How do you put a price on the climate crisis? Quantifying a messy worldwide phenomenon that manifests in every aspect of life is no easy task.

The ‘social cost of carbon’ is one metric that provides some kind of estimate, valuing the cost of impact future emissions have on humanity.

Mariel

How do you put a price on the climate crisis? Quantifying a messy worldwide phenomenon that manifests in every aspect of life is no easy task.
The ‘social cost of carbon’ is one metric that provides some kind of estimate, valuing the cost of impact future emissions have on humanity.
The US Environmental Protection Agency is one authority that estimates the social cost of carbon to help policymakers make cost-benefit analyses in their decision-making. This figure essentially puts a price tag on what economic damage an additional ton of greenhouse gas emissions would cause.
The social cost of carbon <a href="https://epic.uchicago.edu/area-of-focus/social-cost-of-carbon/">includes everything</a> from lost wages when working conditions are too hot to be outside, to homes damaged by natural disaster, to crops that don’t grow in drought periods, and much more.
The estimate helps understand the benefits of climate mitigation for the future, and curbs present-day actions that could inflict prolonged damage that the social cost of carbon estimates, <a href="https://news.stanford.edu/2021/06/07/professors-explain-social-cost-carbon/#Definition">Stanford University professors</a> Marshall Burke and Lawrence Goulder explained.
The higher the cost, the more aggressive the climate response will be.
In late November 2022, the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/scghg">EPA proposed</a> to raise its social cost of carbon from its current level of $51 to $190, nearly a quadruple increase.
What’s behind this sharp hike?
For starters, environmentalists have been advocating for a higher value for a while. The Trump administration decreased the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-08/documents/utilities_ria_proposed_ace_2018-08.pdf#page=141">value significantly</a> to a $1-7 range, which several groups opposed.
“This dramatically underestimates the profound impacts climate change has on families, businesses, taxpayers and local governments,” Environmental Defense Fund said in their <a href="https://www.edf.org/true-cost-carbon-pollution">public response</a> to the Trump administration’s updated policy.
Tom Erb, Policy Fellow at the <a href="https://www.c2es.org/2021/03/the-social-cost-of-carbon-going-nowhere-but-up/">Center for Climate and Energy Solutions</a>, noted that a higher value is important for intergenerational equity and the future economy as well. “The social cost of carbon is going nowhere but up,” he says.
The EPA’s new increase entails a whole new approach to calculating the value, according to environmental economic think tank, <a href="https://www.resources.org/common-resources/the-us-environmental-protection-agency-introduces-a-new-social-cost-of-carbon-for-public-comment/?mc_cid=33116766a8&amp;mc_eid=417c808d62">Resources for the Future</a> (RFF). The new EPA cost is similarly aligned with RFF’s <a href="https://www.rff.org/news/press-releases/social-cost-of-carbon-more-than-triple-the-current-federal-estimate-new-study-finds/">previous analysis</a> that the true cost is at least three times the current rate.
The cost is calculated using a <a href="https://www.rff.org/publications/explainers/social-cost-carbon-101/">discount rate</a>, which compares the dollar value of the damage done in the future, against the dollar value of the same impact today. The higher the discount rate, the lower the social cost of carbon. EPA methodology shifted from 3% to 2% (with additional comparators in their proposal of 1.5% and 2.5%).
Lowering the discount rate is <a href="https://www.eenews.net/articles/epa-floats-sharply-increased-social-cost-of-carbon/">one reason</a> the cost of carbon is higher. EPA also added other considerations into their evaluation, such as weighting socioeconomic scenarios more accurately, that better reflect projections around population, per capita economic growth, and emissions of greenhouse gasses.
The new cost of carbon <a href="https://www.resources.org/common-resources/the-us-environmental-protection-agency-introduces-a-new-social-cost-of-carbon-for-public-comment/?mc_cid=33116766a8&amp;mc_eid=417c808d62">also includes</a> improved climate projections and damage functions to better reflect the economic and environmental possibilities in these scenarios.
These adjustments have been lauded by several academics and environmental groups who maintained that the current $51 value is far too low. RFF released an <a href="https://www.resources.org/common-resources/the-us-environmental-protection-agency-introduces-a-new-social-cost-of-carbon-for-public-comment/?mc_cid=33116766a8&amp;mc_eid=417c808d62">extensive blog</a> highlighting improvements to the updated cost.
Senator Tom Carper of Delaware <a href="https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-democratic?ID=C119438E-4D0E-4FFC-940F-5737FDC0CD46">also gave praise</a> for EPA’s momentum on the heightening pricing of greenhouse gasses, stating “This action, paired with the methane emissions reduction program in the Inflation Reduction Act, will make a dramatic cut in our nation’s methane emissions and better position the United States to continue leading the world toward a cleaner, healthier future.”
The optimism for this higher cost comes from the fact that this will set the tone to guide policymakers in how to price everything from consumer products to fuel standards with an eye toward future impact. Raising it could <a href="https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/04/01/social-cost-of-carbon/">monumentally impact</a> climate efforts and industries alike.
