Food choices are driving climate change more than many people realize. Cutting waste and reducing beef consumption could help keep global warming in check.
For many people, the holidays often bring plenty of indulgent meals, followed by guilt and firm New Year’s resolutions to eat better.
A new study from the University of British Columbia suggests that moderation should not be limited to one season. The research found that 44 percent of people worldwide would need to change what they eat if global warming is to be held below 2 °C.
The study was led by Dr. Juan Diego Martinez during his doctoral work at UBC’s Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability. He explains what the research revealed and outlines practical diet changes that could help reduce climate risks.
What did you find?
The analysis shows that about half of the global population, and at least 90 percent of Canadians, would need to adjust their diets to avoid the most severe levels of planetary warming. Martinez notes that this estimate is cautious because the study relied on data from 2012. Since that time, both greenhouse gas emissions and the global population have continued to grow. Projections for 2050 indicate that roughly 90 percent of people will need to eat differently.
The researchers examined data from 112 countries, representing 99 percent of food-related greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Each country’s population was divided into 10 income groups. The team then calculated a food emissions budget for each person by combining emissions from food consumption, global food production, and supply chains. These totals were compared with the maximum emissions the planet can sustain if warming is to stay below 2 °C.
Why focus on dietary changes rather than, say, flying less?
Food systems account for more than one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity.
The study found that the top 15 percent of food-related emitters are responsible for 30 percent of total food emissions. That amount matches the combined emissions of the bottom 50 percent of the population. This high-emitting group is made up of the wealthiest individuals in high-emissions countries, including the Central African Republic, Brazil, and Australia.
While these top emitters contribute heavily, many more people still consume diets that exceed the recommended emissions limit. This is why the issue extends beyond the richest groups. Globally, half the population needs to change their diets. In Canada, all 10 income groups are above the emissions cap.
Discussions about flying less, driving electric, and buying fewer luxury goods are valid: We need to cut emissions anyway we can. However, food emissions are not just a problem for the richest—we all need to eat, so everyone has the ability to make a difference. For people who both fly frequently and eat large amounts of beef, it is not an either/or choice: Reducing both can help.
What changes can we make to our diets?
Start by eating only what you need and finding ways to reuse leftovers. Reducing food waste lowers emissions, cuts down on cooking, and makes meals simpler and more enjoyable.
Another key step is cutting back on beef. In Canada, beef alone accounts for 43 percent of food-related emissions for the average person. Martinez points out that if countries had followed the commitments set out in the Kyoto Protocol, beef consumption might not pose such a challenge today. At this stage, however, food emissions must also decline to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
Martinez acknowledges that this shift is difficult. He says, “I grew up in Latin America where eating a lot of beef is part of the culture, so I get how much of an ask this is.” Still, he stresses that the evidence is clear and can no longer be ignored.
Using Everyday Choices to Push for Change
He encourages people to “Vote with your fork.” Individual choices are a starting point for broader action. As more people talk openly about how their diets are changing and why it matters, political leaders are more likely to support policies that improve food systems and reduce their climate impact.
Reference: “Dietary GHG emissions from 2.7 billion people already exceed the personal carbon footprint needed to achieve the 2 °C climate goal” by Juan Diego Martinez and Navin Ramankutty, 11 November 2025, Environmental Research: Food Systems.
DOI: 10.1088/2976-601X/ae10c0
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
10 Comments
Climate is changing,not from man made choices, but from galactic shifts and the earth’s journey through the universe! Please stop pushing false information on the public with pseudo- science.
The climate has been changing since the earth was formed!!!!! Come on lmfao…. this is F* ckin absolutely bullcr*p. Even more pathetic is that we are getting taxed on it mother nature’s actions. This is pure propaganda. Please people…. use your common sense and stop enabling the AGENDA
Good deal! I am SO anxious for all that ice to melt off of Antarctica so we can find out what’s really under there! As long as the ice is there they won’t dig down for fear of “contaminating” something, the dozy barnpots!
Crazy how often so.eone will suggest that the little people do something to help, dont drive your car so much, eat less beef, turn your thermostat down to help the grid extc extc, but the 1% still dine at their luxury places that waste large portions of food for only best cuts and travel the world in private jets. Face it, the world is burning because people with nothing refuse to give up more so that the people with everything can continue to live comfortably.
We should promote reforestation – we should develop and transfer our fuels use to Hydrogen – but we definitely should produce MORE atmospheric carbon because plant life is starving for it. Any reduction humans might cause is suicidal – @ 0.04% we are at the lowest possible bottom of acceptable levels – seeing that 0.02% plant life dies away.
We need more forests to produce more Oxygen and more forest fires to produce more carbon. So that forests and animals can breathe.
Speaking of “food”, Bill Gates now realizes that “green energy” is neither affordable nor reliable and will not help him achieve his next venture, the feeding of the giant “AI energy appetite”. The sun provides more energy to planet earth in one hour than the entire human population uses in an entire year; NASA data. Logic would indicate that the sun is the root cause of climate change, both up and down. And fossil fuels? They are merely stored solar energy; thank you Mother Nature!
“The analysis shows that about half of the global population, and at least 90 percent of Canadians, would need to adjust their diets to avoid the most severe levels of planetary warming.”
Are we to believe that the 41 million Canadians, 12% of the USA population, hold the key to controlling global warming? Even if Canadians were to comply, what are the chances that the 4.1 billion people (half the global population) in the rest of the world will go along with it? This guy is out of touch with reality.
Yes; but eating less, and in particular less junk food, might reduce Americans’ bellies although then again ya’ll might live longer which means driving cars longer and dropping bombs on people for longer………so more CO2 in the air. Yes; impractical.
I have no issue with people eating less to be personally healthier. Its the suggestion that fewer calories will translate to less warming that I take issue with.
Give us all a break please, from this zealotry (which also loosely includes a reference to “climate change”?).
” He encourages people to “Vote with your fork.” Individual choices are a starting point for broader action. As more people talk openly about how their diets are changing and why it matters, political leaders are more likely to support policies that improve food systems and reduce their climate impact.”
If this above approach is not readily adopted by climate-zealot political leaders, what then?
[See my comment for article on Ozempic (first one) this edition.]:
… What will be suggested next, use Ozempic as a mass public weight-loss solution?
For example, some nutter suggesting – add it to the public water supply (as per the Fluoride tooth-decay approach) !! …
How about just promoting a natural healthy life-style and mandatory readily available healthy unprocessed foods instead … and not bother adding the phrase: “and reduce their climate impact.”?