Food systems are responsible for around one-third of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions – and beef has the largest carbon footprint of any food.
Moving diets away from beef and other red meat has become increasingly seen as an important part of mitigating food-related emissions.
But such changes can have unintended consequences, especially for countries that rely heavily on beef production and exports.
In our new study, published in Ecological Economics, we examine the impacts of a gradual reduction in Brazil’s beef consumption on the country’s emissions and economy.
Using an economic model, we find that reducing the average person’s beef intake in line with health recommendations could make up as much as a third of the world’s potential mitigation from dietary changes (according to the UN) – with little impact on Brazil’s overall economy.
Mitigation potential
Research shows that shifts toward plant-based diets can contribute to both mitigating climate change and improving human health.
Meat and animal-derived food production emits more greenhouse gases and consumes more water and land resources than plant-based food production.
Animal-derived food production also results in calorific loss down the food chain. The amount of calories contained in an animal that humans consume is much lower than the sum of the calories of that animal’s food.
For example, of every 100 calories used for sustenance and growth in animals, humans receive between 17 and 30 calories from meat consumption. This loss during the process of raising, processing and consuming animals is due to various factors, including inefficiencies in digestive processes and the physical activity of the animals themselves.
According to the 2019 special report on climate change and land from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), dietary shifts have the potential to mitigate up to 8bn tonnes of CO2-equivalents (GtCO2e) around the world each year by 2050.
In Brazil, approximately 60% of the country’s annual emissions stem from land-use change and agriculture. It is one of the largest beef producers in the world.
In addition, global demand for beef is directly linked to deforestation in the Amazon as forests are cleared to make space for rearing cattle. It is also of global concern, due to the importance of the Amazon as a carbon sink.
Reducing beef consumption
Reducing red meat consumption is crucial not only for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, but also for improving public health.
Studies have shown that excessive meat consumption can lead to higher rates of cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer. According to research from the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research, the ideal limit for red meat – that is, beef, pork, lamb and goat – consumption is up to 300 grams per week per person.
Brazil – along with the US, Australia and Argentina – surpasses this recommended average per-capita meat consumption. Annual beef consumption in Brazil is more than 460 grams per week, according to data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Thus, in our study, we set out to reach the recommended per-capita average beef consumption by 2050 – a reduction in consumption of 40%.
We test two scenarios to reduce consumption.
First, we look at relative price changes. We consider a situation where taxes on beef are raised over time from the 2015 average rate of around 8% to approximately 40% in 2050. (Existing taxes on beef in Brazil vary, with specific rates set at the state level.) In a related scenario, we consider what would happen if the funds from such a tax were put towards subsidies for lower-carbon foods.
Second, we look at changing consumer preferences. This could require formal interventions, such as information campaigns and the consideration of culture, emotions and morality. However, it could also occur naturally. Our model does not consider the drivers of the change, but recognises that such a change would occur slowly.
Although there is some movement towards reduced meat consumption due to changing consumer preferences, it remains relatively limited and more concentrated in developed countries. Reasons for this shift in preferences may include higher levels of education and income.
However, in Brazil, meat is viewed as a culturally essential food. In addition, regional preferences differ – for example, there is typically a high beef consumption in the northern region of Brazil, where the Amazon is located.
Despite the international attention linking excessive beef consumption to climate change and Amazon deforestation in Brazil, it has had minimal impact on Brazilian dietary preferences.
Modelling impacts
Our study analyses the impacts of a reduction in beef consumption on Brazil’s domestic market.
We focus on impacts on the country’s economy as a whole, effects on individual sectors such as agriculture and industry, regional impacts and deforestation reduction in the Amazonia and Matopiba regions. Matopiba is a region in the Cerrado, a savannah biome where agriculture has advanced in the last three decades.
The map below shows how Brazil is divided between the Amazon (green), the Matopiba region (orange) and the rest of the country (blue).
MAP
We conduct a set of simulations using an economic model for the two regions. In our model, different groups – such as consumers and firms, including investors, agricultural firms, industries and food service – are assumed to make the best decisions based on what they prefer and what they can afford. For firms, the “best decisions” are the ones that minimise their costs, while consumers seek to maximise their “utility”, or satisfaction.
This model represents how the economy works by looking at how people and businesses behave, how they interact in markets, and when the market will reach equilibrium – that is, when supply and demand are balanced.
We use the model to analyse the effects of policies and shocks on different sectors, regions and groups. We present our results as deviations from a baseline trajectory that assumes constant per-capita beef consumption until 2050, with overall consumption growing at the same rate as the Brazilian population.
It is essential to note that the deforestation reduction captured in the model is related to agricultural activity, not to deforestation associated with illegal logging or land grabbing. However, beef and other agriculture drives around 90% of deforestation in Brazil currently, so this is unlikely to significantly change our results.
The latter has various motivations and can be more effectively inhibited through increased environmental monitoring, land demarcation and other mechanisms developed and applied over the last two decades.