One of its most notable changes, however, is that EPA’s new cost of carbon reflects the worldwide nature of the climate crisis.
The previous methodology under the Trump administration limited the scope to only domestic climate impacts, while this new calculation widens the scope. EPA incorporates climate impacts regardless of where emissions come from or where climate impacts are felt in the world. This is the only calculation of its kind in the US government that adds global impact.
However, one significant point of contention in the new cost of carbon lies in this new global lens.
In the new estimate, lives around the world are weighted differently. In an attempt to understand the loss of lives to climate impacts, the dollar amount attributed to a life in one country is not the same as in another.
For example, one life lost in the US is equal to nine lost in India. The cost of a life in Qatar is higher than in America, and the cost of 118 lives in Burundi. One Australian is equated to four Indonesians, and so on, as per <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23449849/social-cost-carbon-value-statistical-life-epa">Vox’s math</a>.
Lives from lower-income countries are rated to cost less than lives in richer countries. There are several social and political concerns that experts are raising from this methodology.
A lesser value to the lives most impacted by the climate crisis is inherently a justice issue, critics believe.
“It&#x27;s inherently inequitable to use this kind of approach,&quot; Vaibhav Chaturvedi, fellow at the Council on Energy, Environment and Water in India <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/02/08/1152079692/why-the-epa-puts-a-higher-value-on-rich-lives-lost-to-climate-change">tells NPR</a>.
Countries that have lower incomes and whose lives are weighted less are most often far more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Meanwhile, emissions are boundless, and when areas less vulnerable, such as the US, add to greenhouse gasses, it still negatively impacts these same countries who are now further disadvantaged by this cost estimate.
Economist and legal expert Cass Sunstein <a href="https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics/63/">has even argued</a> that this should be the converse, lives more impacted should be valued higher.
This “Value of a Statistical Life” does not weigh lives within the US any differently based on vulnerability or income.
These values are standardized countrywide, and each country value is calculated based on the cost estimated for an American life.
The justice issues in this approach are a primary cause for concern, but it also leaves opportunities behind to make climate progress that can result in life or death.
If EPA assigned the same value to lives around the world, the social cost of carbon would be nearly double the current proposal, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/02/08/1152079692/why-the-epa-puts-a-higher-value-on-rich-lives-lost-to-climate-change">the NPR article adds</a>. This would position the US in a more equitable climate leadership role, (though policymakers likely did not choose this value for fear of it leading to politically unpopular climate abatement methods).
A higher cost of carbon means more emissions are reduced, and if the US alone can meet its net zero emissions goals by 2050, studies predict that would save <a href="https://lifesaved.impactlab.org/">7.4 million</a> lives. Arguably, focusing on these lives abroad is a benefit to the US as well.
Emissions saved in one country will impact lives in another. Lives saved in one country will benefit the national and global economy and community.
A higher social cost of carbon could stimulate more renewable energy technology and carbon capture, which the U.S. could then export to the rest of the world, Chaturvedi says.
This practice of understanding the value of human loss for policy decision-making is very difficult. The EPA maintains in <a href="https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/mortality-risk-valuation#whatvalue">its FAQ</a> that it “does not place a dollar value on individual lives.”
In a White House <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidence-based-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climate-pollution/">press release</a>, Heather Bousey of the Council on Economic Advisers said the Biden Administration was “ working to ensure that the social cost of greenhouse gases consider climate risk, environmental justice, and intergenerational equity.”
Ultimately, a higher cost of carbon that includes global considerations in any way is a huge step forward, <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23449849/social-cost-carbon-value-statistical-life-epa">experts say</a>. The higher cost is far more ambitious than the current value, which could bring major climate benefits if formally adopted.
The EPA’s first-of-its-kind official proposal is currently up for public comment. This new social cost of carbon could signal for other influential institutions in climate decision-making to adopt a similar standard and work toward continuing to raise the bar on climate policies.
Future Thought Leaders is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of rising Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
<h6>Cover photo by <a href="https://unsplash.com/@aleallvarez?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Ale Alvarez</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/ofgh5Idnpt8?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Unsplash</a>​ </h6>

