95
Equivalentes estimados de animais terrestres
Principalmente galinhas — a espécie abatida em maior número.
Veg.ac · Calculadora de impacto
O que o seu prato
Escolha sua dieta atual e quanto tempo você se comprometeria com uma alimentação à base de plantas. As estimativas abaixo vêm de estudos revisados por pares sobre o ciclo de vida e os sistemas alimentares.
Sua dieta atual
Horizonte de tempo
1 ano1102550
200
Equivalentes estimados de animais aquáticos
Peixes, camarões e capturas acidentais que você de outra forma teria comido ou financiado.
1.9k kg
CO₂-equivalente evitado
≈ 804 litros de gasolina queimados.
750k L
Água economizada
≈ 5k dias de uso doméstico de água.
2.4k m²
Demanda de terra estimada reduzida
≈ 0.48 campos de futebol.
130 m²
Redução estimada da pressão sobre as florestas
Da mudança no uso da terra impulsionada pela carne bovina e pela soja para ração.
360 kg
Demanda estimada de ração reduzida
Globalmente, ~77% da soja e ~36% dos cereais alimentam o gado.
—
E sua vida diária
Dietas à base de plantas bem planejadas podem melhorar o colesterol LDL e outros fatores de risco cardiometabólico; os resultados individuais variam.
Mais calculadoras
Diferentes maneiras de ver a mesma verdade: pequenas escolhas diárias somam-se a totais enormes ao longo da vida.
Troca por refeição
Trocar uma refeição à base de carne bovina por uma à base de feijão economiza, em média:
- ~50 kgCO₂e evitado
- ~15.000 Lágua economizada
- ~64 m²terra liberada
Valores por kg: Poore & Nemecek (2018), Science.
Desde que me tornei vegano
Escolha uma data e mostraremos os totais acumulados que você já economizou.
Família / sala de aula / escritório
Multiplique um ano onívoro pelo tamanho do seu grupo para ver como um único ano de mudança coletiva se parece.
Animals1.9k
CO₂e37k kg
Water15.0M L
Torne os números reais. Comece o plano de 7 dias.
Um novo hábito alimentar à base de plantas por dia, construído com os ingredientes que você já cozinha.
Fontes e metodologia
As linhas de base anuais por onívoro combinam Poore & Nemecek (Science, 2018), estatísticas da FAO, estimativas da Faunalytics de animais mortos per capita e a Water Footprint Network. Os multiplicadores de dieta aproximam o impacto dietético em relação a um onívoro médio em um país de alta renda.
Os números são estimativas modeladas ilustrativas, não economias garantidas. As reduções de terra e ração não restauram automaticamente florestas nem transferem grãos para as pessoas.
Principais pontos
- Comer à base de plantas reduz a procura por animais de criação e pode reduzir substancialmente as emissões alimentares; as poupanças estimadas dependem da sua dieta inicial.
- A alimentação à base de plantas pode reduzir a sua pegada hídrica relacionada com a alimentação; as poupanças dependem dos alimentos e de onde são produzidos.
- Dietas à base de plantas geralmente precisam de menos terra agrícola — criando oportunidades para a restauração de ecossistemas se o uso da terra mudar.
- A matemática não é marginal: mudar a sua dieta pode reduzir substancialmente o impacto climático da sua alimentação.
Compartilhe esta página
Perguntas frequentes
Poore & Nemecek (Science, 2018) fornecem dados de impacto ambiental; o USDA e a FAO fornecem estatísticas de abate. Os resultados da calculadora são estimativas que dependem de pressupostos sobre dietas, produção e procura.
Method
How the impact calculator estimates your footprint
The calculator scales fixed annual baseline estimates by your diet setting and time period. It illustrates possible differences rather than calculating a personalised life-cycle assessment; the assumptions matter as much as the displayed total.
What a life-cycle assessment covers
Food life-cycle studies can include land-use change, farming, feed, processing, transport, packaging and retail. This calculator does not model those stages individually: it scales fixed annual estimates using a diet multiplier. Its outputs should be treated as illustrations, not measured savings.
Why methane and land use dominate
Ruminant digestion produces methane, a gas with roughly 80 times the warming effect of CO₂ over twenty years, and pasture expansion converts forest and savannah into grazing land, releasing stored carbon. Together these two mechanisms explain why beef and lamb sit an order of magnitude above legumes on almost every metric, and why 'local' rarely rescues them — transport accounts for under 10% of most products' emissions.
The parts that are genuinely uncertain
Soil carbon storage under improved grazing is context-dependent, time-limited and reversible; it does not generally cancel livestock emissions. Aquaculture varies by species and feed. Standard footprints also often omit the carbon that recovering vegetation could store if farmland were released.
Reading your result
Treat the output as an illustration rather than an audit. Both the total and the comparison depend on fixed baseline assumptions and diet multipliers. A displayed reduction is a result of this model, not a guarantee that the same percentage applies to your own diet.
Footprint per kilogram of food produced
Indicative food footprints per kg: kg CO₂-equivalent, m²-years of land use and litres of freshwater.
| Food | kg CO₂e / kg | Land m² / kg | Water L / kg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Beef (beef herd) | 99 | 326 | 15,400 |
| Lamb & mutton | 40 | 370 | 10,400 |
| Cheese | 24 | 88 | 5,600 |
| Pork | 12 | 17 | 6,000 |
| Poultry | 10 | 12 | 4,300 |
| Eggs | 4.7 | 6 | 3,300 |
| Tofu | 3.2 | 2 | 2,500 |
| Beans & lentils | 0.9 | 3 | 4,000 |
| Oat milk (per L) | 0.9 | 0.8 | 48 |
Poore & Nemecek (2018), Science; Water Footprint Network.
Getting an accurate estimate
- 1
Log a typical week, not a good one
Aspirational input produces flattering output. Use a week that includes the takeaway and the rushed dinner.
- 2
Count dairy properly
Cheese is the most commonly under-reported item in food footprints because it appears as an ingredient rather than a meal. Milk in coffee adds up too — five flat whites is roughly a litre.
- 3
Model one change at a time
Run your baseline, then change a single category. The isolated deltas tell you where effort pays; the combined total tells you very little about priority.
- 4
Re-run after three months
Habits drift in both directions. A quarterly re-run catches regression early and is far more informative than a single snapshot.
Where effort actually pays
High-leverage changes
- Replacing beef and lamb, even partially — the single largest lever in almost every diet.
- Cutting cheese, which is the highest-impact food most people never think about.
- Switching dairy milk to a plant milk: generally lower emissions, land use and freshwater use.
- Reducing food waste, which accounts for around 6% of global emissions on its own.
Low-leverage distractions
- Optimising for food miles while keeping the same animal products.
- Assuming organic means lower emissions — yields are lower, so land use is often higher.
- Avoiding avocados and almonds while eating beef weekly.
- Waiting for a perfect diet before making the first substitution.
Calculator questions
Is grass-fed beef better?
For animal welfare and local biodiversity it can be. For climate it is usually worse per kilogram, because grass-fed cattle grow more slowly and emit methane for longer, and because pasture requires far more land. Soil carbon offsets part but not all of that difference.
Are plant milks really lower impact than dairy?
Generally, yes. Compared per litre, plant milks usually have lower emissions, land use and freshwater use than dairy. The size of the reduction depends on the crop and indicator; almond milk uses more freshwater than soy or oat milk.
How much does transport matter?
Less than almost anyone expects. Transport is about 6% of global food emissions; for beef it is under 1% of the product's footprint. What you eat matters far more than how far it travelled.
Does the calculator include my whole carbon footprint?
No — food only. Heating, flights and driving are separate and often larger. Food is typically a quarter to a third of a household footprint in high-income countries.
Why do numbers differ from other calculators?
Different datasets, different system boundaries and different treatment of land-use change. Comparisons within one calculator are reliable; absolute figures across calculators are not.
Sources
- Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. (2018). Science, 360(6392), 987–992.
- IPCC (2019). Special Report on Climate Change and Land.
- Xu et al. (2021). Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods. Nature Food.
- Hayek et al. (2021). The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production.