Published 5th May 2026
Meat’s impact on climate change and the environment
Share this article
Meat can have a significant environmental footprint, but its size depends heavily on the type of meat and how it’s produced.
Beef and lamb tend to have the biggest climate impact because cows and sheep produce methane and often need more land.
Meat production can also affect the environment through deforestation and wildlife loss, as well as water and air pollution.
You don’t have to quit meat completely to make a difference. Eating a bit less red meat, swapping in plant proteins, and cutting food waste can go a long way.
Meat is a regular part of many people’s diets, and it can be delicious, convenient, and connected to family and culture.
But it’s also one of the foods that comes up most often in conversations about climate change. And that can make it hard to know what to believe.
Is meat always bad for the planet? Is chicken the same as beef? Does “grass-fed” change things? And what if you’re trying to balance health, budget, and sustainability?
At ZOE, we’re interested in practical, evidence-based advice, and that includes understanding how food choices affect both our health and the environment.
In this article, we’ll break down why meat has an environmental impact, which types of meat matter most, and the simplest ways to reduce your footprint without aiming for perfection.
Why does meat affect climate change?
Climate change is driven by greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide and methane) that trap heat in the atmosphere.
Food production creates some of these gases, including animal farming. However, the amount produced depends on the system.
Meat affects the climate mainly because of:
Methane from cows and sheep: Cows and sheep produce methane as part of digestion. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas.
Animal feed: Many animals are fed crops like soy and corn. Growing these crops uses land, fertilizers, and energy.
Land use: Raising animals (and growing feed) takes space. This often requires deforestation, which also releases stored carbon.
Manure: Animal waste can release greenhouse gases, depending on how it’s managed.
Processing and transport: Meat also needs chilling, packaging, and transport, but for beef and lamb, the environmental effects are often smaller than the on-farm impacts.
The main takeaway: meat’s impact on the environment isn’t just about “food miles.” For many meats (especially beef), the biggest influences occur before it leaves the farm.
Which meats have the biggest environmental footprint?
Beef and lamb usually have the greatest climate impact. This is mostly because cows and sheep produce more methane and often need more land (for grazing or growing feed).
In some regions, land-use change, such as deforestation, is a significant contributor to the footprint.
Compared with beef and lamb, chicken and pork usually create fewer emissions per serving or per gram of protein.
But they still require feed crops, use energy and land, and can contribute to pollution if manure and fertilizers aren’t managed well.
Production methods are also important. Two similar-looking pieces of meat can have very different environmental footprints depending on how the animals were raised and the wider supply chain, including:
What feed was used.
How much land was required (and whether deforestation was involved).
How manure was managed.
The farming practices and energy use throughout production.
This is why the “type of meat” is a helpful first guide, but it’s not the whole story.
Meat’s environmental impacts beyond climate
Climate change is a big part of the story, but it’s not the only way meat production can affect the planet.
One of the biggest issues is land use. Raising animals and growing crops to feed them takes space.
In some regions, pressure on land contributes to the clearing of forests and other wild habitats to make room for grazing or feed production.
When that happens, it can reduce biodiversity (wildlife and plant life) and release carbon that was stored in trees and soil.
Meat production can also affect water in a few ways. Some systems use a great deal of water indirectly because feed crops need irrigation.
Join our mailing list
Opt in to receive ongoing science and nutrition emails, news and offers from ZOE. You can unsubscribe at any time.
And when fertilizer or manure runs off into rivers, lakes, or coastal waters, it can pollute waterways and contribute to algal blooms, which can harm aquatic ecosystems.
There can be local air quality impacts, too. Certain farming practices release pollutants, such as ammonia, that can affect the air people breathe nearby.
Finally, while it’s not directly a climate issue, it’s worth mentioning antibiotic resistance.
In some parts of the world, antibiotics are used routinely in livestock farming, and this can contribute to antibiotic resistance, which is a major public health concern.
Is 'grass-fed' or 'regenerative' meat better?
It can be, but it really depends on the specific farming system.
Some grazing approaches may bring environmental benefits, such as supporting biodiversity in certain landscapes, improving soil structure and reducing erosion, and, in some cases, increasing soil carbon.
However, there are also important trade-offs: grazing often uses more land, cows and sheep still produce methane, and any soil carbon gains can be variable and difficult to guarantee long-term.
So, “grass-fed” doesn’t automatically mean “low-carbon.” The impact depends on what’s actually happening on the ground.
Is meat necessary for good nutrition?
Meat can be a convenient source of protein and key nutrients, like iron, zinc, and vitamin B12. But you can also get many of these nutrients from other foods. Meat is not essential.
Reducing your meat intake is a great opportunity to start building meals around more plant-based protein sources, such as beans and lentils, tofu and tempeh, nuts and seeds, and whole grains.
For more inspiration, try this list of 17 vegan sources of protein.
These foods are also typically higher in fiber, which supports gut health. This helps you meet your 30 g of fiber per day recommendation, which the vast majority of people in the West don't reach.
Realistic ways to reduce your environmental impact
You don’t need to be perfect. A few small changes can make a meaningful difference.
1) If you change one thing: Eat less beef and lamb
Swap some beef or lamb meals for:
Chicken or eggs.
Plant proteins (beans, lentils, tofu, tempeh, nuts, and seeds).
Fish, where sustainable options are available.
2) Keep meat, but use less of it
A simple mindset shift: use meat as a flavor or side, not the main event.
For example:
Add lentils to mince-based meals.
Bulk out stews and chili with beans.
Use mushrooms, chickpeas, or tofu in stir-fries.
3) Find a few plant-protein meals you genuinely like
This makes it sustainable (in the habit sense). Here are some delicious starting points:
4) Reduce food waste
Wasting food wastes the land, water, and emissions used to produce it. Some helpful habits include:
Freezing leftovers.
Planning a couple of repeat dinners per week.
Using flexible ingredients (frozen veg, canned beans).
5) Consider dairy too (if you consume a lot of it)
Dairy comes from ruminants, so it can also have a meaningful environmental footprint, especially if intake is high. You don’t need to eliminate it entirely to make progress, though.
Summary
Meat’s impact on climate change and the environment varies, but overall, beef and lamb tend to have the largest climate footprint, mainly due to methane and land use.
Meat production can also affect wildlife and habitats, water systems, and air quality, depending on how and where it’s produced.
If you want to reduce your impact, you don’t need perfection: focusing on less red and processed meat, more plant proteins, and less food waste are practical steps that can make a real difference.
FAQs
Here are the answers to some common questions about meat and the environment:
Is all meat equally bad for the climate?
No. Beef and lamb tend to have the largest footprint. Chicken and pork are often lower, but still have an impact.
If I stop eating meat, is that always better for the environment?
Often it reduces impact, especially if you replace meat with plant proteins like beans, lentils, tofu, and tempeh. What you replace it with matters.
Is local meat always better?
Not always. Transport is usually a smaller part of the footprint than on-farm emissions, especially for beef and lamb. Farming method often matters more than distance.
Is grass-fed beef better for the environment?
It can have benefits in some contexts, but it still produces methane and often needs more land. The overall impact depends on the specific system.
What’s the simplest high-impact change?
For many people, the simplest things are reducing beef and lamb and replacing some meals with plant proteins they enjoy. Reducing food waste is another powerful step.
