As much as I would hate not eating meat, banning meat would end starvation instantly as meat production is 10% as productive as the feed grown to feed them, hence if we ate the animal feed or similar such crops we would not only increase the land productivity by 10 fold but we would be healthier. Mass starvation therefore would not happen, just the reverse in fact!
"End starvation instantly"?? How exactly would you instantly redistribute this food to the world's starving? Whilst the idea has the right motivation, there are no proposals on how to implement it. For example, if the western world stopped eating meat, and the animal feed no longer used to feed cattle, who exactly is buying this stuff? Should the farmers continue to grow the stuff for no return, would we be expected to pay for it, how exactly are you going to get soya from Brazil to central Africa or maybe Syria?
Its all very well having these lovely ideas, but the reality is if that meat production stopped, so would the soya or whatever other crops. Then you'd have land left unmanaged, which could easily have it's soil eroded, turn into desert & make the problem even worse again over time. Rainforests don't just spring up over night, the land cleared to make for things like soya production will take a very long time to recover, and then only if properly managed. Idealism is one thing, but it has to be able to work in reality too. A move to plant only diets worldwide will take decades, maybe even centuries. And it still wouldn't stop people starving to death.
Food wastage is our own choice by what we buy, consume and throw away, plus our buying choices. Eating out in takeaways is far worse for wastage than good home cooked choices.
Eh? So is eating meat! You dismiss something away that can both make a difference to the environment & people's economies, but aren't interested? I'm starting to wonder about your motives here. There is the often used phrase "virtue signalling", meant to describe the actions of people wanting to be seen to be on the latest popular topic of outrage, without necessarily actually wanting to do a whole lot.
I'll repeat the sentiment that one of the biggest problems with some environmental lobbies is that they are wanting "quick wins" to gain popular support, without ever actually considering how to implement their ideas. So when things don't happen, in part because of politics but also in part because the solutions turn out to be way more complex than touted, the lobbyists can shout a lot about nothing happening & not actually be blamed for not thinking things through.
So I'll also repeat that you'll change little on the streets outside Westminster, but a hell of a lot more inside. Stop just waving flags and getting angry, give us a viable alternative to the current political party selections, with properly thought through & costed policies that involve revolutionising how we generate, store and use energy (because we will continue to use it), how we travel (because we will continue to travel), and how we produce our foods going forward (because we will continue to eat). That's my challenge to you and your fellow lobbyists. If time really is running out, then its time to actually effect real change.