Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Animal-based foods have high social and climate costs


Despite the importance of animal-based agricultural greenhouse gas emissions as drivers of climate change, the climate costs of such emissions have not yet been quantified in an integrated way. Using a macroeconomic–climate framework, we coupled global agricultural and industrial economies to estimate these costs at a regional level. To be consistent with end-of-century temperature increases of 1.5–3 °C, we found that every 10-percentage-point increase in agricultural emissions required a compensating 1.5-percentage-point reduction in industrial emissions—the ‘emissions opportunity cost’ of animal-based foods. Alternatively, if agricultural emissions were not offset in the industrial sector, diets high in animal protein contributed US$72 per person per year in additional climate damage—approximately half of the annual climate damage produced by the average passenger vehicle in the United States. Our analysis revealed geographic heterogeneity in climate costs by diet and food type, suggesting opportunities for mitigation policies while recognizing food insecurity risks.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: DICE-FARM comprises four distinct modules assembled from three existing models.
Fig. 2: Total and near-term temperature effects of dietary GHG emissions.
Fig. 3: Industrial and animal agriculture GHG emissions trade-offs underlying limited warming scenarios.
Fig. 4: Spatial variation in the climate costs of animal product consumption and production.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are archived58 and publicly available on K.K.’s Github website:

Code availability

The code used to generate all results is archived58 and available at


  1. 1.

    Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Steinfeld, H. et al. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2006).

  3. 3.

    Tubiello, F. N. et al. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Emissions by Sources and Removals by Sinks: 1990–2011 Analysis (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2014).

  4. 4.

    Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20260–20264 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    FAOSTAT (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2020).

  7. 7.

    Pelletier, N. & Tyedmers, P. Forecasting potential global environmental costs of livestock production 2000–2050. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18371–18374 (2010).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Scarborough, P. et al. Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Clim. Change 125, 179–192 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ripple, W. J. et al. Ruminants, climate change and climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 2–5 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 361, eaam5324 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hedenus, F., Wirsenius, S. & Johansson, D. J. A. The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets. Clim. Change 124, 79–91 (2014).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Bajželj, B. et al. Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 924–929 (2014).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Springmann, M., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M. & Scarborough, P. Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4146–4151 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Tilman, D. & Clark, M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518–522 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Pitesky, M. E., Stackhouse, K. R. & Mitloehner, F. M. in Advances in Agronomy Vol. 103 (ed. Sparks, D. L.) 1–40 (Academic Press, 2009).

  17. 17.

    Herrero, M. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 452–461 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Lamb, A. et al. The potential for land sparing to offset greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 488–492 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Wirsenius, S., Hedenus, F. & Mohlin, K. Greenhouse gas taxes on animal food products: rationale, tax scheme and climate mitigation effects. Clim. Change 108, 159–184 (2011).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Key, N. & Tallard, G. Mitigating methane emissions from livestock: a global analysis of sectoral policies. Clim. Change 112, 387–414 (2012).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Springmann, M. et al. Mitigation potential and global health impacts from emissions pricing of food commodities. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 69–74 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Springmann, M. et al. Health-motivated taxes on red and processed meat: modelling study on optimal tax levels and associated health impacts. PLoS ONE 13, e0204139 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Havlík, P. et al. Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3709–3714 (2014).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    The true cost of food. Nat. Food 1, 185 (2020).

  25. 25.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Valuing Climate Changes: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide (National Academies Press, 2017).

  26. 26.

    Addendum to Technical Support Documentation on Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide (Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon, 2016).

  27. 27.

    Nordhaus, W. D. Revisiting the social cost of carbon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 1518–1523 (2017).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Millar, R. J., Nicholls, Z. R., Friedlingstein, P. & Allen, M. R. A modified impulse–response representation of the global near-surface air temperature and atmospheric concentration response to carbon dioxide emissions. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 7213–7228 (2017).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2018).

  30. 30.

