Scientists and environmental groups have long advocated for significant cuts in meat production as a means to reduce emissions and tackle climate change. However, new research suggests that a more modest reduction, particularly from wealthier nations, could eliminate up to 125 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere—more than the total global fossil fuel emissions over the last three years.
Scientists and environmental groups have long advocated for significant cuts in meat production as a means to reduce emissions and tackle climate change. However, new research suggests that a more modest reduction, particularly from wealthier nations, could eliminate up to 125 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere—more than the total global fossil fuel emissions over the last three years.
Research indicates that small reductions in higher-income countries—approximately 13% of total meat production—could decrease the land required for cattle grazing. This would enable forests to regenerate naturally on current pastureland. The regrowth of trees, known for their ability to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2), could lead to significant decreases in fossil fuel emissions, which researchers estimate could equal around three years’ worth of global emissions.
“We can achieve substantial climate benefits through modest changes in global beef production,” states Matthew N. Hayek, an assistant professor at New York University and the lead researcher of the study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). “By concentrating on areas with high potential for carbon capture through forests, specific restoration strategies could optimize climate benefits while minimizing impacts on food supply.”
The research highlighted that pasturelands, particularly those that were formerly forests, have great potential for addressing climate change. Eliminating livestock from these “potential native forest” zones allows ecosystems to revert to their natural forested state, effectively capturing carbon in trees and soil.
The authors identified high- and upper-middle-income countries as suitable for reductions in beef production due to their existing pasture lands that yield minimal grass per acre, have limited growing seasons, and could potentially transition into vast forests with healthy soils that sequester carbon. This is in contrast to regions like sub-Saharan Africa and South America, where pastures can grow year-round and provide more feed per acre compared to northern countries. Additionally, researchers suggest that lower-income regions could boost the efficiency of cattle feeding on grass to counterbalance the minor production losses in wealthier economies.
“This isn’t a universal solution,” Hayek stresses. “Our findings suggest that targeted improvements in cattle management in some areas, along with reduced production elsewhere, could result in a beneficial scenario for both climate and food supply.”
The analysis also highlights an even greater potential for climate mitigation if restoration efforts are broadened. Researchers uncovered that removing cattle, sheep, and other livestock from all potential native forest areas globally could sequester an astonishing 445 gigatons of CO2 by the century’s end—equivalent to over a decade’s worth of current global fossil fuel emissions.
“Importantly, this strategy would still permit livestock grazing on native grasslands and dry rangelands, which are unsuitable for crops or forests,” notes Hayek. “These regions account for more than half of global pasture production, indicating that this extensive forest restoration would necessitate cutting global cattle, sheep, and other livestock herds by less than half. These findings highlight the enormous potential of natural forest restoration as a climate solution.”
The PNAS study utilized remote sensing technology to monitor pasture productivity—the annual grass output that livestock can graze—to evaluate the climate benefits of proposed reductions.
“Even if two different areas can regenerate the same amount of carbon in trees, we can now determine how much pasture, and consequently beef production, we need to sacrifice in each location to facilitate tree growth,” explains Johannes Piipponen, a doctoral student at Aalto University in Finland and co-author of the study, who pioneered this technical advancement. “For many consumers in affluent regions like Europe and North America, reducing excessive meat consumption benefits both personal health and the environment. However, until now, it was unclear where to start these necessary production reductions.”
The maps generated by the research can pinpoint areas for policymakers to prioritize in reducing beef production and accelerating forest recovery—such as by offering incentives for forest land conservation or buyouts to beef producers.
The authors acknowledge that ecosystem recovery is not a replacement for diminishing fossil fuel emissions. Nevertheless, it can act as a vital complement in the fight against climate change.
“In many locations, this recovery could occur naturally through seed dispersal and tree regrowth without human intervention,” says Hayek. “However, in severely degraded environments or soils, planting native and diverse trees could accelerate forest restoration, aiding the regrowth process. This long-term recovery would benefit the climate for many decades, with substantial carbon capture starting within just a few years and lasting for 75 years or more as forests mature.”
The authors also emphasize that while their findings do not demand extreme changes to global food production or trade systems, prompt action is crucial to meet climate targets.
“In the next two decades, nations intend to fulfill critical climate mitigation goals set by international agreements, and restoring ecosystems on converted pastures can play a vital role in that,” Hayek states. “The insights from our study could guide policymakers striving to balance climate mitigation with food security. As countries globally commit to ambitious reforestation targets, we hope this research highlights and prioritizes the most effective regions for carbon capture efforts while addressing global food needs.”