Deforestation impacts
We find that a 40% reduction in beef consumption from 2022 to 2050 would help prevent deforestation of approximately 65,000 square kilometres – larger than the area of Sri Lanka.
It also has the potential to mitigate up to 2.8GtCO2e per year, which is one-third of the total mitigation potential from changing diets presented in the IPCC’s special report on land.
The charts below show the amount of avoided deforestation for the Amazon and Matopiba regions relative to the baseline scenario.
Grey and light green indicate lower amounts of avoided deforestation and dark green indicates the highest amounts. The top, middle and bottom maps show reduced beef consumption through changing consumer preferences, a beef tax and a beef tax with subsidies for other foods, respectively.
In addition to deforestation, we considered the impacts that these shifts would have on Brazil’s economy.
Our findings suggest that dietary shifts due to changes in preferences would have virtually no impact on Brazilian GDP in 2050, reducing it by 0.03% – largely due to a slight decrease in investment.
Adjusting diets through an increase in beef taxes would lead to overall cost increases, resulting in decreases in exports and GDP. We find that GDP would decline by 0.64% in this scenario, with exports decreasing by 1.5%.
However, in the scenario where the beef tax revenue is applied to other foods as subsidies, the national GDP declines by only 0.18%, despite similar decreases in exports.
In all scenarios, we find that the economic impacts would differ from one area of the country to the next. In particular, they would affect regions most dependent on the cattle and beef sector, which are also the most directly affected by the proposed taxation policies. In the beef tax scenario without subsidies, two northern states experience declines in GDP of 3% or higher.
Although Brazilians reducing their beef consumption would bring environmental and health benefits to the country, emissions mitigation cannot be solely Brazil’s responsibility. We observe that the reduction in beef consumption through preference changes leads to a negative effect on the domestic price of beef.
This decrease in domestic prices would, in turn, favour Brazilian beef exports, resulting in less mitigation and a smaller reduction in deforestation. Therefore, it is crucial for this change in habit to be followed by other economies worldwide – notably, those that heavily import Brazilian beef, including China, the US and EU.
The post Guest post: How shifting diets away from beef could cut Brazil’s emissions appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Guest post: How shifting diets away from beef could cut Brazil’s emissions
Climate Change
Why an Activist From Texas Crossed the World to Confront Asia’s Biggest Petrochemical Company
For the retired shrimper, the 8,000-mile trip to Formosa Plastics’ annual shareholder meeting in Taipei was part of a strategy of being relentless.
The Resistance, Part 2: Three Gulf Coast environmentalists confront Formosa Plastics Corp. at its shareholders meeting.
Why an Activist From Texas Crossed the World to Confront Asia’s Biggest Petrochemical Company
The U.S. government’s recent deployment of visa restrictions for international illegal fishing exposes a dichotomy between how it wields power at home versus away.
While the Trump administration systematically unravels marine protections at home, it appears to be enforcing far higher conservation standards abroad.
America Is Policing Foreign Waters, but Gutting Domestic Protections
Brazil is rushing to regulate its critical minerals industry and unlock its vast untapped reserves of rare earths, aiming to position itself as a strategic producer with Chinese and US companies competing for fresh supplies.
Despite opposition from some environmental and Indigenous rights groups, lawmakers in Brazil’s lower house of Congress passed the government’s critical minerals policy bill last month, and backers now hope to secure final Senate approval before October’s presidential election.
Already a major mining nation with large reserves of graphite and copper, Brazil has the world’s second-largest reserves of rare earth elements after China, with the difference that Brazilian reserves are largely untapped. This group of 17 minerals is used in permanent magnets for electric motors vital for clean technologies such as electric vehicles (EVs) and wind turbines.
As Chinese and US companies compete to secure supplies, Brazil hopes to serve them both.
“We don’t have any preferences. Whoever wishes to participate with us to help with the mining, processing, and production of the wealth that these rare earths can bring is welcome to invest in Brazil,” President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva told journalists after meeting President Donald Trump in Washington in May.
Value-added mining
The draft legislation, which is backed by industry groups, creates a $380-million Guarantee Fund for Mineral Activity meant to provide financial support for mining projects, grants priority status for permitting strategic mining projects, and requires companies to dedicate a share of their revenue for domestic research and development on mineral extraction and processing – part of the policy’s effort to maximise the benefits of mining.
To select strategic projects and support their environmental licensing, the bill envisions establishing a Committee for Strategic and Critical Minerals, which includes representatives from different government agencies, state and local governments, industry and civil society.
Mining Minister Alexandre Silveira said the government’s bill “aligns mineral exploration with national interests”, and he has pledged to work closely with the Senate to pass it in the coming months.
“Brazil … doesn’t intend to be a mere exporter of unprocessed raw materials, but to expand its industrial and technological capacity, too,” Silveira said last month.
The Brazilian government says the country presents an “unparalleled” opportunity for refining “green minerals”, given that around half of its electricity comes from hydropower.
