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
An upcoming UK government consultation on weakening targets for electric vehicles (EVs) could cost consumers as much as £3bn a year by 2030, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
It could require the UK to import an extra 17m barrels of oil in 2030, raising expected net imports by 8%, as well as adding 2.5% to national emissions that year, the analysis shows.
After years of fierce lobbying by parts of the car industry – and despite the significant savings on offer for EV drivers – media reports suggest that EV targets could be “watered down”.
Under current rules, battery EVs – BEVs, those which run only on electricity – must make up a rising share of new car sales in the UK.
This policy, known as the “zero-emission vehicles” (ZEV) mandate, was introduced by the previous Conservative government and sets a goal for 33% BEV sales in 2026, rising to 80% in 2030.
(Carmakers are able to use “flexibilities” to help meet their targets, which reduces the effective target under the ZEV mandate to an estimated 25% of sales in 2026.)
Now, the government under new Labour prime minister Andy Burnham is reported to be considering a cut in the BEV target for 2030 to just 50% of new car sales, alongside options for 60% or 70%.
Carbon Brief understands that a consultation on weakening the ZEV mandate is being reviewed by the prime minister’s office in Number 10, ahead of being formally released.
If the mandate is weakened to 50% by 2030 – and if carmakers make more use of “flexibilities” – there could be up to 3m fewer BEVs on UK roads by 2030, according to the NGO T&E.
Previous Carbon Brief analysis found that BEVs are around £1,100 cheaper to run per year than a petrol car, thanks to far lower fuel costs.
Overall, BEVs are more than £1,000 per year cheaper to own than either petrol cars or plug-in hybrids (PHEVs, which can run on petrol or electricity).
This is according to analysis of the “total cost of ownership” by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), including purchase price, fuel costs, insurance and proposed pay-per-mile charges.
In total, Carbon Brief analysis shows that UK drivers could be hit with an extra £3bn in annual ownership costs by 2030, if the ZEV mandate is weakened, as shown below.
A weaker ZEV mandate could “put billions of pounds of committed investments at risk”, reports BusinessGreen, including in the EV charging network and battery supply chains.
Industry group Energy UK says that the mandate is “working in the way it was designed to work” and that it is the “single biggest driver of emissions reductions” in government climate plans.
However, Carbon Brief analysis shows that a weaker ZEV mandate could result in an extra 7.4m tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions (MtCO2) in 2030. This would add the equivalent of 2.5% to national emissions in 2030, under the UK’s international climate goal for that year.
In addition, a weaker ZEV mandate could result in the UK needing to import an extra 17m barrels of oil in 2030, equivalent to 8% of projected net imports that year.
Energy UK says that shifting to EVs will help to reduce household energy bills “for everyone”. This is not only through direct cost-of-ownership savings for EV drivers, but also by spreading the costs of upgrading the electricity system across a wider user base.
Car industry group the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders claims that its members are spending “blilions…on discounts, finance incentives and marketing support” and that “natural” EV demand is below the level required to meet the current ZEV mandate. Its claims are disputed.
related
Q&A: Does the world need ‘carbon capture and storage’ to reach net-zero?
UK withdraws millions in funding from world’s second-largest rainforest in Congo
28 quotes from new UK leader Andy Burnham on climate, net-zero and fossil fuels
Analysis: UK newspapers have already printed 63 editorials in 2026 backing North Sea drilling
The post Analysis: Weaker EV targets could cost UK consumers £3bn a year by 2030 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Weaker EV targets could cost UK consumers £3bn a year by 2030
A new draft text to revive deadlocked UN plastics treaty talks does not include specific measures on managing runaway plastic production, a growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, drawing criticism from some countries and campaigners that ambition for the global pact is shrinking.
After diplomats met in Nairobi early in July for the first time since negotiations fell apart a year ago, Chilean ambassador Julio Cordano, who is chairing the talks, released a first document last weekend, setting out elements of a possible treaty to tackle plastic pollution.
