How Trump Can Quietly Cut Global Livestock Emissions By Selling American Beef

The Climate Comparative Advantage of American Beef Production

By Benjamin Goren and Dan Blaustein-Rejto

Trump’s global trade shake-up has prompted nearly every nation around the globe to reexamine their own trade policies, asking what is worth protecting while looking for domestically acceptable concessions to offer the US in exchange for tariff relief and market access. While the economic impact of the trade chaos on minerals, metals, and grain farmers capture headlines, the future, and potential, of U.S. beef exports remains an untold story.

As global demand for beef and other meats continues to rise, U.S. producers have an opportunity to simultaneously increase their profits and help reduce global emissions from agricultural production. U.S. exports of beef, in particular, could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by millions of tons. Beef production is inherently carbon intensive, accounting for roughly 6% of all global emissions. Yet, U.S. producers—thanks to their intensive, feedlot based systems, leading cattle genetics, and grain-supplemented diets—are among the world’s most carbon efficient. For example, one pound of American beef has about a quarter of the carbon footprint of one pound of beef from Brazil—the world’s largest beef exporter—and half that of beef from Argentina.

And while Trump is unlikely to jump at the opportunity to increase beef exports because it would reduce global climate emissions, negotiating advantageous trade deals for U.S. beef producers would be a real political win for an administration that is currently wearing the patience of many farm state republicans. If the Trump administration succeeds at finding export markets for U.S. beef, they would be able to claim a rare win-win for both American beef producers and the climate.

How Beef Exports Reduce Global Emissions

Global agricultural trade is often seen as a net negative for the climate. The localist impulse supposes that food grown closer to where it is consumed is fundamentally better for the environment. But, this logic assumes two things: first, that food grown everywhere has the same impact; and second, that transportation represents a larger share of the overall climate impact of food than the production system. Both of these assumptions are false.

The climate impact of food hinges more on how it is produced than how far it travels. When U.S. exports displace higher-emission production abroad, they reduce global emissions—even after accounting for transport. In Chile, for example, over ninety-five percent of beef imports are from Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay. The average emissions intensity of production in these countries, weighted by the share of imports from each source, is 42.7 kg CO2e per kg of beef. That is nearly three times the emissions intensity of beef produced in the United States (15.7 kg CO2e per kg of beef), which provides barely more than one percent of Chile’s beef imports. Beef from Paraguay or Argentina does not travel near as far to reach markets in Chile, but the difference in shipping emissions is paltry in comparison to this difference in production emissions. Our World In Data estimates the emissions intensity of refrigerated ocean shipping at 23 g CO2e per ton-kilometer of freight. At that rate, which is much higher than most industry estimates, a kilogram of beef shipped 6,000 miles (9,600 kilometers) from Seattle, USA to San Antonio, Chile would accrue about 0.22 kg of CO2e shipping emissions; less than one percent of the carbon advantage from more efficient US production practices.

The greatest emissions benefits from expanding U.S. agricultural exports would come from displacing other countries’ imports of beef, especially countries that both import large volumes and that source from high-emissions producers. A 10 percentage point increase in the U.S. share of beef imports in China, for example, would have the largest benefit, reducing emissions at least four times more than a similar change in imports for any other country. This is because China not only imports the most beef globally, but is also sourcing an increasing share from Brazil and Argentina.

Several other countries, particularly in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, also offer substantial, though smaller, climate mitigation opportunities. Modest shifts in the U.S. share of beef imports in Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, or Vietnam could cut emissions by hundreds of thousands of tons. Likewise, shifting beef imports toward the U.S. in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, or Israel could avoid significant emissions.

Pre-Existing Trade Barriers, Not Trump’s Tariffs, Are the Largest Impediment to Expanding U.S. Beef Exports

In recent years, U.S. beef exports have stalled or even declined in key markets. Expanding U.S. exports of beef to China and other countries will require comprehensive trade agreements and policy reforms. In many countries, U.S. beef faces an array of non-tariff barriers, such as protectionist sanitary or veterinary requirements that are out of step with international science.

When China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, the U.S. quickly overtook Australia as the leading supplier of beef to what was then a small market. However, China banned U.S. beef in 2004 after mad cow disease was detected in the herd, and kept the ban in place until long after the disease was eradicated. U.S. beef exports to China grew rapidly after 2019 when the first Trump administration negotiated the removal of additional trade barriers, but the Chinese beef market had already taken off, and Argentina and Brazil had taken a dramatic lead. The U.S. accounted for only 5% of China’s beef imports in 2024. Imports have fallen in 2025 as China allowed beef export licenses for over half of U.S. meatpackers to expire, halting thousands of tons of weekly shipments. For the U.S. to take a meaningful share of Chinese beef imports, China will need to change their current facility-by-facility approving processes to a systems-based approach that automatically recognizes all U.S. plants meeting pre-defined standards.

Another priority in negotiating any trade agreement should be to align China’s feed additive requirements with international scientific consensus. China currently bans beef with any residue of ractopamine, a growth-enhancing feed additive frequently used in the US. Concerns about ractopamine safety are largely overblown. It is metabolized and passed from the muscle of meat animals quickly and the World Health Organization considers it safe as long as residues stay below set levels. Barring wholesale cancellation of its ban, China should at least follow through with a commitment it made earlier, under the US-China Phase 1 Agreement with the US, to conduct a risk assessment for ractopamine in cattle as well as pigs.

