I believe that a vegetarian diet has less environmental impact,
so I can see why a green group would want to encourage it for reasons other than just not killing animals.
Stuff like this:
www.livescience.com/22814-meat-eating-vegetarianism.html
(NB I have no idea how trustworthy that blog is, and global population would seem the real problem there)
Likewise, most people eat too much meat - a truly healthy diet would see a reduction for most people.
That said, as far as I can tell, their only policy related to vegetarianism states "The Green Party will ensure that high quality, nutritionally balanced vegetarian and vegan menu options are widely available and promoted in all public sector establishments such as schools, hospitals and care facilities", so their concern seems only for existing vegetarians rather than spending money on promotion.
It still seems an expensive promise, but it is one more concerned with healthy diets than promoting vegetarianism.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Tue 24 Feb 2015, 22:18,
Reply)
Any environmental impact is because this planet is massively overpopulated
And if that's used as an argument what's going to happen when growing crops can't feed everyone, which will inevitably happen? The crunch is human population
(
Jahled Three shades of black, Tue 24 Feb 2015, 22:32,
Reply)
Blasphemy. You can't eat too much meat!
On a serious note, you really cannot compare nutritional value of meat/meatless diet/their nutrition density thus the whole "equivalent/environmental impact" argument is moot.
(
omnitruncatedkraken from Empire Algol, Wed 25 Feb 2015, 16:06,
Reply)