For years, climate experts have warned that the global food system is putting heavy pressure on the planet. Rising temperatures, shrinking forests, and growing water scarcity all tie back, in part, to the way we produce food. Among all food sources, livestock—especially cattle—stands out as one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. This has led to a bold claim circulating online: that climate scientists say the world must reduce meat consumption by 90% to meet climate goals.
It’s a powerful statement, but is it true? The answer is more complex than a simple yes or no.
Where the “90%” Claim Comes From
The origin of this number traces back to several high-profile studies that examined how dietary changes could help prevent catastrophic climate change. One well-known analysis from researchers at Oxford suggested that high-income countries—places where people eat the most beef and dairy—may need to cut their consumption of red meat by as much as 90% to align with global environmental targets.
However, this does not mean that every country must eliminate nearly all meat from its diet. The 90% figure applies mainly to wealthy regions like North America, Europe, and parts of Australia, where meat consumption is far above the global average.
Lower-income countries, where meat intake is often already low, were not the target of these drastic reductions.
What Climate Scientists Agree On
While the “90% everywhere” claim isn’t accurate, climate scientists do agree on a few key points:
1. Livestock Emissions Must Drop Fast
Cows, sheep, and goats release large amounts of methane—a powerful greenhouse gas. A number of recent reports suggest that to keep global warming under control, livestock emissions need to fall by 50–60% over the next couple of decades.
This doesn’t strictly translate to a specific percentage of meat reduction, but cutting consumption—especially beef—plays a big role.
2. Wealthy Countries Need Bigger Cuts
Countries with high per-person meat consumption have a larger environmental footprint, so they are usually asked to reduce more. This is where numbers like “70%” or “90%” come in.
Developing countries, on the other hand, often rely on livestock for nutrition, livelihoods, and local economies. For them, drastic reductions are neither practical nor necessary.
3. Beef Has the Highest Climate Impact
All meat does not contribute equally. Beef production generates far more emissions than chicken, eggs, or plant-based foods. It also requires more land and water.
This means that even modest shifts—such as replacing beef with chicken or beans a few times a week—have a noticeable climate benefit.
4. Diet Change Alone Is Not Enough
Even if people around the world reduced meat significantly, it wouldn’t solve everything. Climate goals also depend on clean energy, transportation changes, less food waste, and better farming practices. Diet is one piece of a larger puzzle.
A More Accurate Summary
Instead of saying “the world must cut meat consumption by 90%,” a more accurate picture is this:
The world needs major reductions in livestock emissions.
High-income countries may need to cut red meat consumption by up to 70–90%.
Global reductions will likely fall closer to 30–50%.
Beef reduction has the biggest impact.
Plant-based foods will need to play a bigger role in diets, especially in wealthy regions.
This paints a clearer and more balanced view of what the science actually recommends.
What Would This Look Like in Real Life?
A shift away from meat doesn’t mean eliminating it entirely. Experts describe a future diet that looks something like:
Smaller portions of beef and more occasional red-meat meals
More chicken, fish, beans, lentils, and nuts
More fruits, vegetables, and whole grains
Better farming systems that reduce emissions
These changes are already becoming common in many countries. Plant-based products are rising in popularity, and restaurants are offering more climate-friendly menu options.
Why This Topic Matters
Food is deeply personal. Culture, religion, tradition, and income all shape the way people eat. That’s why discussions about diet and climate must be realistic and sensitive. Not everyone can or should follow the same diet plan.
At the same time, the science is clear: the current global meat consumption trend is not environmentally sustainable, especially when it comes to beef. Balanced, gradual change is far more achievable than extreme, universal rules.