![]() And interestingly, it found that the average diet for men in the UK had 41% more emissions than that of women, because of their greater intake of meat and other animal-based products.Īustralia is one of the world’s top meat-eating countries. Jo Anne Mcarthur/Unsplashĭespite the growing evidence and awareness of the climate impact of our diets, we found the average amount of meat – beef, poultry, pork and sheep – a person ate each year increased from 29.5kg in 2000 to 34kg in 2019. Compare this to 7% used for crop production for direct human consumption, and 26% occupied by forests.Īs a result, a recent UK study found a vegetarian diet produces 59% less emissions than a non-vegetarian one. To put it into perspective, human settlements occupy only 1% of the planet’s landmass, while livestock grazing and feed production use 27%. The problem with meatĮmissions from meat production are largely due to land clearing, including deforestation, to create more pasture and grow feed for livestock. While we can’t say what’s behind the general choice to eat more meat, our study identifies some insightful trends. Overall, we found each person worldwide ate, on average, 4.5 kilograms more meat per year in 2019 than in 2000. Only six of the 35 countries, however, had reached this, with other countries continuing on an increasing trajectory. In other words, in a world of increasing GDP, when might meat consumption peak?Īfter analysing data for 35 countries, we identified such a tipping point at around US$40,000 (A$57,000) of GDP per capita. We specifically tested if there’s a point at which improvements in GDP per capita are no longer associated with greater meat consumption. Our new study investigated whether meat consumption increases as income increases. And yet, in most countries, meat consumption is continuing to rise. Eating meat comes with an enormous environmental footprint, with food systems responsible for an estimated 34% of global emissions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |