demands and environmental footprints. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 190 106831. Doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106831 ↩︎
5. Poore, J. & T. Nemecek (2018): Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360(6392), 987–992. Doi:10.1126/science.aaq0216 ↩︎
6. Springmann, M. (2024): A multicriteria analysis of meat and milk alternatives from nutritional, health, environmental, and cost perspectives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121(50), e2319010121. doi:10.1073/pnas.2319010121 ↩︎
7. Clark, M., M. Springmann, M. Rayner, et al. (2022): Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(33), e2120584119. Doi:10.1073/pnas.2120584119  ↩︎
8. Smetana, S., D. Ristic, D. Pleissner, et al. (2023): Meat substitutes: Resource demands and environmental footprints. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 190 106831. Doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106831 ↩︎
9. Ibid ↩︎
10. lark, M., M. Springmann, M. Rayner, et al. (2022): Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(33), e2120584119. Doi:10.1073/pnas.2120584119 ↩︎
11. Van Mierlo, K., L. Baert, E. Bracquené, et al. (2022): Moving from pork to soy-based meat substitutes: Evaluating environmental impacts in relation to nutritional values. Future Foods 5 100135. Doi:10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100135 ↩︎
12. Saget, S., M. Costa, C. S. Santos, et al. (2021): Substitution of beef with pea protein reduces the environmental footprint of meat balls whilst supporting health and climate stabilization goals. Journal of Cleaner Production 297 126447. Doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126447 ↩︎
13. Ibid ↩︎
14. Detzel, A., M. Krüger, M. Busch, et al. (2022): Life cycle assessment of animal‐based foods and plant‐based protein‐rich alternatives: an environmental perspective. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 102(12), 5098–5110. Doi:10.1002/jsfa.11417 ↩︎
15. Shanmugam, K., S. Bryngelsson, K. Östergren, et al. (2023): Climate Impact of Plant-based Meat Analogs: A Review of Life Cycle Assessments. Sustainable Production and Consumption 36 328–337. Doi:10.1016/j.spc.2023.01.014 ↩︎
16. Shahid, M., P. Shah, K. Mach, et al. (2024): The environmental impact of mycoprotein-based meat alternatives compared to plant-based meat alternatives: A systematic review. Future Foods 10 100410. Doi:10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100410 ↩︎
17. Sinke, P., E. Swartz, H. Sanctorum, et al. (2023): Ex-ante life cycle assessment of commercial-scale cultivated meat production in 2030. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 28(3), 234–254. Doi:10.1007/s11367-022-02128-8 ↩︎
18. Kozicka, M., P. Havlík, H. Valin, et al. (2023): Feeding climate and biodiversity goals with novel plant-based meat and milk alternatives. Nature Communications 14(1), 5316. Doi:10.1038/s41467-023-40899-2 ↩︎
19. Humpenöder, F., B. L. Bodirsky, I. Weindl, et al. (2022): Projected environmental benefits of replacing beef with microbial protein. Nature 605(7908), 90–96. Doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04629-w ↩︎