Changing where cities get their meat could cut emissions in half

Every meal leaves a trace. Beyond taste and nutrition, the food we eat shapes the planet’s health. For people living in American cities, the meat on their plates carries an invisible burden of greenhouse gases that rival the energy used to power their homes.

Researchers from the University of Michigan and the University of Minnesota revealed this finding in their latest study published in Nature Climate Change.

Using a high-resolution mapping model, they tracked how meat travels from rural farms to urban plates. They then quantified what they call the “carbon hoofprint” of 3,531 U.S. cities.

Following meat’s carbon trail

The team used the Food System Supply-Chain Sustainability (FoodS3) model to connect every stage of meat production – from growing feed to processing and consumption. This approach reconstructed how 11 million tons of chicken, beef, and pork flow annually through the country.

The researchers found that together, U.S. cities generate a massive 329 million tons of CO2-equivalent emissions from meat consumption. That’s roughly equal to the emissions from household fossil fuel use nationwide.

Per person, the impact ranges widely: some cities emit around 1,100 pounds (500 kilograms) of CO₂ annually from meat, while others exceed 3,750 pounds (1,700 kilograms).

“This has huge implications for how we gauge the environmental impact of cities, measure those impacts and ultimately develop policies to reduce those impacts,” said Benjamin Goldstein of the University of Michigan.

Where your meat comes from

The study shows that emissions vary less by how much meat people eat and more by where their meat comes from.

The researchers found that cities sourcing beef from regions using lower-emission farming techniques had smaller hoofprints. This was true even when consumption remained high. Conversely, cities reliant on carbon-intensive feedlots saw inflated impacts.

“There’s not a single emissions value for the meat we consume,” said Rylie Pelton of the University of Minnesota. “The supply chains are different in different locations, and the impacts of production are different. That all matters from an emissions standpoint.”

Beef contributes the most, forming about 73 percent of the total hoofprint, followed by pork and chicken.

The study also revealed that cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Atlanta source their beef through networks that span hundreds of counties and thousands of miles. Each link – feed farms, feedlots, and processing centers – adds its own share of greenhouse gases.

Meat emissions change by region

Differences in soil, climate, fertilizer use, and farming methods produce enormous variability in emissions. Across cities, the carbon intensity of beef production alone can differ more than fourfold.

Pork and chicken show even greater disparity, especially where manure management or feed production practices vary.

For example, cities near dairy-producing regions such as Wisconsin often consume beef from culled dairy cattle, which has a smaller carbon footprint. In contrast, places sourcing beef from feedlots using open manure lagoons face much higher emissions.

The team’s high-resolution modeling reveals these patterns in unprecedented detail, painting a clearer picture of how distant farms shape a city’s environmental profile.

Reducing beef emissions

To test possible solutions, the researchers modeled four scenarios. Reducing food waste by half lowered emissions by up to 16 percent. Replacing half of all beef consumption with chicken or pork cut the hoofprint by around 30 percent.

Combining these actions, along with skipping meat one day a week, slashed emissions by 51 percent overall.

Goldstein pointed out that such dietary changes could deliver carbon savings similar to installing home solar panels but at far lower costs.

“If we can identify those links, there might be opportunities for cities to engage with those distant locations, to help provide financial incentives to adopt certain practices that would ultimately help their own carbon footprint,” Pelton added.

Cities, farms, and the future

The researchers stress that tackling meat-related emissions requires cooperation between cities and rural communities. “We are all connected,” concluded Jennifer Schmitt, senior scientist at the University of Minnesota.

Instead of abandoning farmers, the study proposes city-led initiatives that fund cleaner technologies, such as anaerobic digesters to manage waste and silvopastoral systems combining trees and grazing. These could further lower national hoofprints by as much as six percent.

“It is our hope that this study provides an example of how we can foster better understanding between two different places: one largely urban and one distinctly rural where our food is produced,” said Joshua Newell from the University of Michigan.

By combining science, policy, and public awareness, cities can help shape a more sustainable food system. Each shift in diet and supply brings the U.S. closer to shrinking its carbon hoofprint while staying tied to its land.

The study is published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–