U.S. beef exports to Malaysia, Indonesia, and other countries in Southeast Asia face similar non-tariff barriers as for China. Many countries in the region limit residue levels of ractopamine. Thailand, for example, has a similar zero-tolerance policy as China. Many nations in the region also require each meat processing plant to receive approval to export meat, not accepting health and safety inspections performed by USDA.

A few nations, including Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, also require any livestock or poultry product imports to be certified halal. While halal production has become more common in the United States in recent years and producers have learned to navigate certification, the process can still be costly, and it is not always clear which countries accept certification from which halal boards. This came under scrutiny when Egypt delisted all but one US halal certification board in 2019, and then centralized certification under a single state-owned entity in 2020. Former Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey was accused and eventually convicted on corruption charges for participating in a scheme to offer preferential treatment for a single US company to receive halal certification in the Egyptian market. While several countries have taken steps to overhaul their halal certification processes, there seems to be a significant opportunity for the US government to help harmonize standards and remove uncertainty in halal certification processes.

Negotiating and Relaxing Tariffs Would Still Have Significant Benefits

While non-tariff barriers are often the main obstacle to expanding U.S. beef exports, tariff reductions—especially in China—still offer significant potential for climate gains.

China’s demand for beef has skyrocketed, with annual imports rising more than fivefold since 2014 to over 2.5 million tons. Most of this surge is now supplied by Brazil and Argentina, whose beef production is two to four times more carbon-intensive than that of the United States. Until recently, China applied a 12% tariff on U.S. beef, matching the rates for its top suppliers. But amid escalating trade tensions, China raised the U.S. tariff to 32%—a steep penalty that has slashed U.S. market share and allowed higher-emissions producers to dominate.

Negotiating a reduction in China’s beef tariffs that restores a level playing field or provides the U.S. with preferential trade status, similar to the agreement in place with Australia, may represent the largest climate mitigation opportunity in global agricultural trade. It is unlikely that the Trump administration, which has consistently antagonized China, could attain preferential trade status from Beijing. And it does not seem likely that the current administration would concede enough in negotiations to reverse the past six months of trade barriers. But, if the U.S. could secure the same share of imports held by New Zealand or Australia in 2023, the emissions benefit would be substantial, potentially preventing 874 thousand to 1.58 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually.

By contrast, beef tariffs elsewhere rarely exceed 10% and matter far less than entrenched non-tariff barriers or local demand trends. In markets like Indonesia or the Philippines, modest tariffs play only a minor role in shaping U.S. market share compared to regulatory hurdles and certification requirements. A few countries that import particularly high-emissions beef, shown below, stand out as exceptions though few import large quantities. Algeria, for instance, maintains a 30% tariff on U.S. beef, rarely importing any, and Cambodia has levied a 15% tariff on most beef until recently proposing reducing it in response to the tariffs President Trump proposed in April. Reducing tariffs there and in several other smaller markets could deliver outsized climate benefits.

U.S. beef producers have been able to redirect many of the beef cuts once destined for China to South Korea, but exports of beef were already down in April, and compared to the fast-growing Chinese market, the market for beef in South Korea does not offer the same growth potential for the US beef sector. Beef prices hit historic highs last year, driven by tight cattle supplies after years of herd contraction. In response, ranchers are now rebuilding their herds—a move that will boost production in four to five years. As production rises, U.S. beef producers will be grateful to whoever finds them a large and expanding market, of which China is the most reliable on the planet.

Trump Has a Chance to Do the Unthinkable: Mark a Win for the Climate and Beef Producers Alike

While American manufacturing experienced a decades-long decline, the United States never lost its edge in agriculture, and still leads the world in overall livestock production and productivity. This made American farmers a target for retaliation to President Trump’s increase in tariffs. But the reality is that US livestock producers have long faced a slew of discriminatory trade practices, tariffs as well as non-tariff barriers. By restricting imports of US produced beef, whether through complex import licensing, bans on hormone-use, or high tariffs, countries are closing their doors to some of the most climate friendly beef in the world. All too often as domestic demand rises, they turn instead to imports from less efficient producers.

As a growing number of countries seek to strike trade deals with the U.S., the Trump administration quietly has the opportunity to mark a win for both U.S. beef producers and global climate emissions. Given the current tension between U.S. agricultural communities, their representatives and senators, and Trump, negotiating increased U.S. beef exports would also represent a political win for the administration.

Beef is often characterized as something of a climate villain. High rates of methane emissions, large swaths of land needed to feed cattle, and viscerally ugly feedlots crowded with cows and manure, understandably produce a negative response from climate advocates and animal welfare activists. But, until billions of people decide that they will forego ribeyes, burgers, and brisket, the impacts of beef will remain significant. Reducing those impacts will require creative solutions that take advantage of technology, efficiency, and comparative advantage. In this vein, the U.S. cattle rancher and feedlot operator might be unlikely heroes.