Eating vegetarian

A study by the University of Oxford has calculated the potential effects of a meat-free diet: emissions of greenhouse gas would drop dramatically. Food production and consumption generate about a quarter of all harmful emissions – 60 per cent of which would be eliminated by abandoning meat. It would also be healthier, because people who eat less meat – but more fruit and vegetables – are less likely to get fat and develop heart disease. All in all, we would even save money, namely, nearly 1.5 quadrillion dollars in healthcare costs and for remedying damage caused as a result of the changing climate.

So there are many good reasons to give up meat. However, letting go of food we’ve become used to isn’t easy.

Projects and examples

The World in One Field

If you divide the earth’s arable land by the entire population, each person gets 2,000 square metres. Everything a person consumes in a year would have to be grown on this land – and not just fruit and vegetables. Also cotton for our clothes, rapeseed for our fuel, soy and wheat as feed crops for animals and much more. This would guarantee for everyone a balanced supply of all necessities. However, in the industrialised nations, our appetite for meat and our great hunger for energy require far more land per person. For example, an average German eats about 60 kilograms of meat per year. By this calculation, nine square metres are needed to produce just one kilogram of pork. In other words, every person in Germany uses 540 square metres per year for meat consumption alone. Of the 2,000 square metres allocated to each person, a quarter would already be taken up just for producing everything meaty. For all the other things we need every day, the symbolic World in One Field would no longer be sufficient. By significantly limiting our consumption of meat and energy, we could ensure enough resources for everyone.

The Zukunftsstiftung Landwirtschaft (Future Foundation for Agriculture) in Berlin has made the concept tangible: there, visitors can find out what can actually be grown on 2,000 square metres or how large an area is needed to produce dishes like the classic “Currywurst” – curried sausage – or pizza.

What does the world of livestock cost?

Who pays for the damage to the environment and climate caused by the production of meat and sausages? To date, no one – neither the manufacturers nor the customers.

Could a higher tax on meat products fill this gap? Up till now, consumers in Germany have paid only seven per cent tax on their meat – the same rate as for other essential goods. But is meat really a must? Several attempts have been made to increase the tax to 19 per cent for all things meaty – in other words, to treat meat like a luxury good. But, according to estimates, consumption of pork, beef and poultry would decrease by only about four per cent. So this effect would be rather small – and the higher price at the counter would probably induce more people to buy cheap meat. Furthermore, the low-income population would carry the greatest burden.

An alternative would be to introduce a CO₂ tax. Meat production requires feed, heated stables and animal transports – and each of these steps cause harmful greenhouse gases for which a levy could be imposed in the future. Manufacturers, especially, but customers too, would have to bear these costs. The revenue from these levies could then be used for environmental protection.

Meat is not a vegetable

No more meat? Unthinkable for many. But no one has to take the radical step of renouncing meat entirely. A lot would already have been achieved in terms of animal welfare and environment protection if we were to consume less meat and raise the animals organically.

The Berlin-based online retailer “Meine kleine Farm” has set itself the goal of promoting a more conscious consumption of meat. The livestock comes from small, free-range farms and is processed by a local butcher. What’s on the inside is stated plainly on the outside: on the lid of each jar, there’s a picture of the animal that was slaughtered for the product in hand.

What used to be par for the course is now returning to the cooking pots. Restaurant chefs have taken to applying the “nose to tail” principle: the goal is to process each animal for consumption in its entirety. And this is by no means a matter of course, since often only about 40 to 55 per cent of an animal is utilised.

Canteens and kitchens in public institutions could set a good example by saying goodbye to large meat portions in the form of “king-size whatever” and by introducing more veggie-only days.