Climate Change: Is ‘Veganism’ the Only Solution to Reducing Carbon Emissions?
CLIMATE CHANGE / Veganism / Carbon Emissions
Climate Change: Is ‘Veganism’ the Only Solution to Reducing Carbon Emissions?
KAKALI DAS
When we think about the causes of climate change, burning fossil fuels—such as coal in power plants or petrol in cars—often comes to mind. While that’s true, what’s on our dinner plates also plays a significant role in generating planet-altering emissions.
How is our food contributing to climate change, and how can we tackle the environmental damage caused by our diets without it leaving a bitter taste in our mouths?
Let’s understand how our food choices impact the planet—because they truly do. Our food system accounts for up to a third of global emissions, a reality that’s hard to digest.
This article isn’t a rulebook as to what we should eat and what not. Many factors influence our food choices—ethics, health, eating disorders, tradition, cultural connections, availability, and affordability—all playing a role in what we eat.
The reality is that our food choices impact the environment as well. Ultimately, it’s up to you to decide what to eat and what to avoid.
Let’s begin with the climate influencers favourite statement nowadays, “If you care about the climate, then you’ve got to be vegan.”
We hear this all the time now, but it’s important to recognize how much things have changed. Just a few years ago, food wasn’t even part of the conversation when discussing greenhouse gas emissions.
Let’s look at three different foods to understand the vast differences in their carbon footprints. Mutton and beef each have a carbon footprint 60 times higher than peas.
Food-related emissions primarily come from two sources: land use changes—scientist-speak for deforestation and soil depletion—and on-farm emissions. These include everything from machinery and fertilizer use to the methane released by burping cows and goats. Methane, in particular, is a highly potent greenhouse gas.
Looking at a broader range of foods and their emissions, it’s clear that meat and other animal products generally have the largest carbon footprints, with beef, lamb, and cheese topping the list.
Animal products rank highest largely because raising animals for food is far less energy- and land-efficient than simply growing plants for direct human consumption.
Plus, some animals—like cows, goats, and sheep—release large amounts of planet-warming methane. These emissions pose a serious problem. In fact, our current levels of meat and dairy consumption alone could push global temperatures beyond the 1.5°C and 2°C limits.
So, does this mean people are right when they say, “ If you are not vegan, then you are destroying the planet”?
Not quite. Every food we eat has some impact on the climate, and there’s no clear-cut line between “good” and “bad” foods. The reality is that we all consume a mix of different foods—I don’t know anyone who eats only mutton or only peas.
By adjusting the balance of foods on our plates—favouring those with lower emissions while reducing those with higher ones—we can positively impact our carbon footprint.
Sure, we humans like categories, and ‘veganism’ provides a clear set of rules to follow. The challenge is that many people hear the term and immediately think, “Well, I could never be vegan,” shutting down the conversation before considering smaller, impactful changes. For example, swapping beef for chicken or having a few meat-free days each week can make a meaningful difference for the climate.
That said, there may be personal reasons you choose to avoid certain foods—whether it’s taste, animal welfare, or health concerns. Speaking of health, some foods that are harmful to the planet, like red meat, can also be detrimental to our health if consumed in excess. It’s no surprise, then, that research suggests policies encouraging climate-friendly food choices could also lead to better health outcomes.
Research shows that some of the best vegan foods, like ground soy and tofu, do require significant land use, with evidence suggesting they contribute to rainforest destruction. However, that’s only part of the story. In reality, just 7% of soy is used directly for plant-based foods, while the vast majority—about three-quarters—is grown to feed the animals that we eventually consume.
While raising cattle has environmental impacts, not all cows contribute equally to carbon emissions. Some types of beef have a much higher carbon footprint than others. For example, beef from dairy cows has a lower carbon footprint than beef from dedicated beef herds, as dairy cows serve multiple purposes beyond meat production.
Grazing cattle can offer some environmental benefits, such as helping restore land. However, it also presents challenges, as these cows require more land, take longer to grow, and release more methane. So, while some types of beef are better than others, any beef is still likely to have a significantly larger carbon footprint than plant-based foods.
