WHAT IF THE WORLD BECOAME VEGAN?*

GRAMMAR: It is a hypothetical situation, so change "become" to "became."

EBETTER: Some experts argue that a global change to a vegetarian diet would be dangerous.

LOGIC: Opinions about this are divided. Hence the hedge word "Some" is needed. (Not all experts agree.)

Many regions in theSUGGSTION: It woruld depend on imported proteins and this has an environmental cost.be better to provide a concrete example; the original wording is too vague. Which regions? Which type of protein? (More precision needed.)

In two thousand and seventeen**, a study made inA 2017 a study made by [Author's name] at the Polytechnic Institute of Virginia shownuggested what would happen if the whole population of U.S.A. became vegan: ¶
¶
¶
- Lands designated for cattle raising would become farmlands.

- They believe farm waste would augment because there would not be enough animals to consume it.

IBETTERS: If burned, its incineration would produce two million tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere.

LOGIC: Other things could be done with the land. Burning is only one option. For example, it converted into forest.

- Almost all the plant food would be manufactured by the chemical industry, and it would add twenty three million tons more of CO2 emissions per year.COMMENT: The logic doesn't fit here. You should add a supporting reference. Which author(s) have asserted this?

- In respect to the current situation, in this vegan countryAccording to [AUTHOR'S NAME], the total CO2 emissions in the USAwould be reduced by twenty eight percent.

However, the population would be likely affected by calcium, B12 vitamin, and some fat acid deficiency.

The hedge word "likely" should be used.

- The quantity of food would raise twenty three percent, because farming produced more per hectare than cattle raising.

- Many animals would have to be killed.LOGIC: Or perhaps die naturally since most animal livespans are short? (One option is to sterilize the animals and let them live out their remaining lifespans.)

In England, a reduction of seventeen percent in the last ten years was supposSUGGESTED: Mention which author(s) have suggested: thirty five percent of land released for other uses; save twenty three percent of water; and twenty eight percent less of CO2 emissions.s. Were they as the 2017 study mentioned before?

Nevertheless, the national goal is to achieve a thirty percent of meat consumption, off of the current one, by 2030.SUGGESTION: Can you precisely which part of the British government made this goal? When?

Experts argue that a global change to a vegetarian diet would be dangerous.

The title mentions vegan, so I changed vegetarian to vegan.

In two thousand and seventeen**, a study made inby the Polytechnic Institute of Virginia showns what would happen if the whole population of the U.S.A. became vegan: ¶
¶
¶
- Lands designatused for cattle raising would become farmlands.

Its incineration would producerelease approximately two million tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere.

- Almost all the plant food would be manufactured by the chemical industry, and ithis would add twenty three million tons moremore tons of CO2 emissions per year.

- In respectCompared to the current situation, in this vegan country the total CO2 emissions would be reduced by twenty eight percent.

This doesn't make sense, especially because the study just mentioned how much more CO2 emissions would be produced...

- The quantity of food would raiseincrease by twenty three percent, because farming produceds more per hectare than cattle raising.

In England, a reduction of seventeen percent in the last ten years was supposanticipated: thirty five percent of land released for other uses; save twenty three percent of water saved; and twenty eight percent less of CO2 emissions.

Nevertheless, the national goal is to achieve a thirty percent reduction of meat consumption, off of the current one, by 2030 by 2030, compared to the current(2017 ?) consumption.

(*) If some expressions are too much informal, please correct them.

Please.

(**) I've decided to write downspell out all the numbers in letters to practice my spelling.

WHAT IF THE WORLD BECOAME VEGAN?*

Experts argue that a global change to a vegetarian (vegan?) diet would be dangerous.

Vegetarian and vegan aren’t the same thing.

In two thousand and seventeen**, a study made inat / by the Polytechnic Institute of Virginia showned what would happen if the whole population of the U.S.A. became vegan: ¶
¶
¶
- Lands designated / used for cattle raising would become farmlands.

“Designated” seems odd here. I would think their actual use would be more important than how they’ve been “designated.”

This statement seems illogical for two separate reasons:
- Land used for raising dairy cattle already IS farmland, so it wouldn’t “become” farmland.
- Much of the land used for raising beef cattle is government-owned ranch land that is unsuitable for farming. It would not become farmland if ranchers stopped raising beef cattle on it.

- The farm waste would augmentincrease because there would not be enough animals to consume it.

Its incineration would pintroduce two million tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere.

- In respectcomparison to the current situation, in this vegan country the total CO2 emissions would be reduced by twenty eight percent.

However, the population would be affected by calcium, B12 vitamin, and some fatty acid deficiency.

- The quantity of food would raiseincrease by twenty three percent, because farming produceds more per hectare than cattle raising.

In England, a reduction of seventeen percent in the last ten years was [supposed]: thirty five percent of land released for other uses; [save] twenty three percent of water; and twenty eight percent less of CO2 emissions.

What would have been reduced? Meat consumption?

“Supposed” is probably “too informal,” but I don’t know exactly what you mean, so I can’t fix it.

The verb tense of “save” seems inconsistent with the tense of the other clauses.

Nevertheless, the national goal is to achieve a thirty percent ofreduction in meat consumption, off of thecompared to current onelevels, by 2030.

“Current” is too vague. Do you mean 2017 (is this part of the 2017 study you described at the beginning of this post)?

(*) If some expressions are too much informal, correct them.

(**) I've decided to write downspell out all the numbers in letters to practice my spelling.

In two thousand and seventeen**, a study made in the Polytechnic Institute of Virginia showned what would happen if the whole population of U.S.A. became vegan: ¶
¶
¶
- Lands designated for cattle raising would become farmlands.

You can just write 2017.

It's incineration would producerelease approximately two million tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere.

Because we don't know the correct amount of CO2 produced, we use "approximately".

- Almost all the plant food would be manufactured by the chemical industry, and it would add approximately twenty three million tons more of CO2 emissions per year.