Meat consumption has long been highlighted as a key barrier to reducing our carbon footprint. Recent research from the University of Bonn shows that the average EU citizen currently consumes about 80kg of meat every year, and reducing this figure will be vital if our climate targets are to be met.

“If all humans consumed as much meat as Europeans or North Americans, we would certainly miss the international climate targets and many ecosystems would collapse,” the authors explain. “We therefore need to significantly reduce our meat consumption, ideally to 20 kilograms or less annually. The war in Ukraine and the resulting shortages in international markets for cereal grains also underline that less grain should be fed to animals in order to support food security.”

Mass vegetarianism

So might mass vegetarianism be the best option from a climate perspective? The study suggests not, and argues that there are various regions in the world where plant-based foods struggle to grow in sufficient volumes. In these regions, if the land can’t be used for anything but growing grass, then it probably makes sense to keep livestock on it.

This can be particularly so for poorer regions where countries can lack plant sources of sufficiently high-quality proteins and other micronutrients. For instance, the researchers explain that legumes and vegetables can’t be grown everywhere, and can only be harvested at particular times of the year.

“In such cases, animals are often a key element of a healthy diet,” Parlasca points out. “For many people, they are also an important source of income. If the revenue from milk, eggs, and meat is lost, this can threaten their livelihoods.”

Meaningful change

The authors point out, however, that we should be wary of focusing on poorer countries, as their level of consumption is not such that they are the main cause of climate change. Instead, any change in meat consumption must come from the rich world.

Unfortunately, they don’t believe that there is much evidence of such change being on the horizon, with meat consumption generally enduring across Europe despite the rise in the number of vegetarians. As such, they suggest that taxes on animal-based foods might have to be considered.

“That’s certainly unpopular, especially since a 10 percent or 20 percent surcharge probably wouldn’t be enough if it’s supposed to have a steering effect,” they explain. “Meat, however, has a high environmental cost that is not reflected in current prices. It would be entirely reasonable and fair to have consumers share more of these costs.”

They also believe that including the wider impact of our food choices into the school curriculum could play a crucial role in helping society move towards a healthy yet more sustainable diet. Such classes could also cover things like the impact of the clothes we wear.