Updated October 2026
Many headlines say that ‘giving up meat and dairy is the biggest single thing you can do for the planet.’
Reducing your intake of animal products is a terrific way to lower your emissions, but how does it compare to giving up flying?
It’s important to say that all actions to reduce emissions are valid and impactful, including in how we eat and travel. The aim here is not to discourage people from taking a particular action, or to say that one is ‘better’ than the other, but to crunch some numbers and see why we draw the conclusions that we do.
Global emissions
According to a report published in 2013, animal agriculture is responsible for 14.5% of global emissions.
And according to 2018 figures, aviation is responsible for 3.5% of global emissions.
So on face value it’s understandable why people think that changing our diet would have more impact on emissions than changing our travel habits.
However, these stats talk about global figures. Globally, the animal agriculture sector has a bigger share of emissions than the aviation sector, but that’s mainly because animal agriculture serves a much, much larger proportion of the global population.
In 2018, only 11% of people in the world took a flight (only 4% internationally), and estimates say that only around 10% of the global population flies each year. Whereas meat and animal protein is found in 40% of diets. No wonder that the overall impact of aviation is lower. Far fewer people do it.
Looking at the individual picture
When we look at the individual picture, the numbers are a lot different. While reducing or cutting your meat intake can do wonders for lowering your carbon footprint, with estimates suggesting that you can save nearly a tonne of CO2 per year by going vegan, taking a flight anywhere outside Europe can immediately heap it back on.
- Savings from going vegan = 0.8 tonnes CO2
- Flight to Cairo = 0.8 tonnes CO2
- Flight to Dubai = 1.2 tonnes CO2
- Flight to LA = 2 tonnes CO2
- Flight to Bali = 2.9 tonnes CO2
- Flight to Sydney = 4 tonnes CO2
Emissions data from flightemissionmap.org. Flights are return flights per passenger.
These comparisons focus on the savings, but another way of looking at it is comparing the impact of flying with the impact of eating meat. Just one flight can cause the same level of emissions as eating meat for a year:
- Emissions from eating meat for a year (UK average) = 2.06 tonnes CO2
- Flight to Rio de Janeiro = 2.2 tonnes CO2
- Flight to Costa Rica = 2.04 tonnes CO2
- Flight to Sri Lanka = 2.04 tonnes CO2
- Flight to Mexico City = 2.09 tonnes CO2
Emissions data from flightemissionmap.org. Flights are return flights per passenger.
This doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t bother reducing their meat consumption. It’s a very powerful step to take for the planet and the animals, and your own health. We considered very carefully whether to compare diet to aviation at all, because comparisons can be misinterpreted or be unhelpful. Anyone can make a comparison go their way or be used to illustrate their own agenda.
But it’s useful to hold up the impact of aviation in relation to other lifestyle choices, to put things into context. Eating meat is generally known to be a high-emission activity, but many people might be surprised to know that flying is on a level or even higher.
Wider impacts of animal agriculture and aviation
CO2 is not the only environmental concern for animal agriculture. Other impacts include nitrous oxide from fertiliser, methane from gestation, water use, loss of biodiversity because of the land required, deforestation for growing feed, toxic run-off from fertilisers and manure, and antibiotic resistance.
But similar impacts also apply to the aviation industry. Non-CO2 impacts include nitrous oxide and water vapour from contrails, which roughly double aviation’s warming effect.
There are also impacts on wildlife, especially around airports, where birds nests can be cleared for a 16km radius to reduce the risk of bird strike. Landing lights and aircraft noise are extremely disruptive to insect and bird circadian rhythms. De-icer for planes causes toxic run-off.
Growing crops for SAF (co-called ‘sustainable’ aviation fuel) can lead to land clearances, land grabs and deforestation.
So, is it better to be vegan or flight free?
In conclusion: definitely take steps to reduce your meat consumption, for all of the reasons outlined above. Please also try to reduce the amount you fly, perhaps by taking our Flight Free Challenge.
The founder and director of Flight Free UK is vegan and flight free, and she would urge you to give both a try – as well as leaving your car at home, installing solar energy on your house, and composting your waste rather than sending it to landfill.
There’s no doubt that in order to avoid catastrophic climate change, we must change everything about the way we live: what we eat, how we heat our homes, what we wear and how we travel. For some of us, one thing might be easier than another, and we each need to work out where our greatest impact lies.