At the other end of the supply chain, several Chinese companies have vast plans to assemble EVs in Brazil. EV manufacturing giant BYD opened a massive production facility in the state of Bahia last October – the company’s largest EV factory outside China. BYD’s top executive in Brazil told Reuters it is aiming to produce and source 50% of its vehicle components in the country by the end of the year. BYD’s subsidiaries in Brazil directly own mineral rights in the country’s “lithium valley”.
Brazil’s Congress defies Lula to push through “devastation bill” on COP30’s heels
Some pro-government lawmakers had proposed the creation of a state-owned agency that would hold a monopoly over mining projects, but that was eventually rejected after the federal government decided that no additional state intervention was needed in the sector.
Mônica Sodré, CEO of the Brazilian Center for International Relations (CEBRI), said the country’s mining rules were created when minerals were mainly seen as “commodities for export”. Today, they are “central to economic security, industrial policy and geopolitics,” she said.
The proposed legislation, she added, is “an important first step, not a final solution” to position the country as a major mineral producer, and developing projects will require continued efforts through the newly-created committee.
Soft on safeguards?
But despite the government’s pledges to develop a critical minerals sector that benefits the national interest, some environmental groups have opposed the critical minerals policy bill, saying it does not create enough safeguards for the protection of affected communities.
Adriana Pinheiro, public policy advisor with Observatório do Clima, a network representing 130 environmental nonprofits, told Climate Home News that the bill “lacks explicit provisions on free, prior and informed consultation”.
-
In Brazil’s lithium belt, locals fear push to dismantle legal protections
As demand for transition minerals soars, pro-business lawmakers and environmental activists in COP30 host Brazil are in a tug of war over how to regulate the mining industry -
The scramble to stockpile critical minerals could drive up energy transition costs
Researchers warn that uncoordinated stockpiling could push up prices of minerals needed for clean energy technologies and delay their roll out -
Recycling could meet half of Europe’s critical mineral needs by 2050
A new report by an EU-funded research project says the bloc could harness its “urban mines” to reduce its dependence on China for energy transition minerals
The Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (Apib) said in a note to Congress that the bill has the “potential to significantly impact indigenous territories without adequately incorporating mechanisms for protection and participation”.
Sodré said the concerns are valid, but that the draft bill is not the place to address them. Instead, she said, indigenous rights and participation should be considered on a project-by-project basis and that safeguards exist under Brazil’s “extensive” environmental permitting legislation.
“Precaution is essential in mining policy, but it should not lead to inaction. Blocking investments or delaying projects without clear evidence of unacceptable risks can result in significant social and economic costs,” she said.
Pinheiro, of the Observatório do Clima, added that while the bill encourages domestic processing of critical minerals, it does not create mandatory quotas. Countries such as Indonesia and Zimbabwe have banned raw exports, forcing investors to set up processing plants in the country.
“This regulation is only positive if it combines industrial strategy with strong safeguards,” Pinheiro said.
Geological advantage
China extracts about 70% of the world’s rare earths and controls around 90% of the processing – creating a potential chokepoint that has alarmed Western countries at a time of heightened geopolitical tension. The US and China have opted to stockpile key minerals in case trade restrictions are enacted against them.
Brazil, which has strong trade and diplomatic ties with both Beijing and Washington, views the intensifying competition for rare earth supplies as an opportunity for it to develop a new mining sector. Brazil’s National Mining Agency has reported about 2,700 rare earths projects under consideration, according to local news outlet Folha de Sao Paulo.
The country’s rare earths reserves also have a geological advantage, as they are predominantly contained in ionic clay rather than hard rock. These deposits contain sought-after “heavy rare earths” and require less processing to extract.
Backed by $2.7 billion in financial support from US government agencies, American mining firm USA Rare Earths acquired Brazil’s Serra Verde group, which owns the high-grade Pela Ema mine. The ionic clay mine is the only one outside Asia capable of supplying all the four major rare earths at scale, according to the company’s CEO Barbara Humpton.
Other major firms have followed, with Canada’s Aclara conducting studies in the $680-million Carina mine and Australian companies Meteoric and Viridis also seeking to develop ionic clay mines for European and American buyers.
Despite growing Western investments, China remains Brazil’s largest trade partner and the country’s imports from Brazil have already tripled between 2024 and 2025, according to data by the Brazil-China Business Council.
The draft bill does not guarantee that Brazil will be able to compete with Chinese rare earths on the international market, Sodré noted. A “more realistic benchmark” is how effectively the country can position itself as major supplier of critical minerals for the energy transition, she added.
Pinheiro said clearer regulation may help shape investments into the country, but foreign companies will not necessarily wait for Brazil’s critical minerals policy.
“The central question is whether Brazil will use this moment to build domestic value chains, ensure socio-environmental safeguards and protect affected communities,” she said.
The post Brazil jostles for rare earths share as US-China rivalry heats up appeared first on Climate Home News.
Brazil jostles for rare earths share as US-China rivalry heats up
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy8 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测