Cordano stressed this is an “informal reference document” rather than a negotiated text. But its structure is similar to a draft treaty and closely resembles the previous version rejected by governments during the last round of formal negotiations in Geneva.
The new text recognises the world’s “unsustainable” levels of plastic production and consumption, both of which are projected to nearly triple by 2060. But it contains no measures to stem that growth, critics say, pointing to what they see as a broader weakening of ambition.
They argue the document is increasingly aligned with the demands of fossil fuel-producing countries, including Gulf states, the US and Russia, which have pushed for the treaty to focus on managing plastic waste rather than limiting production.
“When you leave the countries that have the most vested interests in delaying meaningful action to shape the agenda, you end up with a text that does nothing to end plastic pollution,” said David Azoulay, environmental health programme director at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).
France disappointed with production omission
“We’ve gone backwards rather than forwards,” Christina Dixon, a campaigner at the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), told Climate Home News. “A text that was rejected by the majority of countries in Geneva as being too weak and not ambitious enough has been repackaged one year later with some key elements removed and put out as a kind of sign of progress.”
A French diplomatic source told Climate Home News it was “disappointing” that the text lacked any concrete provisions on tackling “unsustainable” levels of plastics production and consumption. That is despite a majority of countries repeatedly advocating for curbs and scientists saying the world cannot put an end to plastic pollution without tackling the issue at source, they added.
-
South Africa’s offshore oil push meets grassroots resistance in court
Two court cases against oil majors TotalEnergies and Shell could derail South Africa’s plan to expand offshore fossil fuels -
UN bid to keep 1.5C alive exposes deepening divisions over fossil fuels
Vulnerable island nations and the poorest countries want the Belém Mission to 1.5 to drive fossil fuel phase-out, while Arab states call for more investment in oil and gas
Governments across Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Pacific islands have previously called for efforts to limit the manufacturing of plastics to “sustainable levels”, but their efforts have been frustrated by strong and persistent opposition from a small group of fossil fuel producers, who see plastics as a growing market for oil and gas.
Weakening of production ambition
Cordano told Climate Home News that the “concept” of sustainable production is still reflected in different parts of the new document.
But measures aimed at achieving that objective have progressively weakened over time. Initial versions of the draft treaty, dating back to 2024, included a standalone article with the option of setting a global target to reduce the production and consumption of primary plastics.
That disappeared from successive drafts published in Geneva last year. The last version nevertheless said data on plastic production could be considered in future assessments of whether the treaty was meeting its objectives. Observers saw this as an important provision that could have strengthened the pact over time and potentially kept the door open for a global production target.
The new text only mentions “sustainable production” in the preamble and includes an article saying that countries could improve the design of plastic products in order to contribute to “sustainable production”.
“There’s a war of attrition element,” said Dennis Clare, a negotiator for the Pacific island nation of Micronesia. “The countries that want to do less are dragging out discussions and gradually pressuring the more ambitious to compromise towards a lower common denominator.”
Little space for thorny discussions
Countries have twice failed to agree on a global plastics treaty at what were meant to be final rounds of negotiations in December 2024 and August 2025. After being selected as the new chair earlier this year, Cordano has been working to steer the process back on track through a series of informal meetings, hoping diplomats can find common ground ahead of the next formal negotiations scheduled for early 2027.
But he has been criticised for sidelining discussions on some of the thorniest issues. Cordano kept plastic production off the official agenda for the Nairobi meeting a few weeks ago. He said beforehand that countries could bring any issue to the table, but production did not feature in the summary of discussions subsequently published by the chair.
Clare said discussions on fundamental elements of the treaty, including production, had been “constrained” and that there was little space for them in Nairobi.
Cordano told Climate Home News the Nairobi talks had provided space both for “reaffirming positions and expressing new ideas”, adding that countries “remain free to raise all issues they consider important”.
Informal talks between negotiators are held behind closed doors and neither the media nor external observers can take part.