The EPA’s new social cost of carbon is much higher — especially depending on where you live

Climate discussions lack women. As women around the world are feeling climate effects and finding solutions, they are essential to climate discussion, yet remain underrepresented.

At the start of the COP27 climate conference in November, 2022 excitement was high and outlooks optimistic for the upcoming negotiations to be a landmark for climate discussion. But when world leaders finally took the stage in Egypt, several conference participants couldn’t help but notice who was missing.
As leaders stood onstage, a sea of mostly variations on the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/cop27-were-highway-climate-hell-un-boss-warns-2022-11-07/">same dark suit and tie</a>, the gap became obvious. Out of 110 officials poised to lead discussions on the global climate future, seven were female.
“Notice anyone missing?” COP27 attendee Kate Hampton, CEO of the <a href="https://ciff.org/">Children&#x27;s Investment Fund Foundation</a>, asked on <a href="https://twitter.com/katehamptongray/status/1589869960012402690">Twitter</a>, overlaying the question on a photo of the scene.
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/9eaa55a5399eb9344ff9120df998eab887db6ca6.jpg" alt="World leaders at COP27. Photo credit: Kate Hampton, Twitter.">
This scene is a familiar one in many decision-making spaces, and it’s no different in climate. Women are routinely underrepresented in discussions like the recent COP27, especially from developing countries.
With the disproportionate gender balance of COP27 dipping lower than pre-pandemic levels, women in the climate sector are speaking out about becoming a more prominent part of climate decisions.
“We continue to see very few Party delegations with equal numbers of men and women, and the majority of delegations are dominated by men. This unevenly slow improvement, at times even setbacks, demonstrates the lack of commitment to achieving gender balance in the UNFCCC,” said Claudia Rubio, Data Associate at the Women’s Environmental and Development Organization (WEDO).
Many governments and organizations have stated that women are essential to solving climate challenges. Most have yet to achieve equal representation in decision-making settings. Men hold <a href="https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cp2022_03E.pdf">61% of membership positions</a> responsible for decision-making in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 
“There is an issue still with the representation of women,” Alison Campbell, U.K. Deputy Lead Climate Negotiator said <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hJKki4wdLo&amp;list=PLZTB8BPlJ0227rI1ZSZ1PjoLkpfxT26Lw&amp;index=11">in an interview</a> at COP27. “We’ve made some progress, but there is a lot more still to do.”
Women represented 35.6% of COP27 conference participation overall, according to WEDO’s <a href="https://genderclimatetracker.org/">Gender Climate Tracker</a>, which analyzes annual gender participation within the UNFCCC. This is lower in recent years, where 38% of delegates at COP24 in 2018 were women. During COP27, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63636435">the BBC</a> found that several countries had over 90% male teams.
This problem is nothing new. UNFCCC’s first gender-specific decision goes back to 2001. A 2012 decision encouraged countries to strive for gender balance at climate negotiations. There is even a thematic “<a href="https://unfccc.int/gender/cop27#Gender-Day">Gender Day</a>” at COP, to discuss “the role of the woman in adapting to climate change.”
Elizabeth Hogan, Senior Program Manager for National Geographic, has attended several global climate conferences. To her, it’s even more noticeable when male-heavy organizations must dig deep to find female representatives, coming off as an optics-driven strategy rather than genuine effort. Gender balance can be elusive among all participants in the climate conference, not only among Party delegates.
“You&#x27;ll definitely see women who were sent as part of their delegations where you can tell they were sent because [their delegation] wanted to show, ‘look, we found a woman who works in fishing,’ or whatever, but she&#x27;ll always say ‘I&#x27;m the only woman in my cooperative,’” Hogan said.
The energy sector is one full of such organizations, she added. Notoriously male-dominated, the International Energy Association’s sector <a href="https://www.iea.org/commentaries/women-in-senior-management-roles-at-energy-firms-remains-stubbornly-low-but-efforts-to-improve-gender-diversity-are-moving-apace">analysis</a> estimates women hold less than 14% of senior management positions.
Oil giant BP, for example, releases an annual <a href="https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/country-sites/en_gb/united-kingdom/home/pdf/bp-uk-gender-and-ethnicity-pay-gap-report-2021.pdf">gender pay gap report</a> stating how important these issues are— but even in 2022, they fell short of their goal of 30% women senior leaders by 2020.
Filling the gap in female voices is critical as the effects of climate change are increasingly falling onto women, reports the <a href="https://www.cfr.org/blog/women-underrepresented-cop27-summit">Council on Foreign Relations</a>. Compounding social, cultural, and economic factors cause women to experience its effects more severely.
In many rural communities, for example, women are primarily responsible for sourcing water and energy supply, and food production. In extreme weather events like droughts, the time it takes to maintain these resources increases— which comes at the cost of sacrificing opportunities pursuing education or employment.
