Plant-based protein usually has a much smaller environmental footprint than beef. In the global food-system dataset presented by Our World in Data, beef produces about 25 kilograms of carbon-dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per 100 grams of protein, compared with about 1.6 kg for tofu, 0.65 kg for beans and 0.4 kg for peas. Beef also generally requires far more land. Those are global median estimates, not a guarantee for every farm or product.
A branded meat-alternative comparison points in the same direction but should not be treated as universal. A life-cycle assessment (LCA) of a quarter-pound Beyond Burger 4.0 patty, using U.S. 2024 production data, found lower impacts than an average quarter-pound U.S. beef patty on each of four measured indicators. The size of the difference belongs to that product, benchmark, geography, year and study boundary.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
What is being compared?
“Plant-based protein” covers several very different foods. It can mean minimally processed foods such as beans, peas and tofu, or formulated meat alternatives designed to resemble a burger. Their farming, ingredients, processing, packaging, refrigeration and distribution can differ substantially.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Beef is not one uniform product either. A pasture-based system, a feedlot system and beef from a dairy herd can have different attributed impacts. The way a study allocates impacts among milk, meat and other co-products changes the result for beef from dairy animals.
#1 Best Overall
- Read Before You Buy — No Video Output: These adapters support charging and USB 2.0 data transfer, but cannot transmit video signals. Except for standard USB webcams (which use USB data only), they are not compatible with HDMI/DisplayPort cables, video-capable USB-C hubs, or docking stations with video output.
- Convert USB-A Ports to USB-C: Designed to connect USB-C earphones, cables, flash drives, card readers, and other USB-C accessories to standard USB-A ports. Plug-and-play with no drivers or software required.
- Aluminum Alloy Housing: Built with a sturdy aluminum alloy shell that aids in heat dissipation and protects against daily wear and scratches. Designed to maintain a stable and secure connection.
- Compact & Travel-Friendly: The ultra-compact design allows the adapter to stay plugged into your device without blocking adjacent ports or adding bulk, reducing wear and tear on your original USB ports.
- 12-Month Warranty: Backed by a 12-month manufacturer warranty for peace of mind. Designed to meet strict quality control standards for reliable everyday performance.
For a fair comparison, first choose the question you are asking:
- Nutrition question: compare foods per 100 grams of protein or per 1,000 kilocalories.
- Meal-substitution question: compare similar servings, such as a quarter-pound beef patty with a quarter-pound plant-based patty.
- Food-system question: examine the full supply chain, including land-use change, farm emissions, inputs, processing, transport, packaging and retail.
Changing the functional unit can change the apparent size of a difference. A kilogram of food, a serving and 100 grams of protein are not interchangeable measures. A food with more water or carbohydrate by weight can look different when results are normalized to protein, while a burger replacement is best judged by equal patties or servings.
The broad global comparison: beef versus whole plant proteins
Our World in Data presents approximate values from the Poore and Nemecek 2018 global food-impact dataset. The figures below are greenhouse-gas emissions per 100 grams of protein:
Recommended Free Tools
| Food | Approximate emissions per 100 g protein | What the figure represents |
|---|---|---|
| Beef | 25 kg CO2e | Global median across the dataset |
| Tofu | 1.6 kg CO2e | Global median across the dataset |
| Beans | 0.65 kg CO2e | Global median across the dataset |
| Peas | 0.4 kg CO2e | Global median across the dataset |
On this protein basis, the beef median is roughly 16 times the tofu value, 38 times the beans value and 60 times the peas value. Those ratios are simple comparisons of rounded chart values, not precise predictions for a particular meal. They show why changing the protein source can matter more than small differences in packaging or shopping distance.
The underlying work screened 1,530 candidate studies, selected 570 suitable studies, and combined data from 139 authors. It covers 38,700 farms in 119 countries and 40 products. Such breadth makes the dataset useful for seeing broad patterns, while its global-median format means it cannot certify the footprint of an individual ranch, tofu factory or bag of beans.
The dataset reports greenhouse gases as CO2e, which expresses different gases in a common unit using 100-year global-warming potentials. Its system boundary includes land-use change, on-farm emissions, agricultural inputs, processing, transport, packaging and retail. Because the figures are global medians, individual production systems can sit above or below them. The broad ordering is nevertheless consistent: nearly all beef and lamb producers have higher carbon footprints than plant-based alternatives in the cited analysis.