Campaigners have accused the chair of making political calculations to reach an agreement at any cost. “He has clearly identified that the only way to achieve an agreement by consensus is to do away with the more complex elements of the treaty like those that deal with sustainable production and consumption of plastics,” the EIA’s Dixon said.
Cordano said he continues to be guided by countries as “they develop their own exchanges and continue working towards possible landing zones”.
Push for more ambition
Governments will debate the new text at another meeting of chief negotiators in Bangkok, Thailand, at the end of September, and a new version of the document is expected after that meeting.
The French diplomatic source said the current text should not be viewed as “an end-product”, but as a starting point that “can and should be improved”.
France, together with the EU and members of the High Ambition Coalition (HAC), will continue pushing for stronger provisions, including measures to address plastic production, the source said.
China’s coal power rebounds as record clean energy goes to waste
The HAC group includes over 70 countries, primarily from across Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Pacific.
Micronesian negotiator Clare said countries on the frontline of the plastics crisis may decide to reject a really weak treaty that puts the burden on them to clean up somebody else’s waste, while producers can keep churning out plastics unrestrained.
“If the treaty does not include essential elements of the solution, even an initial, apparent diplomatic success – an agreement – can come to be seen over time as an environmental failure,” Clare warned.
The post “We’ve gone backwards” – new plastics treaty text dims hopes for production curbs appeared first on Climate Home News.
“We’ve gone backwards” – new plastics treaty text dims hopes for production curbs
Layers of red dust coat South Africa’s Saldanha Bay, a legacy of the one billion-plus tonnes of iron ore exported from what was once a quiet coastal fishing town in the 1970s. Now the government wants to turn this area into the “oil and gas hub of South Africa”, but opposition from local communities and civil society could force a change of plan.
Since 2014 South Africa has developed a strategy for taking “full advantage” of its marine resources, known as Operation Phakisa. It has resulted in the mapping of more than 95% of the country’s nearly 3,000-kilometre coastline for offshore oil and gas exploration.
The plan seeks to “drill 30 exploration wells in 10 years”, which it estimates could lead to the production of an average of 370,000 barrels of oil and gas per day over 20 years, with Saldanha Bay earmarked as a key logistics hub. It also aims to develop other marine sectors like aquaculture, maritime transport and ocean tourism.
However, two major court cases against the government and oil giants Shell and TotalEnergies have challenged those plans, as coastal residents, allied with national civil society groups, have pushed back against oil concessions held by the multinationals, arguing they were not consulted, and that towns like Saldanha Bay could face social and environmental harms from the fossil fuel extraction.
-
Santa Marta coalition tested as co-chair Colombia turns back to fossil fuels
Despite a leadership gap, outgoing environment minister Irene Vélez Torres says the anti-fossil fuel coalition can “live without Colombia” -
China’s coal power rebounds as record clean energy goes to waste
Long-term contracts guarantee coal plants buyers regardless of demand, crowding out renewables, report finds
Melissa Groenink-Groves, programme manager at legal nonprofit Natural Justice, said the cases in South Africa could set a precedent for the whole region. “When communities win in the courts, the successes serve as inspiration for other communities to advocate [for] their rights in their own contexts,” she explained.
She added that the legal challenges to Operation Phakisa also develop climate litigation in the African context, and could impact how environmental impact assessments are conducted going forward.
Globally, as the oil and gas industry sets its sights on the ocean, with over 85% of new discoveries in 2024 made offshore, scientists and activists warn it could threaten marine life and coastal communities, and weaken the ocean’s ability to trap excess heat from the atmosphere, fuelling planetary warming further.
Taking oil companies to court
About 300 kilometres north of Saldanha Bay, the Aukotowa Fisheries Cooperative, backed by nonprofits The Green Connection and Natural Justice, has taken TotalEnergies to court over its plans to drill for oil and gas in a 30,000-square-kilometre block off South Africa’s west coast.
The oil exploration block is in a biodiverse marine area bordering Namibia and South Africa known as the Orange Basin, which is a “highly relevant” sanctuary for endangered species, according to Nelson Mandela University’s Institute for Coastal and Marine Research.
Among other grievances, the cooperative maintains that the company’s environmental impact assessment was flawed, failing to consider the project’s contribution to climate change, and that the government “placed the profits of a multinational corporation above the livelihoods of vulnerable coastal communities”. The Western Cape High Court concluded hearings in late March and is expected to deliver a ruling later this year.
Walter Steenkamp, chairperson of the Aukotowa Cooperative, is concerned that the oil and gas drilling will lead to increased inequality, asking “for whom is the development? Definitely not for us.”
In a written statement, TotalEnergies told Climate Home News that it “is a responsible operator fully committed to complying with all applicable South African legislation”.
Southeast Asia’s fragile grids threaten billions in clean energy investment
Communities and climate impacts at stake
On the other side of the country, along South Africa’s eastern coastline, community-based nonprofit Sustaining the Wild Coast and partner organisations challenged Shell and Impact Africa’s exploration permit, arguing that the firms had failed to consult impacted communities – a legal requirement under South African law.
Co-plaintiff Sinegugu Zukulu also said in 2022 that “oil and gas will lead to more emissions, and in the face of climate change, this is wholly irresponsible”.
Following two rulings against the companies by lower courts, the case is now before South Africa’s highest Constitutional Court, which has reserved judgment since September 2025. A ruling against the companies would be final, effectively ending the exploration permit.
Legal expert Groenink-Groves said oil exploration applications under Operation Phakisa have been “granted largely without properly assessing the devastating impact an oil spill could have on small-scale fishers, the risks of drilling in ultra-deep waters, [and] without accounting for climate change impacts associated with oil and gas exploitation”.
She added that exploration applications have often failed to consider coastal management laws and in some cases, cross-border and regional environmental risks.
Shell and South Africa’s Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources did not respond to written requests for comment.
South Africa’s offshore oil ambitions
Fishers around South Africa, many of whom have for generations relied on marine resources for survival, say the country’s offshore oil and gas push is sacrificing their livelihoods for profit.
“Why do they want to destroy our heritage? We can’t afford to say yes to oil and gas because the ocean is our source of life,” said Carmelita Mostert, a member of advocacy group Coastal Links and third-generation Saldanha Bay fisher.
Yet with unemployment above 30%, alongside high levels of poverty and wealth inequality, the government sees Operation Phakisa as a vehicle for socioeconomic development.
South Africa’s Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources Gwede Mantashe has described the court cases as “anti-development”, and claimed that the environmental organisations are funded by the CIA.
Sifiso Dladla, a campaigner with human rights organisation groundWork, argued that the close relationship between the government and the fossil fuel industry – including its 3% contribution to gross tax revenue – limits the potential success of movements pushing for an inclusive energy system. Politicians “need money to win elections. Mining companies need the government to protect them,” he said.
Patrick Bond, a political economist and sociology professor at the University of Johannesburg, said Operation Phakisa only makes economic sense if its social and environmental harms are ignored, adding that “if a genuine social cost of carbon analysis were done in any African fossil fuel project, there would be few – if any – able to justify the projects economically”.
At a global scale, Bond said oil multinationals have the financial backing of European governments – including France’s $2.8 billion stake in TotalEnergies – which can help make local resistance more effective where it has international allies to amplify the messages.
For Saldanha Bay fisher Mostert, the fight is about protecting the livelihoods of coastal communities. “It is my hope that we can stand strong and protest,” she said. “If oil and gas is not allowed, our lives will be much easier and better – but if oil and gas goes ahead we will be in absolute agony.”
The post South Africa’s offshore oil push meets grassroots resistance in court appeared first on Climate Home News.
South Africa’s offshore oil push meets grassroots resistance in court
Analysis: Weaker EV targets could cost UK consumers £3bn a year by 2030
“We’ve gone backwards” – new plastics treaty text dims hopes for production curbs
Insetting vs Offsetting: Which Actually Counts Toward Your Scope 3 Targets
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year 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 Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits