Like an estimated two-thirds of the world’s population, I don’t digest lactose well, which makes the occasional latte an especially pricey proposition. So it was a pleasant surprise when, shortly after moving to San Francisco, I ordered a drink at Blue Bottle Coffee and didn’t have to ask—or pay extra—for a milk alternative. Since 2022, the once Oakland-based, now Nestlé-owned cafe chain has defaulted to oat milk, both to cut carbon emissions and because lots of its affluent-tending customers were already choosing it as their go-to.
Plant-based milks, a multibillion-dollar global market, aren’t just good for the lactose intolerant: They’re also better for the climate. Dairy cows belch a lot of methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide; they contribute at least 7 percent of US methane output, the equivalent emissions of 10 million cars. Cattle need a lot of room to graze, too: Plant-based milks use about a tenth as much land to produce the same quantity of milk. And it takes almost a thousand gallons of water to manufacture a gallon of dairy milk—four times the water cost of alt-milk from oats or soy.
But if climate concerns push us toward the alt-milk aisle, dairy still has price on its side. Even though plant-based milks are generally much less resource-intensive, they’re often more expensive. Walk into any Starbucks, and you’ll likely pay around 70 cents extra for nondairy options.
. Dairy’s affordability edge, explains María Mascaraque, an analyst at market research firm Euromonitor International, relies on the industry’s ability to produce “at larger volumes, which drives down the cost per carton.” American demand for milk alternatives, though expected to grow by 10 percent a year through 2030, can’t beat those economies of scale. (Globally, alt-milks aren’t new on the scene—coconut milk is even mentioned in the Sanskrit epic Mahābhārata, which is thousands of years old.)
What else contributes to cow milk’s dominance? Dairy farmers are “political favorites,” says Daniel Sumner, a University of California, Davis, agricultural economist. In addition to support like the “Dairy Checkoff,” a joint government-industry program to promote milk products (including the “Got Milk?” campaign), they’ve long raked in direct subsidies currently worth around $1 billion a year.
Big Milk fights hard to maintain those benefits, spending more than $7 million a year on lobbying. That might help explain why the US Department of Agriculture has talked around the climate virtues of meat and dairy alternatives, refusing to factor sustainability into its dietary guidelines—and why it has featured content, such as a 2013 article by then–Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, trumpeting the dairy industry as “leading the way in sustainable innovation.”
But the USDA doesn’t directly support plant-based milk. It does subsidize some alt-milk ingredients—soybean producers, like dairy, net close to $1 billion a year on average, but that crop largely goes to feeding meat- and dairy-producing livestock and extracting oil. A 2021 report by industry analysts Mintec Limited and Frost Procurement Adventurer also notes that, while the inputs for dairy (such as cattle feed) for dairy are a little more expensive than typical plant-milk ingredients, plant alternatives face higher manufacturing costs. Alt-milk makers, Sumner says, may also have thinner profit margins: Their “strategy for growth is advertisement and promotion and publicity,” which isn’t cheap.
Starbucks, though, does benefit from economies of scale. In Europe, the company is slowly dropping premiums for alt-milks, a move it attributes to wanting to lower corporate emissions. “Market-level conditions allow us to move more quickly” than other companies, a spokesperson for the coffee giant told me, but didn’t say if or when the price drop would happen elsewhere.
In the United States, meanwhile, it’s a waiting game to see whether the government or corporations drive down alt-milk costs. Currently, Sumner says, plant-based milk producers operate under an assumption that “price isn’t the main thing” for their buyers—as long as enough privileged consumers will pay up, alt-milk can fill a premium niche. But it’s going to take a bigger market than that to make real progress in curbing emissions from food.
Subsidies have devalued food and the value of farms and farm labor. If they went away, meat and dairy consumption would fall simply because we would have to pay the true dollar value of producing those foods.
I don’t agree with the environmental assessment in this article though. The quantity produced might be the same, but a cup of cow milk has a lot more calories and micronutrients than plant milk. Sure, many people don’t have the genetics to digest it, but there’s a reason mammals drink milk until they can eat other foods. They wouldn’t survive long sipping puddles of soy water.
Even after adjusting for calories, the environmental impact of animal agriculture is insane. Meat is obviously waaaay worse than dairy, but dairy still uses way more land and water, with a disproportionate environmental impact on any measure you can think of.
It’s wild how many people think they know so much about this topic and then comment something nonsensical on this post lol
What is your expertise in agriculture or nutrition? This comment and some of your others in this thread make assumptions that suggest you may not know as much as you think about the topic.
Not hard to do basic research on climate change. But of course, your comments on this thread make it clear that some people do in fact struggle with finding basic facts.
I’m sorry that you’re bitter about all the downvotes on your misinformed comments
Yes it’s not hard to read a few articles and feel informed. I happen to have been studying these issues for nearly 10 years, do work with local agriculture organizations, and know dozens of farmers. These climate estimates are based on mathematical models, which are based on other models all of which make major assumptions. Raising animals for meat and dairy in natural conditions and on the right scale can be much more environmentally sustainable than growing beans and eating vegan. Factory farming level, I agree with you for the most part.
If you earnestly want to influence people to consider your beliefs, belittling is a sure way to do the opposite. I used to be vegan and buy into the plant-based narrative. If you want to understand these issues more I suggest meeting some farmers, if possible working on a farm, and in general understanding how exactly food (or milk) makes it into your fridge. Thanks for replying to my question.
Over 99% of the meat we consume is from factory farms, my dude. Sorry your personal anecdotes have clouded your ability to see the truth of animal ag
Yes, but factory farming is a very new phenomenon. Painting any animal ag as an environmental problem distracts us from the fact that the entire system doesn’t have to be set up the way it is. For the record I am about as anti-big ag and factory farming as one can be. My issue with all of this is that we can argue about why system B is better than system A, but not even consider the possibility of system C.