Why plant-based?

Better for the planet.

Plant-based choices use less land and water and produce far fewer emissions than animal products. Choosing plant-based is the easiest way to do something good for the planet. On this page, you can see exactly why.

Green planet with nature, trees and plants
Biodiversity with plants, insects and wildlife

Biodiversity

We use as much as half of habitable land for animal feed and farms. That comes at the expense of trees, plants, insects and wild animals.

  • We can eat plants directly instead of feeding them to animals first.
  • That saves around 75% of agricultural land.
  • We can give that space back to nature.
Reason 1: Choosing plant-based helps protect biodiversity worldwide.

Land use at a glance.

Animal products use far more agricultural land than plant-based products. Choose plant-based more often. This gives nature more space.

m² per kilogram of product
185 m²
Lamb
164 m²
Beef
40 m²
Cheese
8 m²
Nuts
7 m²
Legumes
2 m²
Tofu

Climate

Greenhouse gases warm the planet. This leads to more extreme weather and rising sea levels. The animal agriculture industry emits more greenhouse gases than the entire transport sector.

  • Emissions come from animal feed, transport and slaughterhouses.
  • Cows emit methane: a potent greenhouse gas.
  • Forests are cleared for animal feed and farms. This removes trees that store CO₂.
Reason 2: Choosing plant-based reduces emissions.
Climate change with heat, drought and nature

Emissions at a glance.

Compared with animal products, plant-based products produce far fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Choose plant-based more often. This helps slow global warming.

kg CO₂e per kilogram of product
60.0 kg
Beef
21.0 kg
Cheese
7.0 kg
Pork
1.4 kg
Tomatoes
1.4 kg
Carrots
0.4 kg
Grains
Healthy oceans with marine life

Oceans

Animal agriculture and fishing harm seas and rivers. Manure, fishing nets and overfishing damage aquatic life.

  • Manure from animal agriculture pollutes waterways and damages ecosystems.
  • Fishing pollutes seas with nets and damages the ocean floor.
  • Many animals die as bycatch, including turtles and dolphins.
Reason 3: Choosing plant-based helps protect aquatic life.

Water

Clean drinking water is scarce in many places. Animal products require much more water than plant-based products because animals drink water and because their feed (such as corn and soy) needs water to grow.

  • Plant-based products use much less water than animal products.
  • Manure from animal agriculture can pollute groundwater.
  • Water scarcity is a major problem in many places.
Reason 4: Choosing plant-based saves water.
Water scarcity and careful use of clean water

Water use at a glance.

Plant-based products require much less water. Choose plant-based more often. This helps reduce water waste.

litres per kilogram or litre
16,000 L
Beef
6,000 L
Lamb
1,000 L
Milk
900 L
Corn
860 L
Bananas
300 L
Soy milk

Choose plant-based for the planet.

Choose plant-based for the planet. With every meal built around plants and fewer animal products, you help protect land, water, wildlife, plants and the climate.

Get started
Sources

Land use and biodiversity

  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options.
  • Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science.
  • Statistics Netherlands. (2020). How is land in the Netherlands used?
  • Aleksandrowicz, L., et al. (2016). The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: A systematic review.
  • Benton, T. G., et al. (2021). Food system impacts on biodiversity loss: Three levers for food system transformation in support of nature.
  • Ceballos, G., et al. (2017). Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines.
  • Machovina, B., et al. (2015). Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption.
  • Dudley, N., et al. (2017). Agriculture and biodiversity: A review.
  • Outhwaite, C. L., et al. (2022). Agriculture and climate change are reshaping insect biodiversity worldwide.
  • The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. (2023). Over 800 million trees felled to feed appetite for Brazilian beef.
  • Our World in Data. (2019). Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture.
  • Scarborough, P., et al. (2023). Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts.

Climate change

  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2013). Tackling climate change through livestock.
  • Aleksandrowicz, L., et al. (2016). The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: A systematic review.
  • Sejian, V., et al. (2015). Global warming: Role of livestock.
  • Machovina, B., et al. (2015). Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption.
  • Tilman, D., & Clark, M. (2014). Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health.
  • González, N., et al. (2020). Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent evidences.
  • Chai, B. C., et al. (2019). Which diet has the least environmental impact on our planet? A systematic review of vegan, vegetarian and omnivorous diets.
  • Scarborough, P., et al. (2023). Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts.
  • Ivanovich, C., et al. (2023). Future warming from global food consumption.
  • Kuepper, B. (2023). Impacts of a shift to plant proteins: Effects of reduced meat production on GHG emissions, land, and water use.
  • Visual Capitalist. Visualising the greenhouse-gas impact of each food.

Oceans

  • National Geographic. (2022). Dead zone.
  • Sala, E., et al. (2021). Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate.
  • Thomas, K., et al. (2019). Ghost gear: The abandoned fishing nets haunting our oceans.
  • Wilcox, C., et al. (2016). Using expert elicitation to estimate the impacts of plastic pollution on marine wildlife.
  • Lebreton, L., et al. (2022). Industrialised fishing nations largely contribute to floating plastic pollution in the North Pacific subtropical gyre.
  • Kuczenski, B., et al. (2021). Plastic gear loss estimates from remote observation of industrial fishing activity.
  • Burke, L., et al. (2011). Reefs at risk revisited.

Water use

  • Gerbens-Leenes, W., et al. (2013). The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparative study in different countries and production systems.
  • Aleksandrowicz, L., et al. (2016). The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: A systematic review.
  • Water Footprint Calculator. Water footprint resources.
  • Mekonnen, M. M., et al. (2010). The green, blue and grey water footprint of farm animals and animal products.
  • Scarborough, P., et al. (2023). Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts.
  • Kuepper, B. (2023). Impacts of a shift to plant proteins: Effects of reduced meat production on GHG emissions, land, and water use.
  • Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science.
  • ISEP Global. The water footprint: Water in the supply chain.
  • FAO AGRIS. Water footprint records and agricultural research.
  • ScienceDirect. Water footprint and livestock production research.