Why normalize by protein?
Protein normalization answers a dietary substitution question: how much climate impact is associated with obtaining a comparable amount of protein? It avoids rewarding a food simply because much of its weight is water. The same dataset can also be viewed per kilogram of food or per 1,000 kilocalories, but those bases answer different questions. A comparison should state the basis in the table heading and surrounding text so readers do not mistake a per-protein figure for a per-serving result.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallOutdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchRank #2
- 5-in-1 USB-C Hub: Experience comprehensive connectivity featuring a Power Delivery input, two USB-A 2.0 ports, a USB-A 3.0 port, and an HDMI port. (Note: The USB-C power delivery input port is only for connecting an external wall charger to power your laptop and cannot power peripheral devices.)
- 90W Pass-Through Charging: Achieve optimal charging with 90W pass-through power to your laptop, supported by a total input of 100W, with the hub reserving 10W for operational efficiency. (Note: Wall charger not included.)
- Quick Data Transfers: Accelerate your productivity with rapid data transfers using a high-speed 5Gbps USB 3.0 port and two 480Mbps USB 2.0 ports.
- 4K HDMI Display: Enhance your visual experience with a hub capable of delivering 4K resolution at 30Hz in both mirror and extend modes. Please note that this hub is compatible with MacBook (macOS 12 and newer), Windows 10 and 11, ChromeOS, and laptops equipped with DP Alt Mode and Power Delivery. Note: This device is not compatible with Linux.
- What You Get: Anker USB-C Hub (5-in-1, 4K HDMI), welcome guide, 18-month warranty, and our friendly customer service.
Why beef generally has the larger climate and land footprint
Ruminant methane and nitrous oxide
Beef production includes emissions that are not prominent in the same way for plant proteins. Cattle produce biogenic methane, and manure and fertilizer management can produce nitrous oxide. The Beyond Burger 4.0 LCA notes that greenhouse-gas and fossil-resource results can diverge in beef because beef life cycles include notable contributions from biogenic methane and nitrous oxide, rather than being dominated only by carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel combustion.
Land used for animals and feed
Beef can require land for grazing and for growing feed. Land-use change, farm operations and feed production are all included in the global food-system comparison. Plant proteins generally deliver protein without the additional animal stage, so their land requirement per 100 grams of protein is usually much lower. Lower land demand can also reduce pressure to convert forests or other natural ecosystems, although the exact land-use outcome depends on where and how crops are grown.
Long production chains
Every stage in a beef supply chain contributes to the total: feed and farm inputs, the animal’s own emissions, processing, refrigeration, packaging and retail. Removing one stage does not erase the others. This is why “grass-fed,” “local” or “natural” labels alone cannot establish a lower total footprint without a complete assessment.
Whole foods are not the same as plant-based burgers
Beans, peas and tofu are whole or relatively simple foods. A plant-based burger is a formulated product that may combine several crops with oils, proteins, flavorings, binders and other ingredients. The OECD’s 2022 review concludes that plant-based foods and meat alternatives generally have lower greenhouse-gas intensity than beef in the evidence it examined, while noting that ingredient production makes a considerable contribution to plant-burger emissions.
Processing does not automatically cancel the advantage over beef, but it can narrow or widen the gap depending on the recipe and supply chain. Ingredients grown with different yields, fertilizer practices or land-use histories will have different impacts. Packaging, factory energy, refrigeration and distribution also matter. Therefore, a result for one formulated patty should not be presented as a result for every plant-based product.
For a household choosing between a simple staple and a burger analogue, the environmental question is separate from taste, price, nutrition or convenience. A bean-based meal and a plant-based patty may both replace beef, yet their ingredient lists and manufacturing steps are not identical. Evidence for one should not be used as a proxy for the other.
What a product-level burger LCA found
Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger 4.0 LCA compares a quarter-pound patty made with U.S. 2024 production data against an average quarter-pound U.S. beef patty. The beef benchmark is based on a 2023 beef LCA. The report evaluates four selected indicators and gives the following relative results:
Rank #3
- Sleek 7-in-1 USB-C Hub: Features an HDMI port, two USB-A 3.0 ports, and a USB-C data port, each providing 5Gbps transfer speeds. It also includes a USB-C PD input port for charging up to 100W and dual SD and TF card slots, all in a compact design.
