We've all heard the animal welfare arguments for going vegetarian, merely in recent years in that location has also been a lot of talk about the environmental benefits.

And so what would happen if the whole globe of a sudden decided to give up meat? How much difference would it actually make? And would it all be positive?

Energy intensive

One of the most frequently mentioned environmental costs of eating meat is the CO2 involved in producing information technology. Compared to fruit and vegetables, the amount of CO2 released by the production of meat is remarkably high.

According to Scientific American, producing half a pound (226g) of potatoes emits the same every bit driving a small motorcar 0.17 miles (0.2km). One-half a pound of beef emits as much as driving the same car 9.8 miles (12.7 km).

Image: Scientific American

A global switch to diets that rely less on meat and more on fruit and vegetables could reduce greenhouse gas emissions past ii thirds, according to enquiry from the Oxford Martin Schoolhouse at Oxford University.

The written report estimated both the health and climate change impacts of moving towards more institute-based diets for all major regions of the world.

Healthier planet, healthier population

Researchers looked into the environmental and healthcare benefits that would be felt past 2050 in iii scenarios.

The start looked at the world'due south population following global guidelines on healthy eating (HGD), the 2nd at the world becoming vegetarian (VGT) and the third, vegan (VGN).

Epitome: Oxford Martin School, Academy of Oxford

They found significant ecology benefits in the form of lower CO2 emissions too every bit significant healthcare benefits in terms of lower premature deaths and lower healthcare costs.

The large variables indicated on the nautical chart stem from the unknown cost of carbon emissions and healthcare in 2050.

"What we swallow greatly influences our personal health and the global environment," says Dr Marco Springmann of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Time to come of Food, who led the study.

Water use

The amount of h2o needed to produce meat is some other major environmental toll. On this chart merely butter (some other animal product) and nuts can match the thirst of animals raised for meat.

Meat and animal products use a huge amount of water

What about the people?

So is it all adept news? Are in that location whatever losers in this scenario?

"At that place are over 3.5 billion domestic ruminants on world, and tens of billions of chickens produced and killed each yr for food," Ben Phalan, who researches the balance between food demand and biodiversity at the University of Cambridge, told the BBC. "We'd be talking about a huge amount of economic disruption."

While retraining and regime subsidies could help many sometime livestock-related employees, significant unemployment and social upheaval would exist inevitable, especially in rural communities.

And parts of the globe which currently back up livestock would be able to support crops instead.

"Without livestock, life in certain environments would probable become impossible for some people," Ben Phalan says. That particularly includes nomadic groups such as the Mongols and Berbers who, stripped of their livestock, would have to settle permanently in cities or towns – likely losing their cultural identity in the process."

Information technology is likely that the earth'south poor would lose most from no longer having nutrient-dense meat in their diet. Animal products contain more nutrients per calorie than plants such equally grains and rice. "Going vegetarian globally could create a health crisis in the developing earth, because where would the micronutrients come up from?" Tim Benton, a nutrient security skilful at the Academy of Leeds, told the BBC.

There would also be a huge bear upon on well-nigh all cultures worldwide which middle important traditions round the consumption of meat.

Is in that location an environmental cost?

Some experts have also highlighted that ending meat consumption would not be all expert news for the planet, either.

The BBC reports that in the past, when parts of the Sahel, an expanse due south of the Sahara in Africa, take been converted from livestock pasture to croplands, the result was desertification.

In addition, areas which currently rely on grazing livestock to keep natural reforestation at bay could get less biodiverse and fifty-fifty more dangerous. And if those currently making a living farming animals in rural areas can no longer practise so, the inevitable growth of urban areas would also have a negative bear on.

The reality

Of course, the world is non near to give up meat. In fact, with the growth of the eye class in countries similar India and China, more meat is being consumed than ever earlier.

There is, though, clearly much to be learned from imagining a meat-free world which could help tackle aspects of man-made climate change.

The key, every bit parents around the world have been telling their children for millennia, is moderation.

If we tin cut down meat product, information technology not only benefits our health merely that of the planet equally well while also helping in the fight against climate change.