It may be delicious, but the evidence is accumulating that meat, particularly red meat, is just a disaster for the environment — and not so great for human beings, too.

By 2050, scientists forecast that emissions from agriculture alone will account for how much carbon dioxide the world can use to avoid catastrophic global warming. It already accounts for one-third of emissions today — and half of that comes from livestock.





That’s a driving reason why members of a United Nations panel last month urged its environmental assembly to consider recommending a tax on meat producers and sellers. By raising the cost of buying meat, it would ultimately aim to reduce production and demand for it.

Maarten Hajer, professor at the Netherlands’ Utrecht University, led the environment and food report that recommended the meat tax.

“All of the harmful effects on the environment and on health needs to be priced into food products,” said Hajer, who is a member of U.N.’s International Resource Panel, which comprises 34 top scientists and 30 governments. “I think it is extremely urgent.”

But, he added, “Food is very political.”

In countries where meat is a cultural mainstay and income inequality already breeds a lack of food access, it could be a difficult argument. Taxing sugary drinks this month in Philadelphia caused an uproar among lobbyists, some groups representing the poor and even Bernie Sanders, who argued that the tax was regressive. The response to limiting meat, which is certainly more beneficial to a diet than soda pop, could be mutinous.

But, governments must soon move to limit major carbon producers, Hajer said. Food companies will naturally be part of that.

The idea of a meat tax has developed over the past 25 years as a “completely obvious” measure to economists and environmentalists, Hajer said, as knowledge of the environmental toll of meat emerged.

Agriculture consumes 80 percent of water in the United States. For a kilogram of red meat, you need considerably more water than for plant products.

Governments are starting to take notice. China, which consumes half of the world’s pork and more than a quarter of its overall meat, announced new dietary guidelines last week that advise the average citizen to reduce meat consumption by half. That country’s meat consumption has increased nearly five-fold since 1982, even though their population has only increased by 30 percent during that time.

Denmark went a little further in May. The Danish government is considering a recommendation from its ethics council that all red meats should be taxed. Red meat accounts for 10 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, and the council argued that Danes were “ethically obliged” to reduce their consumption.

“For a response to climate-damaging food to be effective, while also contributing to raise awareness of the challenge of climate change, it must be shared,” council spokesman Mickey Gjerris said last month.

The methane produced by cattle digestion alone is what leads many researchers to call for a reduction. Following carbon dioxide, methane is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas in the United States. A third of that overall is from cattle digestive processes.

On the whole, pigs and poultry contribute 10 percent of total livestock emissions. The rest is cattle, buffalo, sheep and goats – but mostly cows.