Red Meat and Global Warming

By Jeremy Shere

Posted March 13, 2025

Media Player Error
Update your browser or Flash plugin

Transcript

D: Time for another installment of lunch with A Moment of Science.

Y: So, what's on the menu, Don?

D: Well, I've got a salad with romaine lettuce, tomatoes and peppers--all locally grown, I might add. And chicken raised on a local, free-range farm.

Y: Very healthful.

D: Yep. And good for the environment, too. Locally-grown food doesn't require as much fossil fuel because you don't have to cart it half-way around the world. And the less fossil fuel we use, the better that is for global warming.

Y: Actually, Don, you're doing more to combat global warming by what's not on your plate.

D: What do you mean?

Y: Well, you're not eating red meat, right? A study found that producing red meat is much more costly to the environment than the costs of transporting food. In fact, food production accounts for something like eighty percent of the average household's greenhouse-gas contributions.

D: Why are cows so bad for global warming?

Y: Basically because red meat is more expensive to produce than chicken and other foods. It takes twice as much grain to produce a pound of red meat than it does a pound of chicken, for example. And it takes energy to produce grain. So the more grain you need to feed cows, the more fuel you burn.

D: So you're saying that the less red meat we eat, the better it is for global warming?

Y: Yep. If everyone in the United States ate red meat one less day per week, it would be the equivalent of everyone driving fifteen hundred fewer miles every year.

D: Wow. I don't think McDonalds will be happy to hear this.

Y:` Maybe not. But the environment will.

(Image by Adobe Stock)

If you're reading this around lunchtime, you might be hungry. Well, I've got a salad with romaine lettuce, tomatoes and peppers - all locally grown, I might add. And chicken raised on a local, free-range farm. Very healthy. And good for the environment, too. Locally-grown food doesn't require as much fossil fuel because you don't have to cart it half-way around the world. And the less fossil fuel we use, the better that is for global warming.

Actually, you're doing more to combat global warming by what's not on your plate. Especially if it's red meat.

A study found that producing red meat is much more costly to the environment than the costs of transporting food. In fact, food production accounts for something like eighty percent of the average household's greenhouse-gas contributions.

Why are cows so bad for global warming?

Basically because red meat is more expensive to produce than chicken and other foods. It takes twice as much grain to produce a pound of red meat than it does a pound of chicken, for example. And it takes energy to produce grain. So the more grain you need to feed cows, the more fuel you burn.

If everyone in the United States ate red meat one less day per week, it would be the equivalent of everyone driving fifteen hundred fewer miles every year.

Learn more