Left to take care of rural land with limited mobility and economic resources, women remain in areas that see the worst climate impacts. The <a href="https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/womenin-shadow-climate-change">UN estimates</a> 70% of the 1.3 billion people in poverty are women.
Unfortunately, these poorer areas are also where the representation gap is the biggest. “There&#x27;s way more women represented in developed countries than developing countries. That&#x27;s a very easy line to draw,” Hogan has noticed.
Women are “at the frontlines of climate change where the impacts are being felt more and more, and have a critical role in tackling it, so it’s vital that women are represented and have a voice,” said Campbell. For climate efforts to improve, women need to be seen as leaders.
When women are involved, outcomes are genuinely stronger, said Damilola Ogunbiyi, CEO of <a href="https://www.seforall.org/">Sustainable Energy for All</a> on the women-led energy podcast <a href="https://www.energyforgrowth.org/multimedia/episode-8-damilola-ogunbiyi-putting-people-at-the-center-of-energy-transitions/">High Energy Planet</a>.
“Having a woman either head an organization to do with clean energy or be part of an organization actually does better than the male counterparts,” she said, “so the data speaks for itself.”
Data from <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-wins-how-inclusion-matters">McKinsey</a> backs this up. Companies with higher gender diversity on executive teams were 25% more likely to have higher profitability. A <a href="https://unfccc.int/news/new-report-why-climate-change-impacts-women-differently-than-men">UNFCCC study</a> this year found in the 19 countries they surveyed, women with equal access to decision-making chose the more sustainable route, such as prioritizing education, food security, and energy efficiency.
When governments focus on including women and marginalized groups in decision-making, it has led to more climate-resilient policy and improved social equity. So far, implementation has remained limited to more developed countries, like Belgium and Spain. Rwanda also has strong representation— the <a href="https://www.parliament.gov.rw/women-representation">first country in the world</a> with a female-majority parliament.
Though once women make it into the room or even to the top, there are still challenges. Especially for women of color.
When asked if there are moments when she is the only woman in work settings, Ogunbiyi replied, “All the time…. I feel that I sometimes don’t fit into people’s aesthetic as what an African woman will be looking like… And that was one of the reasons why I wanted to come into [my] role and just share all the amazing dimensions of African women— we look different.”
To combat underrepresentation, some women are banding together to share leadership skills. Ranjani Prabhakar, Senior Legislative Representative at Earthjustice, is part of the 2022 cohort for the grassroots climate group <a href="https://womensearthalliance.org/programs/">Women’s Earth Alliance</a>. The Alliance has worked with roughly 13,000 women leaders since 2006, providing leadership, strategy, and technical training for women to scale their climate work.
“Women’s issues are unique and extraordinary when we talk about climate and ecology— so why not have a consortium for women to delve into how their issues are intersectional,” Prabhakar said. She is also helping form <a href="https://www.greensrealign.org/">Greens REALIGN</a>, a member-based collective of staff from environmental organizations organizing for a more diverse, equitable, inclusive, and just environmental movement; founded by Surbhi Sarang, an environmental advocate leading on environmental and racial justice issues.
To Prabhakar, this is a crucial way to elevate women’s voices in grassroots climate work. “As we start to bridge environmental justice to the mainstream, we&#x27;re going to bridge women and marginalized groups to where there are better opportunities. Putting resources into bridging that particular gap is going to see more women come through in leadership.
To increase women’s participation at the country level, Rubio suggested reviewing representation in government ministries and the negotiator training and advancement pipeline so women have the same power in negotiations.
“More attention will be useless without action. Parties cannot assume that this disparity will simply fix itself over time–the majority must be prompted to truly prioritize changing the disparity,” Rubio said.
Another crucial component is integrating intersectionality of climate and marginalized group priorities in discussions, she continued. Climate and gender dimensions, for example, should be guided by gender experts just as mitigation topics rely on mitigation experts.
Ultimately, inclusivity may come incrementally. This was the first year UNFCCC added a gender non-binary option in COP registration— two delegates registered as such, according to WEDO, marking a start for improved gender identity representation.
Many in the climate field acknowledge there is a long way to go to reach justice and visibility for marginalized groups. As involvement in climate discussions grows each year, this post-COP moment is one when many are taking stock of who’s participating to ensure more equal power dynamics for climate negotiations at COP28 and beyond.
Future Thought Leaders is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of rising Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Women are on the frontlines of climate change but not at the negotiation table

