New Research Maps Carbon Footprint of Meat in U.S. Cities

The meat industry significantly contributes to climate change, accounting for approximately 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. In light of this, researchers have developed a new map illustrating the carbon cost of meat consumption in every city across the contiguous United States. The findings, published on March 4, 2024, in the journal Nature Climate Change, reveal the environmental impact of complex livestock supply chains delivering beef, pork, and chicken to American consumers.

The Carbon Hoofprint Analysis

Using the Food System Supply-Chain Sustainability platform, known as FoodS3, a team led by Benjamin Goldstein, an assistant professor of environment and sustainability at the University of Michigan, analyzed the carbon emissions linked to U.S. meat supply chains. This platform integrates various data sources and models, allowing for a comprehensive simulation of crop and livestock movement throughout the country.

The research estimates that meat consumption across U.S. cities generates a staggering 329 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent annually. This figure surpasses the entire annual carbon footprint of the United Kingdom and is comparable to the annual carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the U.S.

The study highlights the notable differences in per capita greenhouse gas emissions due to meat consumption in various cities. For example, the greenhouse gas intensity of beef in Las Vegas is 33 pounds of CO2 equivalent per pound of beef at retail, while in Chicago, it is 21 pounds per pound. Goldstein emphasized, “The GHGs of eating a burger in Las Vegas are 1.5 times that of eating the same burger in Chicago.” This variability indicates that relying on national or regional averages can lead to significant inaccuracies when estimating city-level carbon hoofprints.

Strategies for Reducing Carbon Footprints

In response to the findings, the researchers advocate for urban carbon accounting to incorporate more precise, location-specific data rather than generalized averages. Such an approach would better reflect the true environmental impact of meat consumption in individual cities.

Policymakers have introduced various initiatives aimed at reducing household carbon footprints, including subsidies for solar panels and tax credits for energy-efficient upgrades. Despite these efforts, the costs associated with such projects can be prohibitive for many homeowners. Goldstein and his colleagues suggest that simply reducing meat consumption can yield significant greenhouse gas savings, depending on one’s location.

The study indicates that the most substantial reductions in carbon hoofprints can be achieved by substituting beef with alternative proteins, particularly plant-based options, and by minimizing food waste. Collectively, these measures could decrease total emissions by 123 to 142 metric tons of CO2 equivalent from baseline levels.

“The main takeaway for me is to consume less beef,” Goldstein stated. He clarified that adopting a vegetarian diet is not necessary for everyone, but reducing beef consumption in favor of pork, chicken, or even tofu could be effective in mitigating carbon footprints.

As climate change continues to pose a significant threat, understanding the local carbon costs associated with meat consumption may encourage more sustainable choices among consumers and inform better policy decisions.