Name: 吃肉真的這麼糟糕嗎？！ (Is Meat Really that Bad?)
Uploaded: 2026-01-26T17:03:44.000Z
Duration: 10 min 14 s

Food is arguably the best thing about being alive.

食物大概是活著最棒的一件事了。

No other bodily pleasure is enjoyed multiple times every day and never gets old.

沒有其他身體上的享受，每天可以享受好幾次，而且永遠不會膩。

It's an expression of culture our parents love and a means of celebration or comfort.

它是我們父母喜愛的文化展現，也是慶祝或安慰的方式。

That's why it hits a special nerve when we're told we should change what and how we eat to fight rapid climate change.

這就是為什麼當有人告訴我們應該改變飲食內容和方式來對抗快速的氣候變遷時，會觸動我們內心深處。

One of the most delicious foods, meat, gets the worst press.

最美味的食物之一，肉類，卻遭受最嚴厲的批評。

It doesn't help that the topic is really hard to properly research yourself and that debates get emotional quickly.

這個話題本身就很難自己好好研究，而且討論很容易變得情緒化，這點沒有幫助。

But clearly science can give us an answer.

Let's take a look at three climate arguments against meat that are used a lot and see what happens.

我們來看看三個常被用來反對肉類的氣候論點，然後看看結果如何。

Does our diet really play that bigger role in climate?

我們的飲食真的對氣候有那麼大的影響嗎？

Feeding billions of people is impossible without causing emissions.

要餵飽數十億人口，不可能不產生碳排放。

Even if someday we have zero carbon tractors, refrigerators and cookers running on renewable energy, and

即使有一天我們有了零碳排放的拖拉機、冰箱和廚具，全由再生能源驅動，

electric trucks to move our food, there are still unavoidable emissions.

還有電動卡車來運送食物，還是會有無法避免的碳排放。

Rice emits methane, we cut down forests to make room for pastures and crops, and

稻米會排放甲烷，我們砍伐森林來開闢牧場和農田，

we emit nitrous oxide when we use fertilizers and manure.

施肥和使用動物糞便時，會產生氧化亞氮。

Worldwide, food production is responsible for about 26% of all human made greenhouse gas emissions, which is unfortunate since food is not optional.

全球的糧食生產，大約佔了人類製造的溫室氣體總排放量的 26%，這很可惜，因為食物是必需品。

While 26% doesn't sound that bad, it means that even if we extinguished all other sources of emissions today, the emissions from food alone would still use up our entire carbon budget by 2100.

雖然 26% 聽起來好像沒那麼糟，但這意味著，即使我們今天就消除了所有其他排放源，光是食物的排放量，到 2100 年就會用光我們所有的碳預算。

So no matter how we twist and turn it, food is a real driver of climate change.

所以，無論我們怎麼看，食物都是氣候變遷的真正推手。

Still, emissions from different food items vary a lot.

不過，不同食物的排放量差異很大。

How do things look when we compare their footprints separately?

如果我們分別比較它們的碳足跡，情況會怎麼樣呢？

Food's climate impact is most often based on life cycle assessments, an analysis that looks at all the emissions of a product throughout its existence, from production to transportation, packaging use and waste management.

食物的氣候影響，通常是根據生命週期評估來計算的，這種分析會檢視產品從生產、運輸、包裝使用到廢棄處理的整個生命週期中所產生的所有排放。

In the most detailed meta analysis of life cycle assessments to date, beef emissions stand out at the top.

在迄今為止最詳盡的生命週期評估綜合分析中，牛肉的排放量名列前茅。

On average, a kilogram of beef emits 71kg of CO2 equivalents.

平均來說，一公斤的牛肉會排放 71 公斤的二氧化碳當量。

Lamb is also high at 40kg, pork emits 12 and poultry 10kg.

羊肉也很高，每公斤 40 公斤；豬肉排放 12 公斤，禽肉則是 10 公斤。

At the bottom, we have lots of plant based foods.

墊底的則是有許多植物性食物。

Potatoes, for example, emit around 150 times less than beef.

舉例來說，馬鈴薯的排放量大約是牛肉的 150 倍。

The most important aspect of food isn't weight, though, it's nutrient density.

不過，食物最重要的並非重量，而是營養密度。

A kilogram of beef would keep you alive much longer than a kilogram of potatoes.

一公斤牛肉能讓你活得比一公斤馬鈴薯久得多。

So how does the ranking change if we compare emissions per calorie or protein?

所以，如果我們比較每卡路里或每克蛋白質的排放量，排名會怎麼變化呢？

Animal protein is still the most costly for the environment, and

動物性蛋白質對環境的影響仍然最大，

beef and lamb are also outliers in emissions per calorie, but is this fair.

牛肉和羊肉每卡路里的排放量也偏高，但這樣公平嗎？

There are all sorts of ways to rear cattle, from pure grass fed to factory farming.

飼養牛隻的方式有很多種，從純草飼到工廠化養殖都有。

The worst beef comes in at 105 kg of emissions per 100 grams of protein.

最差的牛肉每 100 克蛋白質會產生 105 公斤的排放量。

The best at only 9, a tenfold difference.

最好的則只有 9 公斤，差距有十倍之多。

In contrast, most other foods, especially plant based, have a much narrower spectrum.

相較之下，大多數其他食物，尤其是植物性食物，差異範圍則小得多。

Still, the best beef is worse than the worst plant.

不過，最好的牛肉還是比最差的植物性食物來得糟。

Can we buy the right beef and lower our emissions?

我們可以買對的牛肉來降低碳排放嗎？

Maybe by buying locally produced beef to minimize our footprint.

也許透過購買在地生產的牛肉來減少我們的足跡。

Lets stick with beef since it's such an outlier.

我們就先以牛肉為主，因為它實在太特別了。

By buying locally you are trying to avoid emissions from transportation and packaging.

透過在地購買，你是想避免運輸和包裝產生的碳排放。

But it turns out these only account for 0.5 to 2% of beef's total emissions.

但結果發現這些只佔牛肉總碳排放量的 0.5% 到 2%。

Actually, transport and packaging combined are only about 11% of all food emissions.

事實上，運輸和包裝加起來只佔所有食物碳排放量的 11% 左右。

Nearly all food transport emissions are produced over the last few miles.

幾乎所有的食物運輸碳排放都是在最後幾英里產生的。

The regional travel on the road, supplying the markets and shops in your area.

就是你所在地區的公路運輸，供應你所在區域的市場和商店。

International food transport happens mostly on freight ships which are insanely efficient.

國際食物運輸大多是靠貨船，效率超高。

For example, shipping 1 kg of avocados from South America to Europe generates about 0.3 kg of CO2 equivalents in transport emissions and around 2.5 kg overall.

舉例來說，從南美洲運 1 公斤酪梨到歐洲，運輸排放大約會產生 0.3 公斤的二氧化碳當量，整體大約是 2.5 公斤。

While 1 kg of beef from your local butcher will come in at 18 kg in CO2 equivalents at least.

但你家附近肉舖的 1 公斤牛肉，至少會有 18 公斤的二氧化碳當量。

So even when shipped great distances, emissions from almost all plant based foods cause lower emissions than local locally produced animal products.

所以即使長途運輸，幾乎所有植物性食物的排放量，都比當地生產的動物產品來得低。

Okay, so if transport doesn't play a big role, what causes the vast amounts of emissions from beef then?

好的，如果運輸不是主要原因，那牛肉產生大量排放的原因又是什麼呢？

By far the largest share of beef emissions consists of methane released directly by the animals.

牛肉排放中佔最大宗的，是動物直接釋放的甲烷。

While CO2 hangs around for centuries, methane only stays in the atmosphere for decades, but

二氧化碳會在幾百年後才消失，但甲烷只會在幾十年內留在空氣中，不過

in these short periods it is very powerful.

在這短暫的時間裡，它的威力非常強大。

All in all, methane has already caused 23 to 40% of human made warming so far.

總而言之，甲烷已經造成了人類活動所引起暖化的 23% 到 40%。

There's controversy about how bad this is exactly, and we don't want to dive in too deep here.

關於這到底有多嚴重，其實還有爭議，我們在這裡也不想深入探討。

But the way things stand, any kinds of extra emissions are not great.

不過，現況是，任何額外的排放都不太好。

Still, all cows burp and fart to similar degrees.

不過，所有的牛打嗝和放屁的程度都差不多。

What explains the spectrum of beef emissions?

是什麼造成了不同程度的牛肉排放呢？

It makes a difference if the beef comes from a dairy herd or or one dedicated to beef production.

牛肉來自乳牛群還是專門生產牛肉的牛群，這會造成差異。

44% of the world's beef comes from dairy cows sharing its footprint with dairy products.

全球 44% 的牛肉來自乳牛，牠們的碳足跡與乳製品共享。

Dairy cows tend to get higher quality feed which makes them grow faster and emit less methane.

乳牛通常會獲得更高品質的飼料，這讓牠們生長更快，甲烷排放也更少。

Geography also plays a role because it determines which farming methods are possible.

地理位置也扮演了角色，因為它決定了哪些耕作方式是可行的。

The worst factor by far is the destruction of forests for farmland.

到目前為止最糟糕的因素是為了農地而破壞森林。

Not only does this release the CO2 that was bound in the flora.

這不僅釋放出被植物所固定的二氧化碳。

It sets free carbon that was stored in the soil and destroys its ability to store it in the future.

這會釋放出儲存在土壤裡的碳，並破壞土壤未來儲存碳的能力。

This aspect accounts for much of the range of emissions in beef.

這個因素佔了牛肉排放量差異的很大一部分。

The worst emitters are farms burning down rainforest for farmland, especially in Brazil.

排放量最嚴重的問題來自於農場為了耕地而燒毀雨林，尤其是在巴西。

這背後隱藏著一個陰暗的事實。

The more animals suffer, the better they are in terms of climate change, because they are way more efficient, they use less land, and

動物受苦越多，對氣候變遷來說牠們就越好，因為牠們效率高很多，使用的土地也比較少，而且

牠們的食物會直接送到牠們面前。

And so they grow faster and don't expend energy on things like walking cattle in a factory farm that never get to roam.

所以牠們長得更快，也不會在工廠化養殖場裡浪費精力走路，因為牠們根本沒機會到處走動。

Pastures can sometimes be less destructive for the climate than cattle grazing peacefully on a formerly lush piece of rainforest.

有時候，放牧對氣候的破壞比牛隻在原本茂密的雨林裡悠閒吃草還要小。

But isn't it a bit out of touch with reality to demonize cows so much?

但這樣過度妖魔化牛隻，是不是有點脫離現實了？

Some of the land these animals are grazing on isn't suitable for crops anyway.

這些動物放牧的土地，有些本來就不適合種植作物。

By grazing on pastures, they can turn things we can't digest into food.

牠們透過吃草，能把我們無法消化的東西變成食物。

Isn't farming animals just a smart way to make the best use of unused resources?

飼養動物不就是一種聰明的資源再利用方式嗎？

牛隻主要使用的土地，不就是我們無法拿來耕種或其他用途的土地嗎？

Don't cows mainly use land that we can't use for agriculture or other things?

全球一半的無冰、無沙漠土地都用於農業。

About half of the world's ice and desert free land is used for agriculture.

相當於整個美洲加上中國的面積。

An area the size of the entire Americas plus China.

所有農業用地中，有一半是專門用來飼養動物的。

Half of all agriculturally used land is dedicated to animals.

其中大部分是草地，有 65% 無法轉變成農田。

Most of it is grassland, 65% of which cannot be converted to cropland.

所以放牧動物其實是利用這些地區的有效方式，反正我們也無法在那裡種植人類的食物。

So pasturing animals is actually a very efficient way to use those areas, since we can't grow human food there anyway.

不過，這裡有幾個小地方要注意。

There are a couple of catches here though.

While the idea of cows turning useless grass into steak is nice, it is part of a marketing lie.

Even though it is so massive, pastureland alone can't support the ruminants living on it.

雖然牛隻把沒用的草變成牛排聽起來很讚，但這其實是個行銷手法。

Globally, grazing Systems sustain only 13% of beef production.

即使牧地面積廣大，光靠牧地也無法養活上面的反芻動物。

So if we were to switch to 100% grass fed, we'd simply have to eat much less beef.

在全球，放牧系統只支持了 13% 的牛肉生產。

In the US, beef production would crash by some 70% if it were to exclusively rely on grass.

所以如果我們要全面改採草飼，我們就得大幅減少牛肉的攝取量。

The only way to sustain our high demand for meat is by growing crops and feeding them to our cattle.

在美國，如果完全依賴草飼，牛肉產量會暴跌約 70%。

And we haven't even talked about chicken and pigs, which exclusively eat feed crops.

要滿足我們對肉類的高需求，唯一的辦法就是種植作物並餵給我們的牛隻。

Because of this feed demand, less than half of the world's cereals are directly as human food.

而且我們還沒講到雞和豬，牠們完全是吃飼料作物長大的。

因為有這種飼料需求，世界上不到一半的穀物是直接給人類食用的。