Many UK student unions have debated 'beef ban' motions. Enfield Council has said it won't serve meat at events it caters.

These meat bans risk distracting climate campaigners, taking political energy away from more worthwhile causes. Me in @1828uk. (1/11) https://www.1828.org.uk/2020/08/06/a-war-on-meat-wont-save-the-planet

Meat bans are unpopular. Many student unions have rejected or overturned their beef ban motions. So these bans require lots of campaigning.

It's not worth the struggle. Going vegan isn't even within the top five most effective ways you can reduce your emissions footprint. (2/11)

Based on a 2018 study, meat ban campaigners say that "a vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth."

That's not what the study said. It found that consumer choices could reduce food emissions by more than better producer practices. (3/11)

One paper found that going vegan for a year reduces your emissions by less than foregoing an economy-class return flight between London and Athens.

A recent meta-analysis of 7,000 studies suggested six better ways of reducing your emissions https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52719662. (4/11)

The statistics agree. Agriculture accounts for 10% of UK emissions - less than transport (28%), energy (23%), businesses (18%) and residential output (15%).

In Britain, there are so many better campaigns more worthy of climate campaigners' attention than meat bans. (5/11)

I'M NOT SAYING KEEP EATING MEAT. Eliminating meat reduces your food emissions substantially. It's a noble sacrifice for the planet and animal welfare.

I am saying: before dedicating your life to campaigning for a meat ban, don't lose sight of whence our emissions come. (6/11)

Political energy is a limited resource. You can't do it all.

If we overestimate the benefits of meat bans, we can misdirect resources towards ineffective solutions, become complacent about how much impact our efforts actually have, and shut ourselves off to better ideas. (7/11)

The University of Cambridge said its ban on beef and lamb in 2016 reduced its food-related carbon emissions by 10.5% over 3 years.

In those 3 years, it also paid for 17,545 flights, generating over 10 times more emissions than the ban saved. (8/11)

What about those disproportionately affected by meat bans? Bristol and Oxford students raised concerns for religious minorities, and those living with:

- eating disorders;
- allergies that make meat choices simpler;
- other disabilities or conditions, e.g. anaemia. (9/11)

There are other ways we can encourage universities, businesses and governments to reduce food emissions drastically. These aren't as divisive as meat bans.

Think: encouraging green practices, sourcing sustainably-produced meat, or investing in tech, e.g. lab-grown meat. (10/11)

Finally: although many meat ban proposals talk about the climate, their most vocal supporters are animal welfare activist groups, such as PETA and Moving Animals.

That's a separate discussion - and possibly the best argument in favour of meat bans. (11/END)