    Stehfest, E. et al. Climate benefits of changing diet. Clim. Change 95, 83–102 (2009).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Howard, T. & Sterner, T. Raising the Temperature on Food Prices: Climate Change, Food Security, and the Social Cost of Carbon (Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, 2014).

  32. 32.

    Moore, F. C., Baldos, U., Hertel, T. & Diaz, D. New science of climate change impacts on agriculture implies higher social cost of carbon. Nat. Commun. 8, 1607 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Havlík, P. et al. Climate Change Impacts and Mitigation in the Developing World: An Integrated Assessment of the Agriculture and Forestry Sectors (World Bank, 2015).

  34. 34.

    Collins, W. J. et al. Increased importance of methane reduction for a 1.5 degree target. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 054003 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Rogelj, J., Meinshausen, M., Schaeffer, M., Knutti, R. & Riahi, K. Impact of short-lived non-CO2 mitigation on carbon budgets for stabilizing global warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 075001 (2015).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Meinshausen, M. RCP Concentration Calculations and Data: Final Version, Background Data, Acknowledgements and Further Info (2010).

  37. 37.

    Gerber, P. J. et al. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2013).

  38. 38.

    Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator—Calculations and References (United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2019).

  39. 39.

    Bryngelsson, D., Wirsenius, S., Hedenus, F. & Sonesson, U. How can the EU climate targets be met? A combined analysis of technological and demand-side changes in food and agriculture. Food Policy 59, 152–164 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Vallgårda, S., Holm, L. & Jensen, J. D. The Danish tax on saturated fat: why it did not survive. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 69, 223–226 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Climate Change: German MPs Want Higher Meat Tax (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2019).

  42. 42.

    Säll, S. & Gren, I.-M. Effects of an environmental tax on meat and dairy consumption in Sweden. Food Policy 55, 41–53 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 (Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon, 2016).

  44. 44.

    Stern, N. H. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  45. 45.

    Burke, M., Hsiang, S. M. & Miguel, E. Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production. Nature 527, 235–239 (2015).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Foley, J. A. et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570–574 (2005).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Diaz, R. J. & Rosenberg, R. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science 321, 926–929 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Wada, Y. et al. Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L20402 (2010).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Eshel, G., Shepon, A., Makov, T. & Milo, R. Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 11996–12001 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Delgado, C. L. Rising consumption of meat and milk in developing countries has created a new food revolution. J. Nutr. 133, 3907S–3910S (2003).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Pingali, P. Westernization of Asian diets and the transformation of food systems: implications for research and policy. Food Policy 32, 281–298 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Caro, D., Davis, S. J., Bastianoni, S. & Caldeira, K. Global and regional trends in greenhouse gas emissions from livestock. Clim. Change 126, 203–216 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    International Consumer and Food Industry Trends (United States Department of Agriculture, 2020).

  55. 55.

    Frank, S. et al. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security? Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 105004 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Nordhaus, W. D. & Sztorc, P. DICE 2013R: Introduction and User’s Manual (2013).

  57. 57.

    Smith, C. J. et al. FAIR v1.3: a simple emissions-based impulse response and carbon cycle model. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 2273–2297 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Errickson, F., Kuruc, K. & McFadden, J. Animal-based foods have high social and climate costs. Zenodo (2021).

Download references


We thank D. Anthoff, M. Budolfson and D. Spears for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript and L. Rennels for coding assistance. This research was supported in part by a grant from the Research Council of the University of Oklahoma. The funders had no role in study design, collection and analysis of data, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information




K.K. designed the research. F.E., K.K. and J.M. performed the research. F.E., K.K. and J.M. analysed the data. F.E., K.K. and J.M. wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin Kuruc.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Food thanks Eva Wollenberg and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–7, Figs. 1–5 and Discussion.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Table 8

Annual per capita protein consumption and household food expenditures.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Errickson, F., Kuruc, K. & McFadden, J. Animal-based foods have high social and climate costs. Nat Food 2, 274–281 (2021).

Download citation


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing