Meat or miles? Animals or airplanes? An issue with impact

A steak or flying to the sun? Does meat have more impact than flying? Who emits more, Bella or Boeing? And what is easier to give up, meat or flying? In this post, we take a closer look at these emission giants and sort out why we have become slaves of them. But the point I really want to get to is: are regular meat-eaters bigger emitters than airplane passengers? How many pieces of meat do you have to give up to offset a flight? A few thoughts and figures on flying and meat.

By Kathelijne Bonne. GondwanaTalks requires an immense effort. Consider doing a donation as a Stromboli Strategist, Tambora Trailblazer or Vesuvian Visionary!  

Meat seems easier to give up than flying. At least that is how I feel. Cheap and flexible train travel does not seem to be an option everywhere yet. Only a fraction of the population can afford expensive train tickets and spend several days traveling to a destination.

Nevertheless, the real cost of flying is higher than train travel, but billions in taxpayer money keep the planes in the air through subsidies. They transport the masses to vacation destinations or to anonymous offices where bodily presence is apparently indispensable.

Flying, an old dream, is now just a mouse click away. Most people have forgotten how incredible it is that flying is possible at all. When I fly, I try not to forget the wonder and awe I felt during my first flight, ages ago. I still watch and photograph the incredible cloudscapes.

Absurd but true, I flew from Brussels to Antwerp, a maiden flight with school in times when most youngsters of my social class, if I may use that label, had never flown before.

I had no idea at the time that not only visible emissions but also meat had an impact on the climate in less obvious ways. I've never been a big meat eater though, perhaps because of my early love of animals. But I also had a love of exploring and traveling. Who doesn't?

Luxury emissions and macho meat

Our ecological footprint is complex and determined by many factors, but flying and eating meat are amongst the most significant. Both are luxury sources of emissions because we don't really need them, they're luxuries. The consuming of both has become an inalienable birthright.

Cars gave us unprecedented freedom. Flying has taken that freedom to a stratospheric level. The sky is the limit. Meanwhile, meat eating is deeply embedded in culture and tradition. For convenience, we have forgotten that our ancestors ate much less meat. Even in prehistoric times, we were less formidable hunters than is generally defended. Yet the meat-eating image of the mighty hunter has seeped into the fabric of macho culture (real men eat meat). Somehow, we have all become slaves to a society that drives us to consume thoughtlessly and excessively. Whatever the psychology behind it, the figures do not lie. 

Emissions in figures: meat vs flying

On average, one kilometer of flying per passenger causes emissions of 0.15 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e)* (average for long- and short-haul flights). An economy class passenger on a flight from Brussels to Madrid (approximately 1,300 km – 800 mile) generates an average of 195 kg of CO₂e.

(*) What is CO₂ equivalent (CO₂e)? It is a measure used to compare the emissions of different greenhouse gases and express them in terms of their effect on global warming, compared to carbon dioxide (CO₂). Because gases such as methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) have a much stronger warming effect than CO₂, their impact is converted to a CO₂ equivalent. 1 kg of methane (CH₄) ≈ 25 kg CO₂e. 1 kg of nitrous oxide (N₂O) ≈ 298 kg CO₂e.

And what about the emissions from meat? The production of 1 kg of beef creates about 100 kg CO₂e, while pork is around 12 kg CO₂e per kg. Plant-based foods have significantly lower emissions.

Simple math shows that a 1300 km (800 mile) flight is equivalent to eating about 1.95 kg of beef. That piece of meat can be cut into 5 large steaks or 15 to 19 burgers. Consuming 12,9 kg of beef per year (which is the average per capita in Belgium and Spain) is equivalent in terms of emissions to six one-way flights of 1,300 km (Brussels-Madrid). The impact of other types of meat (pork, chicken, lamb, fish) that the same person eats is not included (so the impact is higher).

Americans fly the most, emitting 386 kg of CO₂e per year per citizen, equivalent to 3.86 kg of beef per person. But they eat much more beef than that: around 37 kg per person per year. This basically means that a ten percent reduction in meat consumption would already offset average American flight emissions.

Methane and the high emissions from beef

It is easy to see that airplanes produce emissions. But what causes the massive emissions from meat, and especially beef (~100 kg CO₂ equivalent per kg)? Methane emissions from ruminants are to blame. They alone account for about half of the total impact.

In addition to methane, land use and deforestation also contribute to the overall picture. Clearing of forests (and thus the loss of photosynthesis) for pastures or animal feed adds another 25 kg CO₂e per kilogram of beef.

Pork, lower emissions hence a better option?

Pigs (12 kg CO₂e per kg of meat) generate significantly less greenhouse gases than cows. The biggest difference is in methane emissions: pigs are not ruminants. But despite the lower emissions, eating pork is not more ethical, on the contrary. The figures from Our World in Data on which this article is based do not take into account the ethical cost, the ruthless suffering of animals in factories.

The impact of animal farming then seeps further into the environment in the form of billions of tonnes of manure and urine, which cause immense disruption to groundwater and soil.

Sustainable meat and sustainable flying? A myth.

Flying and eating meat have something in common. There is no technology that can significantly reduce their emissions on the scale at which they currently operate. The only way to reduce their impact is to consume less. Sustainable animal farming and meat production are only possible on a smaller scale (everyone less, a little bit for everyone), see also the article on Argentina's remarkably low emissions and how they are not at all the result of sustainable beef. Regenerative livestock farming and grass-fed meat are only fantastic if the global market shrinks.

Flying cannot be made more sustainable either. A tiny aircraft can fly electrically, but this technology can never be expanded to the current mega-scale because of the environmental cost of lithium for batteries. Some playing around can be done to optimize fuel consumption, but the only thing that has a real impact is flying less. And people will only fly less if it becomes unaffordable or if there are viable transport alternatives.

Solutions, il Gattopardo, less is more

The figures show that both flying and eating meat have a major impact, but that the emissions from eating a lot of meat are greater than those from occasional flying. Yet the solution does not lie in creating guilt, finger-pointing or extreme abstinence, but in a cultural transformation in which sustainability becomes the norm.

I wonder, probably naively, if an environmental tax and/or the abolition of government subsidies to polluting industries are amongst solutions. The large sums of money freed up could be invested in more sustainable alternatives, trains and public transport, sustainable tourism, and a shift in supermarkets and restaurants towards offering satisfying plant-based food.

Less is more. Our quality of life, way of life and health will not suffer greatly from the absence of meat and flying. Admittedly, the giving up may hurt a little, because flying and meat have become part of our welfare society. But if we want to maintain the welfare, something has to change. A phrase from the Italian novel The Leopard (Il Gattopardo) by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, published posthumously in 1958, comes to mind.

'If we want everything to stay the same, everything must change,' said charismatic Tancredi to his uncle, who saw the Sicily he loved going under.

'Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga come è, bisogna che tutto cambi.'

That is truer today than ever.

-----

Concrete too, is one of the great emitters next to meat and flying. We need it for housing and roads, but not for gardens or parking lots, read the story here to discover what ancient organisms and Romans have to do with it. Read more about how artificial fertilizer is made, about soil degradation in Spain, and a special form of it: soil salinisation. In my article about the animals around us, I expose an absurd paradox, and Jane Goodall also comes into play. The article about supereruptions and how we will produce food then is also interesting.  

Kathelijne: I am intrigued by how earth, life, air, ocean and societies interact on geological and human timescales.

Why I started GondwanaTalks.

Donation?

An immense effort is poured into GondwanaTalks.

Are my articles somehow meaningful to you? Let a few coins roll my way through this secure link. Support my work so I can keep GondwanaTalks afloat. Your contribution makes an ultra-Plinian difference. Make a one-off or recurring donation and become my:

Stromboli Strategist
(€2/month)

Tambora Trailblazer
(€4/month)

Vesuvian Visionary
(€7/month)

Already donating? Thank you so much!

Recent posts:

Do you like this article? Subscribe to my short newsletter (every couple of weeks, no large files or annoying gifs), to let you know I published something new.