PwC analysis warns global meat consumption is higher than ever and that continued growth carries major implications for water, climate, and land use
If 10 per cent of the global population switched from eating meat to plant-based alternatives, 176 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions could be avoided annually, a study from alternative meat investor Blue Horizon and PwC has found.
On top of generating emissions reductions that it would take 2.7 billion trees to offset, the switch would also free up 38 million hectares of land, an area roughly the size of Germany, and save 8.3 billion cubic metres of water annually, according to the new analysis.
The study, which compares the environmental toll of the meat and plant-based food industries, warns global meat consumption is now at higher levels than ever before and is set to continue to grow over the coming decade, harming the planet and monopolising an ever-increasing share of the world's limited land and water supplies.
The consultants estimate that 38 per cent of habitable land is now used for industrial animal agriculture worldwide, warning that global consumption of meat hit 291 million tonnes in 2018, taking up 380 million hectares of land, using 87 billion cubic metres of water, and generating "at least" 1.7 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide.
Plant-based protein, on the other hand, requires significantly less water and land while producing far lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions compared to industrial animal agriculture. The report calculates that plant-based meat produces 92 per cent less emissions than beef, and is 89 per cent and 88 per cent less emissions-intensive than pork and chicken, respectively.
"This work is an important step in helping people to understand how the decisions we make about our protein consumption impact our environment," said Blue Horizon chief executive Björn Witte. "In addition, it enables investors to better assess the market opportunities in the food 4.0 sector."
Once water, land use, and greenhouse gases are taken into account, the study estimates the average environmental cost impact of beef mince is $7.26 per kilogram, compared to just $0.48 per kilogram for plant-based alternatives.
In the foreword to the study, Witte and Blue Horizon founder Roger Lienhard noted that the price of food worldwide was "distorted" by its disregard for environmental costs.
"Agriculture is heavily subsidised worldwide," they wrote. "Environmental costs are not internalised. Hence meat, dairy and many other food products are traded in most markets at prices not reflecting their true costs."