Livestock and green transition: redefining the balance between emissions and sustainability
Livestock and environmental pollution are often viewed as two sides of the same coin. Once the greenhouse gas emissions from livestock are quantified, eliminating them and replacing animal proteins with alternatives, from insects to lab-grown meat, may seem the only logical path. But a just and sustainable transition requires more nuanced approaches.
Major investments in clean energy…
Consider how much attention, research, and funding are constantly devoted to clean energy production. From solar panels to wind turbines, from biomass to electric vehicles, the range of solutions is broad, and in many cases, already delivering tangible results.
Data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) show that in 2022, global investments in clean energy technologies, including renewables, grid infrastructure, storage, and electrification, exceeded $1.7 trillion.
…but few for food systems
Between 2018 and 2022, these sectors accounted for 94% of total mitigation funding. Projects were backed by strong political support, market-ready technologies, and clear industrial strategies, a combination that reduced risks and accelerated implementation.
The energy sector, moreover, attracts investment because it has a clear goal: decarbonization.
Food systems, by contrast, are equally critical to the green transition but remain severely underfunded, starting with the livestock sector, which includes diverse actors: from small farmers and local markets to processing companies and global corporations.
Livestock and high emission intensity
The livestock industry has potential solutions that remain underexplored. Yet a transition plan requires an institutional and financial framework to make them viable.
Livestock represent the most emission-intensive part of agriculture, due to methane from enteric fermentation, nitrous oxide from manure and feed production, and carbon dioxide from land-use change. Agricultural land dedicated to livestock and feed accounts for roughly 9% of total anthropogenic emissions.
Moreover, livestock are the leading source of methane, a gas 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide over 100 years and 86 times more potent over 20 years.
Growing environmental pressure
We face a self-reinforcing cycle that is intensifying pressure on ecosystems. The global population is growing, and with it, the demand for meat, projected to increase by 50% in the coming decades, driven by population and income growth in developing countries. Expanding livestock areas accelerates deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water stress.
Unlike the energy sector, with clear roadmaps and financing strategies, the livestock sector remains underfunded and neglected in international climate plans. But can something be financed if it lacks a defined framework? Mobilizing significant investment requires clear transformation pathways that connect politics, technology, and finance.
Identifying the right financial mechanisms is also essential: what would the social and environmental benefits be? And what risks would investors face?
Biological and cultural constraints
Mitigation efforts must account for both biological and cultural constraints, including dietary preferences. The development of innovative practices is essential: alternative protein sources, feed additives, improved manure management, and efficient livestock practices.
True transformation, however, also depends on reshaping consumption patterns, for instance through subsidies for low-emission products. At the same time, trade, food, and climate policies must align to foster ecological and nutritional resilience through tailored political and financial solutions.
Emission monitoring must also adopt multidimensional metrics. These indicators can guide more effective policies and investments, linking climate, food, and land use.
A fair transition is possible
For the transition to be fair, global strategies must reflect regional realities. In many developing countries, livestock is central to food security, livelihoods, and cultural identity. The goal, therefore, should not be to eliminate meat, but to promote sustainable livestock systems that respect cultural diversity.
It is unrealistic to impose models designed for the global North. Transition pathways must adapt to local contexts.
Acting on demand, not just supply
The agri-food system receives only 2.4% of climate mitigation funding, and livestock just a small fraction of that. Efforts should not focus solely on supply, such as productivity gains, but also on demand. This means reducing red meat consumption, cutting food waste, and promoting plant-based proteins, starting with legumes.
Investment in consumer education and awareness campaigns is essential for more informed dietary choices. Policy, in turn, must support a fair transition for both producers and consumers.