Since Beyond Meat opened on the stock market in 2019 and Impossible Foods announced partnerships with major chains like Burger King, plant-based proteins have reached more and more grocery store shelves and restaurant tables nationwide.

Since Beyond Meat opened on the stock market <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-beyondmeat-ipo/beyond-meats-share-price-more-than-doubles-in-vegan-burger-makers-ipo-idUSKCN1S81P4">in 2019</a> and Impossible Foods announced partnerships with major chains <a href="https://impossiblefoods.com/burgerking">like Burger King</a>, plant-based proteins have reached more and more grocery store shelves and restaurant tables nationwide.
These products were created with a values-based mission to shift from animals and “find a better way to feed the future,” says <a href="https://www.beyondmeat.com/en-US/mission/">Beyond’s website</a>, to “positively affect the planet, the environment, the climate and even ourselves.” Similarly, Impossible’s slogan is to “<a href="https://impossiblefoods.com/sustainable-food">eat meat. Save the planet</a>.”
Cows are the number one climate change contributor in the agricultural industry. Their methane emissions and significant land use make them one of the most intensive industries in our food chain— they are <a href="https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/environment-verify/cattle-cows-the-top-source-of-methane-emissions-in-united-states/536-8d5bf326-6955-4a9c-8ea5-761d73ba464c">86.2% of all livestock-related methane</a> in the US. Even if we were to eliminate all fossil fuels from our economies, the <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/food-and-farming-could-stymie-climate-efforts-researchers-say">demand for meat and dairy alone</a> would still put us over our target warming limit of 1.5 degrees.
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/07bfe0405fe74c0a4a13baeefa31a52fae81aab2.png" alt="Figure 1: A cattle cow by Jakob Cotton.">
We often focus on carbon in our climate goals, but methane is also crucial to combat — it is <a href="https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/methane-emissions-are-driving-climate-change-heres-how-reduce-them">80 times more potent</a> than carbon dioxide in a 20-year period. Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, but methane’s timeline is a lot shorter, at roughly ten years. Working hard to carve methane emissions could make all the difference for climate goals.
As for the best way to do this, it’s all about “rethinking our approaches to agricultural cultivation and livestock production,” says James Lomax, the United Nations Environment Program’s Food and Agriculture advisor.
Americans, on average, go through <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/meat-supply-per-person?tab=table">274 pounds</a> (124.1 kg) of meat a year, according to Our World in Data. But consumers are warming up to the idea of alternative meat. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of the country had one of these products in 2021, and two out of five people ate them weekly or daily, reports an <a href="https://foodinsight.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/IFIC-Plant-Based-Meat-Survey.November-2021.pdf">International Food Information Council survey</a>.
How likely is Beyond and Impossible’s vision to make the shift from beef to plants? Here’s how they stack up.
<h1>For the climate, plant-based is better across the board.</h1>
In terms of environmental impact, plant-based meat is much better than beef. A 2017 <a href="https://css.umich.edu/publications/research-publications/beyond-meats-beyond-burger-life-cycle-assessment-detailed">University of Michigan</a> study revealed that Beyond pea protein burgers “generate 90% less greenhouse gas emissions, require 46% less energy, have &gt;99% less impact on water scarcity, and 93% less impact on land use than a quarter pound of U.S. beef.” Impossible’s <a href="https://impossiblefoods.com/ca/sustainable-food/burger-life-cycle-assessment-2019">soy patties</a> total 91% less emissions, 92% less water, and 96% less land than beef.
Cows require a lot of land — it takes about <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets">100 times the land</a> to produce beef than its plant-based counterpart since the cows need plants for food themselves. That also requires a lot of water to keep crops healthy. And of course, they produce most of the agricultural methane. Not only this, but cutting down forests to make space for cattle cropland releases long-stored carbon in the atmosphere, and the plants that cows eat often grow in a nitrogen fertilizer that releases more carbon and nitrous oxide, <a href="https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impact-of-eating-meat-and-dairy/">explains Carbon Brief</a>.
