Animal agriculture is an environmental disaster, and some countries are beginning to recognize this fact. In the United Kingdom, backers of the 2008 Climate Change Act are seeking to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80% by 2050. Those involved in animal agriculture need to do their part. Specifically, the industry has to reduce its emissions of CO2 equivalents by 3Mt (megatons, or 3,000,000 tons) per year, and they need to do it by 2018. It’s an important target to reach and the stakes are high. Researchers have studied a variety of emission reduction measures and, of course, there are differences in the emissions of various production methods.

This study measured the differences between production systems to assess how much animal agriculture can be maintained while reducing GHG and ammonia emissions. Using life cycle assessment modeling, the researchers went through five steps. First, they looked at a model that maximizes production. Second, constraints within each production system. Third, how different systems use land. Fourth, emission constraints. Fifth, they looked at the current structure of the industry to see what can be achieved. The researchers also evaluated other possible abatement techniques that could reduce emissions while continuing to maximize production.

With the goal of reducing emissions by 20% to meet Climate Change Act targets, the researchers ran some scenarios. They found that “beef” production is a major hurdle as it produces the largest proportion of emissions. The authors’ initial estimates called for reducing beef production by 54%, a number which they deemed “unrealistic,” so they started again. They adjusted this to maintain beef production at 72% of the baseline. From there, they note that even using “optimal” production systems, farmers would still have to reduce lamb production by 16% and pig production by 44%. As we often see in environmental impact research, however, the impact varies by species.

Interestingly (and questionably), the authors found that adding different abatement measures meant that the production of chickens, eggs, and milk could be kept close to 100%. However, “total livestock production” would have to be reduced to 86% of current levels. Sheep farming would take a particularly sharp cut, dropping to 15% of the current output. All of this number-juggling (there is much more in the study) is done with the goal of “balancing reductions of gaseous emissions with minimizing reductions in farm production and hence income.”

This study is intended to show how much animal agriculture production levels can be maintained if changes are put in place. Farmed animal advocates will see this as further evidence that animal agriculture is unsustainable. The study also raises the question: if we have to work this hard just to maintain our levels of meat production and consumption, is it worth it? All of the evidence points to the fact that raising plants for food is so much better for the planet than raising animals for food.

This study shows that, even in a best-case scenario and with a great deal of effort, we will still have to dramatically reduce meat consumption to meet climate change targets. The signs are pointing towards change, one that advocates will need to help people embrace. The authors of this study acknowledge this. They conclude the study by noting that “ultimately, the only means of substantially reducing GHG from livestock production in the UK, without simply exporting production and emissions to other countries, may be to substantially reduce consumer demand for livestock products.”