Craving a burger? Plant-based burgers can help save the planet
Our food choices at home, and away from home, can collectively have an enormous impact on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The food sector is one of the largest contributors to climate change, estimated at over a third of human made GHGs. Around 60 per cent of these food-related GHG emissions come from meat and dairy production.
Consumer choice is for meat and fast food
Australians consume meat at one of the highest rates in the world. Three-quarters of Australians, aged 14+, also eat at fast food restaurants. Meat-based burgers are a popular choice within Australia’s $22 billion fast food industry.
Our study found that by that by ordering a plant-based beef patty instead of a beef patty at a fast-food outlet, Australian consumers can reduce the global warming potential of their burger by 90 per cent. While ordering chicken instead of a beef burger reduces environmental impact, replacing a chicken burger with a plant-based option reduces that burger’s GWP by 60 per cent.
Turning Australia’s fast-food meat impact around
Australia has the highest per capita GHG emissions from the food sector of all G20 countries. Methane (CH4) accounts for around 35 per cent of food system GHG emissions. Australia has pledged to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030, together with 129 other countries who are signatories to the Global Methane Pledge.
Methane has a much shorter atmospheric lifespan and is far more potent than CO2. As meat is the largest source of methane, arising mainly from the digestive system of ruminants, we can greatly reduce our GWP by shifting diets away from methane-intensive animal proteins. Other GHG emission sources include manure, feed production, fertilisers and the use of fossil fuels.
Clearing forests for farms is also a significant source of emissions. Forests provide a carbon sink that can absorb over a billion tonnes of CO2 per year. Land clearing can result in stored carbon being discharged into the atmosphere, which contributes to climate change. ?
We estimate that if the fast-food sector replace just 25 per cent of beef options with plant-based alternatives, this would result in a reduction of GHG emissions equivalent to taking 150,000 cars off the road each year. Alternatively, if half of beef was replaced with plant-based options in the fast food-sector, the reduction in GHG emissions would be like taking more than 300,000 cars off the road.
If only 25 per cent of chicken was replaced with plant-based alternatives, it could mean taking 52,000 cars off the road.
Figure: Replacing been with plant-based alternatives in Australia’s fast-food sector reduces global warming potential, water use and land use. Source: ISF 2022 , Authors’ supplied.
Using animal-based proteins also impacts water use.
Replacing 25 per cent of beef with plant-based alternatives in the fast-food sector would equate to saving water to fill nearly 5,200 Olympic swimming pools or 11,000 Olympic swimming pools if 50 per cent of beef is replaced.
Significant water saving can also be achieved when replacing chicken with plant-based alternatives – replacing only 25 per cent of chicken equates to saving water that could fill 800 Olympic swimming pools.
Using meat in the fast food sector also requires more land use.
If we replaced half of the chicken in the fast food sector with plant-based alternatives, land use would be reduced by an equivalent to the size of 9,000 Melbourne Cricket Grounds. Substituting just a quarter of beef for plant-based options, in terms of land use, would be equivalent to 70,000 Melbourne Cricket Grounds.
Cheese please
On average, 75 per cent of dairy cheese’s GWP can be attributed to the production of its ingredients. By replacing dairy cheese with plant-based cheese would achieve, on average, a 79 per cent reduction in GWP – mainly due to avoiding the climate impacts of intensive dairy-farming.
Looking ahead
Australian households generate 102 kg of food waste per year per person – twice as much as the USA
Food waste is an important consideration given Australian households generate 102 kg of food waste per year per person – twice as much as the USA. Food waste generates large amounts of methane when disposed to landfill and decomposing in absence of oxygen. Yet the GHG impact of this food waste is not typically accounted for in the food sector.
In fact, food-related GHG emissions are fragmented across four different IPCC sectors – energy, industry, land-based and waste. Food is also often erroneously equated with agriculture in terms of climate impacts. However new research by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation indicates that GHG emissions in the pre- and post-farm gate stages are collectively more than a third of total food-related emissions.
More research is urgently needed to develop comprehensive and independent food-related GHG emissions data – from pre-farm gate all the way through to post-farm gate which includes food processing and food waste.
Spinifex is an opinion column open to all our readers. We require 700+ words on issues related to sustainability especially in the built environment and in business. Contact us to submit your column or for a more detailed brief.
When it comes to consumption, one in three Australians already seek to reduce meat intake for mainly health-related, animal welfare and environmental reasons. While the fast-food sector has begun to offer some plant-based options, continuing to do so may mean Australia’s sizable fast food sector could potentially play an important role in combating climate change. Continuing to highlight the benefits of meat reduction along with changes being reflected in policies, guidelines and communication on diets and consumer choices would be important moving forward.
A global charity, World Animal Protection, which commissioned the study to discover the carbon footprint of animal-based proteins in fast-food, is asking companies to provide their customers with permanent plant-based options – allowing them to reduce their climate footprint.
