What if the whole world was vegetarian

No matter how much their carnivorous friends might deny it, vegetarians have a point: cutting out meat delivers multiple benefits. And the more who make the switch, the more those perks would manifest on a global scale. But if everyone became a committed vegetarian, there would be serious drawbacks for millions, if not billions, of people. But in developing countries there would be negative effects in terms of poverty. If vegetarianism was adopted by , it would stave off about 7 million deaths per year, while veganism would knock that estimate up to 8 million Credit: iStock.

First, they examined climate change. Food production accounts for one-quarter to one-third of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, and the brunt of responsibility for those numbers falls to the livestock industry. Despite this, how our dietary choices affect climate change is often underestimated.

In the US, for example, an average family of four emits more greenhouse gases because of the meat they eat than from driving two cars — but it is cars, not steaks, that regularly come up in discussions about global warming.

Global vegetarianism might impact farmers in the developing world hardest Credit: iStock. Food, especially livestock, also takes up a lot of room — a source of both greenhouse gas emissions due to land conversion and of biodiversity loss. Converting former pastures to native habitats would likely also be a boon to biodiversity, including for large herbivores such as buffalo that were pushed out for cattle, as well as for predators like wolves that are often killed in retaliation for attacking livestock.

Though a relatively small increase in agricultural land, this would more than make up for the loss of meat because one-third of the land currently used for crops is dedicated to producing food for livestock — not for humans. Simply opening the farm gates to the existing stock of 3. Most would starve to death or be eaten by predators.

Instead, farms would need to be converted into sanctuaries for the remaining natural lives of the animals. Food production is responsible for a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from cows burping methane. Currently, 68 per cent of farmland is used for livestock. On average, cows produce around to liters of methane per day in the form of flatulence.

That methane is about 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping, or greenhouse gas. Then we eat the red meat, and the red meat itself is very damaging to human health in the amount that we consume it. That is both damaging planetary and human health at the same time. So, to sum up, cow farts plus the massive amount of grain production needed to feed them is pretty disastrous for both land use and greenhouse gas production.

If meat, especially red meat, is so bad, what if we just stopped eating it all together? Would that solve all of these problems? And if we only raised cattle on this type of land, that would end up reducing our worldwide consumption of red meat dramatically, says Willett. But, a plant-based diet should really focus more on fruits, vegetables and whole grains, and for protein sources, legumes and seeds would be much better for human health than the average American diet.

Willett recommends looking not just at the distance your food has traveled, but also at the transportation involved, especially when it comes to fruits and veggies.

Additionally, it may be worth it to think about your region and the stress that certain types of foods have on the local environment, both in the cases of animal-produced food and plant-based food.