For both plant-based and animal-based foods, the emissions from transporting food from farms to our plates make up a relatively small portion of the total footprint. While some research suggests this share could be slightly larger, nearly all studies agree on one key point: what you eat matters far more than where it comes from.
So, is buying local always the better choice for reducing carbon emissions? Not necessarily. Imagine you’re at a supermarket deciding between locally grown and imported blueberries. Many people choose local produce as a way to shop ethically. However, in India, crops like artichokes, asparagus, cranberries, blueberries, cherries, hazelnuts, and certain apple and pear varieties struggle to grow due to climate and soil conditions.
As a result, producing them locally often requires vast amounts of energy, making their carbon footprint 5 to 10 times higher than that of imported alternatives.
There are certainly good reasons to buy local, such as supporting the local economy, ensuring fair labour practices, and having a better understanding of where your food comes from. When combined with eating seasonal produce, it can also offer environmental benefits. Additionally, for highly perishable foods like fresh berries, which often require air transport, choosing local options can significantly reduce their carbon footprint.
Still, the data clearly shows that if we want to make our diets more climate-friendly, the priority shouldn’t be where our food comes from but rather what kinds of foods we’re consuming.
Whether organic food is better for the environment depends on the specific metrics used and the type of food in question. The answer is far less clear-cut than we might assume.
The challenge with organic farming is that it requires more land to produce the same amount of food. Some researchers argue that farming more intensively on less land is better for the environment, as it reduces the need for farmland and allows more natural areas to be restored. Others take the opposite view, suggesting that a more extensive farming approach, better integrated with the natural environment, is the more sustainable option.
The truth is, there’s no clear-cut answer—it’s a complex and nuanced issue. The organic food debate is often oversimplified, with some insisting, “We need to eat organic,” while others dismiss it as overpriced hype. In reality, different farming methods work better in different places for different types of food.
When we buy food, forget about it, and then throw it away—essentially food waste—we’re also wasting all the resources that went into producing it. The energy used to grow it, the methane emitted, and the land required—all of it goes to waste.
The biggest issue with food waste is that so much of what we buy is left to spoil before being discarded or burned—and this is a massive problem. Globally, about a third of all food is wasted, an amount that could feed 2 billion people—far more than the number currently facing hunger. This waste also leads to a significant amount of avoidable emissions.
One study found that food waste accounts for nearly half of the food system’s immense carbon footprint. In wealthier countries, much of this waste happens in households, but it’s also a major structural issue—restaurants and stores discard large amounts of food that could have been consumed.
This article highlights the many grey areas in the environmental impact of our food choices. However, food waste is not one of them—it’s a clear problem. It wastes money, fuels climate change, and worsens food scarcity while millions go hungry. Simply put, we need to waste less food.
If you want to reduce emissions, focus on what you eat—not just labels like “local” or “organic.” And when it comes to labels, be mindful of how you define yourself too. If you can be fully vegan or zero waste, that’s great—but not everyone can or will. Remember, perfection shouldn’t stand in the way of progress. Even small changes to make our diets more planet-friendly are meaningful, no matter what label they carry.
We need to remember that for many people, eating itself is a challenge for countless reasons, so changing diets isn’t just about individual choices—it’s also about shifting systems. This means improving access to affordable, nutritious foods that are good for both people and the planet. Additionally, changing our diets isn’t the only way to reduce personal emissions, and reducing personal emissions isn’t the only way to tackle climate change.
Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking. You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com(For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary) Images from different sources.
Related Posts
How can Artificial Intelligence prevent Climate Change?
How can Artificial Intelligence prevent Climate Change? KAKALI DAS KAKALI DAS If climate change has taught us anything, it’s that...
Read moreDetails
Mahabahu: An International Journal Showcasing Premium Articles and Thought-Provoking Opinions on Global Challenges—From Climate Change and Gender Equality to Economic Upliftment.