When it comes to sustainability, there seems to be no doubt that plant-based meats are by far the greenest option compared to traditional meat.
I conducted extensive research on the topic using the most current life cycle assessments and review, and the evidence seems to be in one direction: vegan meat, especially plant-based burgers, produces up to 90% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than beef.
 |
| Animal Meat vs. Vegan Meat: The Climate Costs of Your Favorite Proteins |
Among the various areas of food production, the livestock sector has the highest contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, making the need for lower-carbon alternatives a critical issue. Plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) are emerging as a potentially more sustainable option and have caught the interest of consumers and researchers, alike, for their potential benefits to society and the environment as an alternative to conventional meat.
Many studies have determined that the median carbon footprint for a plant-based meat substitute is just 1.7 kg CO₂e per kg, while beef has a corresponding footprint of 27 to 100 kg CO₂e per kg, depending on whether it is from beef or dairy cattle.
When taking into consideration additional greenhouses gas emissions, the findings outlined previously suggest that grass-fed beef systems can, in some circumstances, have a higher carbon footprint on a per kg of meat produced basis primarily due increased production of enteric methane from pasture-based (forage) diets and the longer time to achieve slaughter weight. The discussion also includes ubiquitous, potent, and short-lived climate pollutants such as methane that have a particularly important role when it relates to ruminant animals. Methane will not last long in the atmosphere (around 12 years) unlike carbon dioxide will last for hundreds of years in the atmosphere, but methane has a substantial amount of global warming potential in shorter timeframes. Methane is about 82-84 times more powerful than CO₂ in the first 20-year period. This is because methane is highly effective at trapping heat, even if its presence in the atmosphere is temporary. How methane emissions are categorized and incorporated into the carbon footprint calculations can alter the impact of different foods.
 |
| Animal Meat vs. Vegan Meat: The Climate Costs of Your Favorite Proteins |
However, vegan meat is much lower in natural resources usage, requiring 99% less water and 93% less land than beef production. It is a much more sustainable option in a world with increasing pressure from water shortages and deforestation. Of course, some of the plant-based options may have higher energy consumption than some beef (brazilian beef) but this is a notable exception, and is often counterbalanced significantly through the other ecological benefits of vegan meat.
Even comparing beef with traditional meats such as chicken and pork where the impact is lower, around 6–7 kg of CO₂ equivalent per kilogram, vegan meat leads the charge. The difference here allows us to highlight an undeniable reality: plant-based alternatives are simply better for the planet, and for good reason.
The summary of the results showed that the plant-based burger had significantly lower environmental impacts in several categories.
Global warming potential: 65% reduction
Land use: 82% reduction
Water consumption: 45% reduction
Furthermore, the plant-based patty had lower impacts across the categories of mineral resource scarcity and fossil resource scarcity. If these findings were to be scaled up nationally the entire population of the country, substituting beef with plant-based burger patties each year would avoid million tonnes CO2 emissions per year.
Most evidence suggests that PBMAs likely have lower environmental impacts than alternative meat based products. Nevertheless, it is important to examine the processes to manufacture PBMAs. For instance, the recommendation was to explore the potential to reduce the impact on global warming effect as a key priority to the manufacturer by adopting greener fertilisers during the cultivation of raw materials.
Not all vegan meats have the same impact. Ingredients like pea protein or coconut and methods of production may vary the footprint. However, collectively the footprint remains much lower than products derived from animals.
Energy use presents a more complex picture. While some study showed less cumulative energy demand compared to beef, another study comparing plant-based patties to Brazilian beef found that plant-based options incurred 8% more energy use. This discrepancy likely arises from differences in production methods, such as processing legumes into meat analogues, which can be energy-intensive, versus the energy used in beef production, which varies by region and system (e.g., Brazilian beef may have lower energy inputs due to different agricultural practices). This variability indicates that while vegan meat generally has lower overall environmental impacts, energy use can be a point of contention, depending on the specific product and production context.
The comparison extends beyond beef to include other classic meats like chicken and pork, which have lower environmental impacts than beef but still higher than vegan meat. For instance, chicken's carbon footprint is around 6.9 kg CO₂eq/kg, and pork is about 7 kg CO₂eq/kg, this suggests that even when considering less impactful animal meats, vegan alternatives remain more environmentally friendly on average.
Table of Environmental Impacts
 |
| Animal Meat vs. Vegan Meat: The Climate Costs of Your Favorite Proteins |
Note: Vegan meat data primarily from PBMAs; beef range includes non-dairy and dairy herd estimates; chicken and pork from general literature.
However, the environmental impact of vegan meat can vary based on factors such as ingredient sourcing, transportation, and processing. For example, long-distance transport of ingredients like avocados can increase the footprint of some plant-based foods, though this is less relevant for most vegan meats compared to beef's inherent high emissions from methane-producing ruminants.
 |
| Animal Meat vs. Vegan Meat: The Climate Costs of Your Favorite Proteins |
So far, the evidence seams clear, if we want to reduce the impact of climate change and better manage and sustain the Earth’s precious resources, then one of the most effective actions we can take is to increase our consumption of plant-based foods at the expense of animal-based foods.
Based on the available data, classic meat, especially beef, has a higher environmental impact across most categories compared to vegan meat alternatives. The evidence leans toward vegan meat being more sustainable, with lower carbon footprints, water use, and land use, though energy use can vary.
The transition to more plant-based diets, including the adoption of meat analogues, appears to suggest a substantial opportunity to mitigate the climate impact of our food systems.
Key Citations:
0 Comments