Abstract
Extensive land uses to meet dietary preferences incur a ‘carbon opportunity cost’ given the potential for carbon sequestration through ecosystem restoration. Here we map the magnitude of this opportunity, finding that shifts in global food production to plant-based diets by 2050 could lead to sequestration of 332–547 GtCO2, equivalent to 99–163% of the CO2 emissions budget consistent with a 66% chance of limiting warming to 1.5 °C.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Geospatial data for land-use area and carbon opportunity costs are available via the NYU Faculty Data Archive Spatial Data Repository, accessible online at https://doi.org/10.17609/q5pe-7r68.
References
IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (WMO and UNEP, 2019).
Erb, K. H. et al. Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass. Nature 553, 73–76 (2018).
Searchinger, T. D., Wirsenius, S., Beringer, T. & Dumas, P. Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change. Nature 564, 249–253 (2018).
West, P. C. et al. Trading carbon for food: global comparison of carbon stocks vs. crop yields on agricultural land. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 19645–19648 (2010).
Shepon, A., Eshel, G., Noor, E. & Milo, R. The opportunity cost of animal based diets exceeds all food losses. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713820115 (2018).
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 992, 987–992 (2018).
Tilman, D. & Clark, M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518–522 (2014).
Springmann, M. et al. Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. Lancet Planet. Health 2, e451–e461 (2018).
Herrero, M. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 452–461 (2016).
Batchelor, J. L., Ripple, W. J., Wilson, T. M. & Painter, L. E. Restoration of riparian areas following the removal of cattle in the northwestern great basin. Environ. Manage. 55, 930–942 (2014).
Sitters, J., Kimuyu, D. M., Young, T. P., Claeys, P. & Olde Venterink, H. Negative effects of cattle on soil carbon and nutrient pools reversed by megaherbivores. Nat. Sustain. 3, 360–366 (2020).
Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision (FAO, 2012).
Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 6736, 3–49 (2019).
IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).
Fry, J. P., Mailloux, N. A., Love, D. C., Milli, M. C. & Cao, L. Feed conversion efficiency in aquaculture: do we measure it correctly? Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 024017 (2018).
Van Zanten, H. H. E. et al. Defining a land boundary for sustainable livestock consumption. Glob. Change Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14321 (2018).
Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017).
Randerson, J. T. et al. Multicentury changes in ocean and land contributions to the climate–carbon feedback. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 29, 744–759 (2015).
Smith, P. et al. How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals? Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2285–2302 (2013).
Schmidinger, K. & Stehfest, E. Including CO2 implications of land occupation in LCAs-method and example for livestock products. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17, 962–972 (2012).
Stehfest, E. et al. Climate benefits of changing diet. Clim. Change 95, 83–102 (2009).
Ramankutty, N., Evan, A. T., Monfreda, C. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB1003 (2008).
Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB1022 (2008).
Cassidy, E. S., West, P. C., Gerber, J. S. & Foley, J. A. Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 034015 (2013).
Bouwman, A. F., Van der Hoek, K. W., Eickhout, B. & Soenario, I. Exploring changes in world ruminant production systems. Agric. Syst. 84, 121–153 (2005).
Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).
Herrero, M. et al. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 20888–20893 (2013).
Erb, K. H. et al. Biomass turnover time in terrestrial ecosystems halved by land use. Nat. Geosci. 9, 674–678 (2016).
Fetzel, T. et al. Quantification of uncertainties in global grazing systems assessment. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 31, 1089–1102 (2017).
Acknowledgements
We thank S. Davis, W. R. Moomaw, J. S. Gerber and L. L. Sloat for their helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
M.N.H. and H.H. developed the core research questions and conceptual approach of this study. M.N.H. and N.D.M. performed geospatial modelling and statistical analysis. M.N.H. developed the low-parameter model representation of literature 2050 BAU projections for the future land-use scenarios. All authors contributed to identifying and conceptually implementing the alternative 2050 dietary scenarios and contributed to the writing, editing and revising of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Methods, Tables 1–6, Results and Figs. 1–5.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hayek, M.N., Harwatt, H., Ripple, W.J. et al. The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land. Nat Sustain 4, 21–24 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00603-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00603-4
This article is cited by
-
Trade-offs in the externalities of pig production are not inevitable
Nature Food (2024)
-
Levelling foods for priority micronutrient value can provide more meaningful environmental footprint comparisons
Communications Earth & Environment (2023)
-
Comparable GHG emissions from animals in wildlife and livestock-dominated savannas
npj Climate and Atmospheric Science (2023)
-
Navigating sustainability trade-offs in global beef production
Nature Sustainability (2023)
-
Low-carbon diets can reduce global ecological and health costs
Nature Food (2023)