- Flawless 4K@60Hz Video with HDMI: Delivers exceptional clarity and smoothness with its 4K@60Hz HDMI port, making it ideal for high-definition presentations and entertainment. (Note: Only the HDMI port supports video projection; the USB-C port is for data transfer only.)
- Double Up on Efficiency: The two USB-A 3.0 ports and a USB-C port support a fast 5Gbps data rate, significantly boosting your transfer speeds and improving productivity.
- Fast and Reliable 85W Charging: Offers high-capacity, speedy charging for laptops up to 85W, so you spend less time tethered to an outlet and more time being productive.
- What You Get: Anker USB-C Hub (7-in-1), welcome guide, 18-month warranty, and our friendly customer service.
| Indicator | Reported result for the assessed plant-based patty versus the beef benchmark | Important qualification |
|---|---|---|
| Global-warming impact | 88% lower | Specific to the assessed Beyond Burger 4.0 patty, U.S. data and the study boundary |
| Fossil-resource scarcity | 28% lower | Reported in the LCA as a resource-scarcity indicator, not total energy use |
| Land use | 97% lower | Uses the LCA’s land-use metric and definitions |
| Water consumption | 92% lower | Absolute water consumption; not a universal scarcity-weighted water impact |
The LCA reports cradle-to-distribution results. It is a study of that formulation and benchmark, not independent testing by this publication, and it does not establish results for environmental categories that it did not evaluate. “Lower” means lower under the report’s assumptions, data and comparison rules.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The percentages should be read as relative differences between two quarter-pound patties, not as the amount of impact avoided by every person or every recipe. They also cannot be combined with the global tofu, bean or pea figures to create a single league table, because the products, functional units, geographies and boundaries differ.
How to interpret the main environmental metrics
Greenhouse-gas emissions
Always state the functional unit. “25 kg CO2e” is incomplete unless the reader knows it means approximately 25 kg per 100 grams of protein in the global dataset. A patty LCA uses a different unit: one quarter-pound patty compared with another quarter-pound patty. These numbers cannot be placed in a single ranking without converting them to a common basis using the underlying data.
Land use
Land can be reported as area, occupation over time or a characterized land-use impact. Those measures answer related but different questions. The 97% figure in the Beyond assessment is the report’s own land-use indicator; it should not be treated as a universal percentage for every plant-based burger or as directly interchangeable with another study’s hectares-per-year result.
Water
Water “consumption” is not automatically the same as water scarcity impact. A liter withdrawn in a water-abundant basin does not have the same local consequence as a liter consumed in a drought-prone basin. The Beyond assessment reports liters of water consumption for its patties, not a scarcity-weighted global water score.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Energy and fossil resources
The Beyond LCA reports fossil-resource scarcity in kilograms of oil equivalent. That is an indicator of pressure on fossil resources, not a statement about total energy use in kilowatt-hours. Use the exact name and unit supplied by a study rather than relabeling it as “energy.”
What is outside the headline indicators?
A lower result for the four reported indicators does not automatically answer questions about every environmental or social issue. The Beyond report specifically limits its conclusions to the categories it assessed. Waste management, biodiversity, labor conditions, nutrition and affordability require separate evidence and should not be inferred from the four percentages.
Rank #4
- Dual Converters, Infinite Potential：Includes 2× USB C male to USB A female adapters and 2× USB A male to USB C female adapters. Perfect for a wide range of uses—tablets with Bluetooth keyboards, expand USB ports on macbook, and more. Two different converters for all your daily needs
- Next-Level 10Gbps & 3A Charging: No more slow 480Mbps, this usb to usb c adapter has a transfer speed of up to 10Gbps, allowing you to do more transferring in less time. This usb adapter fits both USB A and USB C charger, supporting up to 3A fast charging
- Upgraded Exquisite Craftsmanship: With an aluminum alloy housing and metal connector, the usbc to usb adapter is extremely durable and sturdy. Rigorously tested to withstand more than 10,000 times of plugging and unplugging, ensuring long-lasting performance
- Broad Compatible: The usb c to usb adapter widely supports all USB C/ USB A devices like laptops, tablets, cellphones, car chargers, and phone chargers. Such as compatible with MacBook Pro/Air 2023/2022, Thunderbolt 4/3 Devices,Apple MagSafe Watch 9/8/7/SE/Ultra, iPad Pro 2022/2021, Samsung Galaxy S23/S20/S10, and iPhone 17/16/15 Pro. Plug and play
- Please Note: To reach 10Gbps speed, keep the cable under 3.3 ft. For USB A Male to USB C adapters, try flipping the USB C connector. USB C Male to USB A adapters support bidirectional 10Gbps transfer within 3.3 ft
Why results vary between studies and products
Geography and production year
The global food dataset combines evidence from many countries and years to produce global medians. The Beyond assessment uses U.S. production data from 2024 and an average U.S. beef benchmark based on a 2023 LCA. A regional electricity mix, fertilizer system, yield, transport network or cattle-production method can change a product’s result.
