The ever growing demand for meat is a leading cause of deforestation. Forests remove far more CO2 than grasslands (think 3 dimensions vs 2 dimensions).
Cows require orders of magnitude more land to be devoted to them than plant based food, simply due to the inefficiencies of the sunlight -> plant -> meat -> food production process. If you cut the middle-man out (meat), then the process becomes orders of magnitude more efficient.
This reminds me that if by "better farms with better practices" you mean free-range type farms, then they are actually far worse for the environment because they are less efficient. Eg, you need more land per pound of meat produced.
Cows also produce vast quantities of methane, which is a leading greenhouse gas. The quickest way to slow down global warming would be to cease livestock farming entirely.
There is no way to satisfy the growing demand for meat in a way that is not damaging to the environment. And that's leaving aside any questions of ethics for the animals themselves.
What about pricing in all externalities and letting the price equilibrium find a natural state be removing subsidies? People will only buy what they can afford.
I became a vegan 15 years ago because I couldn't morally justify the unnecessary raising and killing other individuals. You may not agree, but writing that decision off as "trendy" is more than a bit condescending.
Every study I've seen on the Earth's carrying capacity came to the conclusion that we could support at least a few more billion humans. So why you believe it's more correct to say we have a population problem than a consumption problem?
I’m sorry for being condescending but I wasn’t referring to you in particular. It is indeed currently very trendy to be vegan.
I chose the other direction which is to eat very very good meat, but way way less, because that’s goddamn expensive and because we can’t produce it that much. Just like good wine.
The very big issue with meat is that you have a shit ton of farm raising some thousands animals in very precarious conditions for people eating garbage. That’s harsh, but that’s the sad truth.
The conclusion to this should not be to stop meat but to stop garbage. Just like everything in food by the way, you can eat 100% vegan 100% garbage 100% detrimental for the environment.
The issue with studies is that it’s basically impossible to just prove that we « could support at least a few more billion humans ». It’s just too big of a study. I’m actually pretty sure that with the way we live (independently of the question of meat) we should already be way less than we are. It’s quite obvious but I don’t have any « studies » at end, because it’s way easier for everywhere to just « prove » we can continue as we do (if we all become vegan of course, because that’s really the heart of our issue).
I’m not saying it’s a population problem and not a consumption problem. I think it’s both. And I think the vegan trend is absolutely part of the consumption problem because it’s hiding the source of the issue. You just have to look at how it’s so easier for people to tackle The source of the issue is that we should seek good instead of quantity or easiness.
We have replaced the supposedly old problem of meat by the new supposedly non-problem of food in a plastic bag with a vegan sticker on it.
People should demand and buy better meat from better farms with better practices.