Late last month, the city of Turin, Italy, made waves when recently elected mayor Chiara Appendino, declared the city the first in Europe to take on a meat-reduction agenda. Appendino’s campaign strives to promote a vegetarian lifestyle in order to reduce the city’s environmental impact and improve the overall health of Turin’s citizens. However, as a city situated in Piedmont, an Italian region renown for a mainly meat centered cuisine, most locals are not convinced to go cold turkey.
Despite the outrage and backlash against a so called “vegetarian city”, Turin’s new mayor assures the city that her intent is not to erase or disrespect the city’s cultural and culinary heritage, but rather to reinforce sustainability. The new administration even plans to implement school curriculum that includes the extensive impact of meat on environment in order to help children strike a balance between maintaining their health and living an eco-friendly life.
“Leading medical, nutritional and political experts will help promote a culture of respect in our schools, teaching children how to eat well while protecting the earth and animal rights”
With all this in mind, the question arises: Is this really plausible? Of course, it’s pretty much impossible to completely convert a city to an entirely vegetarian mindset, but if the majority were to simply rethink and reduce their meat consumption, could it have real benefits? Research says yes!
A 2014 study from the U.K.-based think tank Chatham House observed that there doesn’t seem to be much of a solid linkage in most people’s minds between meat production and environmental damage, noting that “compared with other sectors, recognition of the livestock sector as a significant contributor to climate change is markedly low.” Yet, agriculture and food production make up a whopping quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions, 80% of which are livestock-related. In fact, Oxford researchers found that if meat consumption continues at its current rate, by 2050, that number would double to account for 50% of all greenhouse gas emissions. However, the study also found that if we were to introduce global meat-reducing dietary restrictions, food related emissions would be cut back by 29%, with vegetarian guidelines increasing the reduction of food related emissions to 63%, and vegan diets peaking at a 70% cutback.
“We do not expect everybody to become vegan. But the climate change impacts of the food system will require more than just technological changes.”
– Dr. Marco Springmann, Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food
Considering all of the many, many, ways in which meat consumption is harming the environment, using up land and resources, and costing the world billions, this concept of “vegetarian cities” doesn’t seem as bad of an idea as Appendino’s opposers are making it out to be.
As of late, local and national campaigns regarding issues like the negative effects of smoking, the importance of physical activity, or even the significance of turning out your lights have brought about successful results. Why can’t a plan or platform for monitoring global meat consumption be implemented in the same way?
With all of this considered, vegetarian cities do seem to be a step in the right direction in regards to reducing impacts of climate change and preserving the wellbeing of Earth and its citizens. Although it may be gradual, the change in the long run would bring about significant advances and development in the way we maintain sustainability for Earth’s future generations.
[header image // source] [image 1 // source] [image 2 // source]