System boundary
The global comparison runs through retail and includes transport, packaging and food-system inputs. The Beyond report presents cradle-to-distribution results. A study that stops at the farm gate will not be directly comparable with one that includes processing, distribution and retail. Before comparing two claims, write down the first and last lifecycle stages each one includes.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsAllocation choices
When one animal system produces multiple outputs, impacts must be allocated among them. Our World in Data notes that beef from a dedicated beef herd can have a higher attributed footprint than beef from a dairy herd because impacts are shared among dairy co-products. This is a methodological difference, not proof that every dairy-beef system is inherently low impact.
Ingredient and recipe changes
Changing the main protein, oil, binder, flavoring or supplier can change the footprint of a plant-based patty. A result for one product formulation should therefore be labeled as product-specific. The same caution applies to beef: breed, feed, herd type, land management and farm performance all matter.
Does buying local change the answer?
Local purchasing can have benefits unrelated to climate emissions, but distance alone is a weak shortcut for comparing beef with plants. Our World in Data’s food-emissions synthesis estimates that transport accounts for about 5% of food greenhouse-gas emissions overall. Production usually contributes much more, so a local beef product is not automatically lower-impact than a plant protein transported from farther away.
Transport still matters in particular cases. Air freight, long refrigerated journeys and unusual supply chains can raise a product’s result. The correct approach is to compare the full life cycle rather than assume that “local” or “imported” determines the outcome. A product’s label may not reveal whether it traveled by air, ship or truck, so broad transport assumptions should be treated cautiously.
A practical way to choose a lower-impact protein
- Define the substitution. Decide whether you are replacing a beef serving with beans, tofu, peas or a plant-based patty. Keep serving size and nutritional purpose comparable.
- Choose a functional unit. Use protein-normalized values for a nutrition decision, or equal patty weights for a burger decision. Do not compare a kilogram of one food with a serving of another.
- Check the metric. Prioritize greenhouse-gas emissions and land use when those are available. Treat water consumption, water scarcity and fossil-resource scarcity as separate indicators.
- Read the boundary and geography. Record whether the assessment includes land-use change, farming, processing, transport, packaging, distribution and retail, and note the country and data year.
- Separate whole foods from formulated products. A bean or tofu result cannot be used as a proxy for every plant-based burger. Conversely, a single burger LCA cannot represent all plant proteins.
- Use labels cautiously. “Local,” “grass-fed,” “natural” or “high-protein” does not provide a complete environmental result by itself.
- Prefer like-for-like evidence. For a household decision, compare products measured with similar methods and functional units. If the studies differ, report the difference instead of combining their percentages.
- Keep the decision proportionate. If a reliable comparison is unavailable, choosing beans, peas, tofu or another clearly plant-based option instead of beef is directionally supported by the global evidence, even though the exact percentage reduction remains uncertain.
Common mistakes in beef-versus-plant comparisons
- Mixing units: Presenting emissions per kilogram of food beside emissions per 100 grams of protein creates a misleading ranking.
- Universalizing one product: Applying the Beyond Burger 4.0 percentages to all plant-based burgers ignores recipe and supply-chain differences.
- Ignoring methane: Treating beef’s result as if it came only from fossil-fuel carbon dioxide overlooks biogenic methane and nitrous oxide.
- Calling fossil-resource scarcity “energy use”: The indicators are related but not identical.
- Equating water consumption with scarcity: Absolute liters do not describe the local availability of water.
- Assuming global medians describe one farm: The Poore and Nemecek dataset captures broad patterns, not a particular producer’s verified footprint.
- Using transport as the main explanation: Transport is about 5% of food emissions in the cited global synthesis, so production methods normally dominate the comparison.
- Comparing unmatched boundaries: A farm-gate figure cannot be treated as equivalent to a cradle-to-retail or cradle-to-distribution result.
- Confusing lower impact with zero impact: Plant proteins still require land, fertilizer, energy, processing and transport; “lower” is not the same as impact-free.
- Assuming one beef label settles the issue: Grass-fed or local claims do not replace a measured, full-lifecycle comparison.
What the evidence supports
Across the global dataset and the OECD review, plant proteins have a strong environmental advantage over beef for greenhouse-gas emissions and land use. The approximate protein-normalized values—25 kg CO2e for beef versus 1.6 kg for tofu, 0.65 kg for beans and 0.4 kg for peas—show the scale of the broad difference.
Best Value
- 5-in-1 Connectivity: Equipped with a 4K HDMI port, a 5 Gbps USB-C data port, two 5 Gbps USB-A ports, and a USB C 100W PD-IN port. Note: The USB C 100W PD-IN port supports only charging and does not support data transfer devices such as headphones or speakers.
- Powerful Pass-Through Charging: Supports up to 85W pass-through charging so you can power up your laptop while you use the hub. Note: Pass-through charging requires a charger (not included). Note: To achieve full power for iPad, we recommend using a 45W wall charger.
- Transfer Files in Seconds: Move files to and from your laptop at speeds of up to 5 Gbps via the USB-C and USB-A data ports. Note: The USB C 5Gbps Data port does not support video output.
- HD Display: Connect to the HDMI port to stream or mirror content to an external monitor in resolutions of up to 4K@30Hz. Note: The USB-C ports do not support video output.
- What You Get: Anker 332 USB-C Hub (5-in-1), welcome guide, our worry-free 18-month warranty, and friendly customer service.
The product-level LCA provides a concrete burger substitution: its assessed quarter-pound plant-based patty had 88% lower global-warming impact, 97% lower land use and 92% lower water consumption than the quarter-pound U.S. beef benchmark, with fossil-resource scarcity 28% lower. Those results are useful precisely because the product, year, geography, benchmark and indicators are stated. They should not be detached from those conditions.
For a practical decision, replacing beef with beans, peas, tofu or a plant-based burger will generally reduce climate and land impacts, with the exact reduction depending on the food and supply chain. The most defensible comparison keeps the serving or protein basis consistent, names the metric and respects the study’s boundaries.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is plant-based protein better for the environment than beef?
In the broad global comparison, yes. Approximate emissions per 100 grams of protein are 25 kg CO2e for beef, 1.6 kg for tofu, 0.65 kg for beans and 0.4 kg for peas. These are global medians, so they do not predict every farm or product.
Is a plant-based burger automatically as low-impact as beans or tofu?
No. Burgers are formulated products with ingredients, oils, processing, packaging and refrigeration. The OECD review finds lower greenhouse-gas intensity than beef overall, but ingredient production can make a considerable contribution. A result for one patty cannot represent every brand or recipe.
How much lower was the assessed Beyond Burger 4.0 patty than beef?
For a quarter-pound patty compared with an average quarter-pound U.S. beef patty, the LCA reports 88% lower global-warming impact, 28% lower fossil-resource scarcity, 97% lower land use and 92% lower water consumption. Those percentages apply only to that product, benchmark, data year and study boundary.
Does local beef have a lower footprint than imported plant protein?
Not necessarily. Transport accounts for about 5% of food greenhouse-gas emissions in the cited global synthesis, while production usually dominates. Air freight or unusual refrigerated routes can matter, but “local” alone does not establish a lower total footprint.
Why can beef from dairy cattle have a different result from dedicated beef?
A dairy system produces multiple outputs, so impacts are allocated among milk, meat and other co-products. That allocation can give dairy-associated beef a lower attributed footprint than beef from a dedicated beef herd. It is a methodological difference, not a guarantee that every dairy system is low impact.
What should I check when reading an environmental claim?
Check the functional unit, metric, geography, data year and lifecycle boundary. Confirm whether the number is per kilogram, per 100 grams of protein, per calorie or per serving, and whether it measures greenhouse gases, land, water consumption or fossil-resource scarcity.
The Bottom Line
Beef generally has far higher greenhouse-gas emissions and land use than beans, peas, tofu and other plant proteins. A specific plant-based burger can also outperform a comparable beef patty, but its percentages apply only to the assessed product and study conditions.
For a sound choice, compare like with like: use protein or calorie units for nutrition questions, equal servings for a meal swap, and always check the metric, geography, year and lifecycle boundary.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
