Of the many solutions to address climate pollution from food and agriculture, alternative proteins (APs) such as plant-based meat, cultivated meat, and precision fermentation products are among the most divisive, both within the climate community itself and beyond.
Nevertheless, recent scientific analysis has made it clear that, to limit the disastrous impacts of climate change the world must address emissions from food and agricultural systems, and specifically animal-based foods. APs offer solutions that could turn the tide on these emissions, but only if these key technologies get the support they deserve.
This three-part series will explain why APs are an indispensable food systems climate solution, detail additional non-climate benefits of APs that strengthen the case for additional investment and supportive policy measures, and explain why international cooperation among climate-leading governments is crucial to advancing the sector. Finally, it will lay out concrete steps governments can take to help ensure the myriad potential benefits of APs are realized.
Without addressing food system emissions, we cannot achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement
Food systems already account for about 1/3 of all global greenhouse gas emissions, and as production grows to meet rising demand from a growing global population, emissions are projected to rise significantly. As a result, emissions from food consumption alone could lead to as much as 1.1 degrees Celsius of additional warming by 2100.
With global average temperatures already having risen about a degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels, enough to push warming beyond 2 degrees Celsius.
Reducing emissions from livestock production is essential for climate goals
Production of animal-based foods accounts for about half of emissions from food systems and as much as 20% of total global emissions. What’s more, over three-quarters of projected future warming from food systems is due to the consumption of just three high-emitting foods: meat, dairy, and rice. As such, there is no real prospect of sufficiently reducing food system emissions without substantial reductions in emissions from livestock.
Changing the ways we produce livestock products is not enough
There is significant potential to reduce emissions growth through changes to livestock production. Solutions include new feed additives, vaccines, grazing management, selective breeding, better animal healthcare, and changes in animals’ diets. However, with global production of livestock projected to increase at least 50% in the coming decades (see the figure below), these strategies to lower the emissions intensity of production cannot negate the increase in emissions from more animals being reared to meet the expected growth in demand.
Global Meat Consumption 2013 to 2050
Data from FAO via Our World in Data
Diet and behavior change have failed to curb emissions so far
The health and environmental benefits of shifting diets to include more whole, plant-based foods are well documented, and climate advocates are right to recommend policies and changes to food environments that help make beans and lentils, nuts and seeds, and fruits and vegetables more accessible and embraced.
At the same time, diets are not changing fast enough to keep warming to safe levels. Though data is regrettably sparse, the portion of the population eating a vegetarian or vegan diet appears to be stable rather than increasing, despite the dogged efforts of environmentalists and animal rights activists to persuade people to stop or reduce their consumption of animal products.
In the United States, for instance, surveys show that the proportion of the population eating a vegetarian or vegan diet has not changed significantly over the last quarter century. The same is true in the UK over the last five years. Meanwhile, global per capita meat and dairy consumption has increased over the last decade and is projected to continue doing so over the next.
Fortunately, alternative proteins offer a different approach
Instead of trying to drastically change consumers’ behavior, we can simply provide them with lower-emissions alternatives to meat that cost the same or less and taste as good or better. This is the promise of APs. Unlike conventional plant-based proteins like tofu and seitan or insect-based foods, AP products aim to give consumers the experience of eating conventional meat but without the environmental and other downsides associated with livestock production.
What are alternative proteins?
Alternative proteins (APs) are meats that do not require the rearing and slaughter of animals. There are three primary types of APs:
🫛 Plant-based proteins. The most common in terms of current sales volumes, these products are made from soy protein, pea protein, wheat gluten, or a combination of plant-based sources. Examples include the Impossible Burger and Beyond Meat hamburgers.
🍄🟫 Fermented proteins (mycoprotein). Fungi/Mycoprotein is used to convert glucose into protein via a fermentation process. Examples include Quorn, Meati, and Nature’s Fynd.
🧬 Cultivated meat. Also referred to as “cell-based,” “cultured,” or “lab-grown” meat, this novel technology produces meat from animal muscle cells. Animal cells are grown in a bioreactor containing a growth medium. The result is a product that is actual animal meat. It is currently a niche market due to high production costs and the absence of regulatory frameworks. For example, Eat Just chicken nuggets, are currently available for sale only in Singapore.
To date, no AP product tastes the same or better to consumers of meat and costs the same or less. Yet the pace of innovation on APs has been impressive, with cost and taste improving rapidly. Just as the goal with renewable energy and electric vehicles is to make them interchangeable with conventional energy and combustion-powered vehicles, so too are plant-based and cultivated meat companies focused on winning in the marketplace by producing products that taste the same or better to consumers and that cost the same or less, thus requiring no intentional behavior change.
Alternative Proteins can meet consumer demand while cutting climate emissions
Like the shift from internal combustion to electric vehicles, a shift to APs could reduce emissions substantially without major changes in consumer behavior. The United Nations Environment Programme found that, compared to conventionally produced beef, plant-based beef “could use 30–50 percent less energy whilst offering reductions of 86–97 percent in land use and 67–89 percent in GHG emissions”. It is therefore not surprising that modeling efforts have repeatedly found that APs’ mitigation potential is substantial.
The UK Foreign Commonwealth Office and ClimateWorks Foundation analysis found that, in a high-innovation scenario where APs account for a majority of the global protein market by 2050, APs could cut global greenhouse gas emissions by about 10% by mid-century. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis modeling shows that APs’ mitigation potential is even greater if restoration of land formerly used by livestock is considered. A Global Methane Hub and ClimateWorks Foundation report states APs have greater methane mitigation potential than any other food system innovation and have the potential to halve food system methane emissions by 2050.
APs deserve a place on the menu of climate solutions governments should support this decade to protect against the worst impacts of climate change. But their mitigation potential is hardly the only potential benefit of greater investment in and uptake of APs, the numerous non-climate benefits of which only strengthen the case for further investment and policy support. We’ll cover this topic in Part 2 of this series and the steps the international community can take to support APs in Part 3.
