For years, we’ve heard that eating less meat, especially beef, can positively impact the climate. Now, a new analysis led by Matthew N. Hayek from New York University suggests that even modest cuts in beef production in wealthier nations could have a significant effect. The study finds that by focusing on specific grazing lands, we could reforest low-productivity cattle pastures, absorbing billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the process.

“We can achieve enormous climate benefits with modest changes to the total global beef production,” says Hayek.

The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), identifies underproductive cattle pasturelands — mostly in high-income countries like the U.S. and U.K. — which, if restored to forests, could store vast amounts of carbon.

Cattle grazing often takes place on pastures that were once forests, cleared for livestock. Many of these lands, particularly in affluent nations, are inefficient for beef production, yielding relatively little feed per acre. Restoring these areas to forests could allow trees to absorb significant amounts of carbon dioxide, offering an efficient strategy for combating climate change. Reducing beef production on targeted pastures enables forests to regrow and sequester carbon, optimizing land use.

Hayek describes the potential as a “powerful climate opportunity.”

“Our research identified a powerful climate opportunity by looking at the tradeoffs between cattle grazing and forest restoration,” says Hayek to ZME Science. “We found that in some wealthy nations, including the US and UK, many cattle pastures are relatively inefficient for beef production but occupy land that could store massive amounts of carbon if returned to forest.”

It wouldn’t take too much of a decrease, either. Surprisingly, a 13% reduction in global beef production could restore lands capable of sequestering 125 billion tons of CO₂. For context, the world emits around 37.4 billion tons of CO₂ annually.

“In our analysis, we developed a measurement called ‘carbon opportunity intensity’ (COI) to identify the most strategic places for restoration,” Hayek explained in an email. “We found that by targeting just the highest-COI areas — predominantly in high-income countries — we could sequester 125 billion tons of CO₂ while reducing global beef production by only 13%.”

Mapping Climate Potential with Satellite Data

To identify these high-COI regions, the research team combined 20 years of satellite data with climate and terrain information, pinpointing pastures that produce minimal beef but have tremendous potential for carbon storage if reforested.

The team used NASA’s MODIS satellite (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer). The MODIS satellite is a key tool for monitoring Earth’s surface, including vegetation and land use. It captures detailed images of plant growth and productivity by measuring the amount of sunlight reflected from the Earth. Using this data, the team mapped pasture productivity worldwide with remarkable precision — down to 500-meter resolution. This allowed them to identify areas where beef production is inefficient but the potential for reforestation is high.

“The beef-for-forest tradeoff is not the same everywhere. We have produced maps that every country can use to visualize similar tradeoffs between beef and forest carbon. This publication was the culmination of years of preparation and research, which I was honored to help plan and coordinate.”

Key regions identified include the Eastern U.S., Eastern China, British Columbia, Colombia, Western Europe, and the U.K. In these areas, the shift from grazing to forest growth could offer one of the most effective climate strategies available today.

This approach, however, isn’t a universal solution to cattle emissions. It focuses on humid, forest-capable regions, which account for around 45% of global ruminant meat, milk, and fiber production. The remaining 55% comes from native grasslands and dry rangelands, where reforestation isn’t feasible.

The authors stress that native grasslands, which aren’t suitable for forests, can continue to support livestock grazing.

Policy will be key

“The potential climate impact of our findings is substantial — it would sequester more than a decade’s worth of fossil fuel emissions,” Hayek tells ZME Science. But we need good policies to implement this transition.

The approach would require nuanced policies, especially in higher-income countries where beef and dairy consumption is disproportionately high. Policymakers could, for instance, offer incentives for forest conservation and reforestation. This would support a gradual transition from beef production to more sustainable land uses.

This would also fit with a changing diet. Doctors and researchers have been advocating less beef in our diets for decades. If we actually implement dietary changes, there would be less demand for beef which would also help reforestation.

“The EAT-Lancet Planetary Health Diet, for instance, recommends major global reductions in beef and dairy consumption in higher-income countries, and slight increases in low-income countries,” says Hayek. “This would have to happen in a way that minimizes harm to producers while maximizing benefits. Some examples could include helping cattle producers instead produce nutritious crops like legumes (where possible), paying ranchers to protect forest areas, or producing renewable energy that requires less land than grazing does.”

Although this change won’t be easy, positive examples do exist. Take Costa Rica, for instance. The country’s efforts in the 1990s nearly doubled its forest area by financially supporting farmers willing to reforest their less-productive land. This a strategy that helped sustain food production while restoring forests. This example, coupled with the research team’s new maps of high-COI areas, could offer a blueprint for countries looking to adopt similar policies.

Hayek says he’s seen firsthand how quickly forests can return to their natural state during his research in New England and the Brazilian Amazon. All we need to do is give them a chance to return, and they will.

We Need This. Fast

With virtually the entire world failing its climate goals, this work is more important than ever. The study by Hayek and colleagues offers a roadmap on how to reduce a substantial part of our planet’s emissions. Food alone accounts for a third of our greenhouse gas emissions,

With careful policy implementation, nations could support climate goals while maintaining food security. The authors stress, however, that while ecosystem restoration holds enormous potential, it must complement ongoing efforts to reduce fossil fuel emissions.

“Within the next two decades, countries are aiming to meet critical climate mitigation targets under international agreements, and ecosystem restoration on converted pasturelands can be a critical part of that,” Hayek observes. “Our study’s findings could offer paths forward for policymakers aiming to address both climate mitigation and food security concerns.”

Reforesting even a fraction of the world’s pasturelands, the authors conclude, could yield climate benefits on a global scale. We’d be wise to consider this.

The study “Opportunities for carbon sequestration from removing or intensifying pasture-based beef production” was published in PNAS.