To be more climate-conscious, it’s definitely more efficient to cut the meat and go straight for plants as our energy source. And at the individual consumer level, <a href="https://drawdown.org/news/insights/the-powerful-role-of-household-actions-in-solving-climate-change">Project Drawdown</a> explains that one of the most impactful choices we can make for the climate is eating more plant-based food.
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/f2e87bfff1f3ed2dd60e9b69399146a2616a3fee.png" alt="Figure 2: Chart showing greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of food product (source Our World in Data).">
It’s worth noting that plant-based meat is not a perfect net-zero emissions option, but few foods can even get close. These crops have some impact on the land and atmosphere via soil tillage that releases carbon. Critics of plant-based meats are concerned about processing, GMOs, and industrial farming practices, though across the board, plant-based alternatives have a smaller impact than beef in these areas. That, and innovations in electrification and farming practices will make plant horticulture more efficient — i.e., serving a wider base and in a less damaging manner.
The major players in the plant based-game, Beyond and Impossible, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/15/business/beyond-meat-impossible-emissions.html">have yet to disclose their emissions</a> across all operations, leading sustainability analysts to hesitate in promoting the product as a climate champion. Though in terms of corporate ethics and responsibility, this is not at all comparable to the “Big Meat’’ industries’ multimillion-dollar campaigns trying to <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03047-7">downplay their climate impact</a> and <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22379909/big-meat-companies-spend-millions-lobbying-climate">lobbying against climate policies</a>.
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/5758fa3cae385106345d25709c3261ece04f7dae.jpg" alt="Figure 3: Crop field by Meredith Petrick.
">
And we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, as Tamar Haspel said of plant-based proteins in the <a href="https://postscriptmedia.com/climavores/">Climavores</a> podcast. There is no denying that against beef, our soy and pea protein alternatives are less environmentally intensive, and even if plant-based proteins aren’t perfect, beef is just inefficient to produce. Cattle are about half the food related-emissions in the US, but only 3% of caloric intake, <a href="https://www.consumerreports.org/meat-substitutes/the-meat-lovers-guide-to-plant-based-meat-a1041127424/">says Consumer Reports</a>.
<h1>Financial prospects are less straightforward.</h1>
Cows are an emissions-intensive industry, but they’re also a <a href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2015/Cattle_Highlights.pdf">$74.6 billion</a> one. Plant-based meat pulled in <a href="https://gfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2021-U.S.-retail-market-insights_Plant-based-foods-GFI.pdf">$1.4 billion</a> in 2021. Financially, there’s a lot of ground to make up.
Not to mention, replacing livestock would alter the livelihoods of farmers and everyone involved in the agricultural aspects of the beef industry, and that would have major economic and social impacts. It is the farmers who grow animal feed, raise livestock and the meatpacking plant workers who would be <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22609382/plant-based-meatless-future-transition-farmers-meatpacking-workers">most vulnerable in a plant-based future</a>.
This would require a just transition akin to the coal and fossil fuel workers in our energy grid transition. Fortunately, if plant-based meat does take over, Jenny Splitter <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22609382/plant-based-meatless-future-transition-farmers-meatpacking-workers">notes in Vox</a> that many of these jobs can translate into thriving “domestic plant-based ingredient markets.”
Though of course, cows produce more than just the burgers that Beyond and Impossible aim to replace — dairy products and other meat cuts still play a significant role in the industry’s revenue. The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jan/29/white-gold-the-unstoppable-rise-of-alternative-milks-oat-soy-rice-coconut-plant">rise of alternative dairy products</a> is promising, but so far, there is no plant-based alternative to products like steak. Some aspects of the cow’s uses are still not quite replaceable.
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/4027f395d4e761fe7f6dd1cade35cd8d0c5ee7a7.png" alt="Figure 4: Supermarket Diary isle by Kenny Eliason.">
Not to mention, costs per unit are no competition. Plant-based meats are still about <a href="https://gfi.org/resource/environmental-impact-of-meat-vs-plant-based-meat/">65% more expensive</a> than beef, according to the Breakthrough Institute. For this to become a regular part of many diets, reducing the high cost of these burgers is essential. Plant-based protein sales are only <a href="https://gfi.org/resource/environmental-impact-of-meat-vs-plant-based-meat/">1% of the retail meat market</a> — to really see the climate effects, scaling this industry is going to be key.
<h1>It comes down to consumer preferences and values.</h1>
Market options often offer a false dichotomy when it comes to climate, pitting societal and policy level change against individual consumer choices and placing all the burden on one over the other. Plant-based meats are no exception. It’s easy to wonder if what you are buying at your grocery store can make any difference. And many people agree the responsibility should not be yours; rather, it should be <a href="https://www.vox.com/21562639/climate-change-plant-based-diets-science-meat-dairy">up to the government</a> to guide us with health and climate policy to reduce food-related emissions and help scale up food-tech solutions.
Shaming those who opt for a burger is not the way to promote a soy-based transition. But providing them with the information to make their own choices can help, and various businesses are taking it upon themselves to do so, such as restaurants adding climate change impacts <a href="https://www.inverse.com/science/restaurant-menus-climate-friendly-meals">to their menus</a>.
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/cd559fa9961bcb718f96b0ae38b41387c9a4f1ad.jpg" alt="Figure 5: Restaurant Neon sign by Priscilla Du Preez.">
Consumer choices have a role as well, making contributions to both climate impacts and creating trends that push the market in the right direction. And of those who are buying plant-based proteins, <a href="https://foodinsight.org/consumption-trends-plant-based-meat-alts/">surveys reflect</a> their main drivers are primarily perceived healthiness and environmental impact. Personal benefits and values such as these are what plant-based companies need consumers to identify with to achieve their climate-based mission.
Even though it is unlikely that America will be taking meat off the menu anytime soon, sustainable beef is making strides. There are other exciting solutions that agriculture is undertaking to minimize the cow’s climate impact, such as relying on <a href="https://caes.ucdavis.edu/news/feeding-cattle-seaweed-reduces-their-greenhouse-gas-emissions-82-percent">seaweed</a> as a food source, better practices for <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/opportunities-reduce-emissions-beef-production">manure management and soil health</a>, as well as overall better animal welfare. <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/06/health/lab-grown-meat-pros-cons-life-itself-wellness-scn/index.html">Lab-grown meat</a> technology is still nascent and largely unavailable for retail, but once it hits the shelves, it could play a significant role in a sustainable meat pathway.
There’s no doubt that shifting to a heavier plant-based diet has a better outlook for our climate goals. Of course, the true lowest impact foods are the unprocessed and easily grown vegetables and legumes. But they don’t serve the same role as these plant burgers do — food is tied up in so many cultural, health, and societal values to consumers, and these companies know this.
These alternatives uniquely fill a niche for anyone who wants to reduce meat consumption and enjoy a plant-based way to have a fulfilling culinary experience. Whether it’s a <a href="https://www.mondaycampaigns.org/meatless-monday">Meatless Monday</a>, a special occasion, or a regular staple in an otherwise omnivorous diet, plant-based burgers offer this option while also reducing climate impact.
This article is also published on <a href="https://medium.com/@mariel.f/beyond-impossible-or-within-reach-d09d11ba0fb8">Medium</a>. Future Thought Leaders is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of rising Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

You can’t miss it!

Mariel Ferragamo

Mariel Ferragamo

The EPA’s new social cost of carbon is much higher — especially depending on where you live

Recent publications

Readers also like

Want to know more about illuminem Voices?