The claim that "meat is murder" and that meat eaters are murderers are made in the present tense so one has to wonder how predictions in regards to the consumption of meat substantiate these claims. But the true purpose of those predictions are obvious ; To impose a negative consequence on the current behaviour, in favour of the alternative in any debate or discussion. But like all predictions we must account for all probabilities and as previously mentioned, there are complications in regards to the conversion of farms.
From the information we have before us there will not likely be a mass conversion to veganism or vegetarianism, regardless of the use of this self-congratulatory scenario by proponents of this diet.
The Humane Research Council conducted a "Study of Current and Former Vegetarians and Vegans" (PDF) in the United States recently and concluded in December 2014 that 84% of the 11,000 respondents quit these diets.
Now known as Faunalytics, this proponent of environmentalism also found that of those that quit, one third did so within three months of starting the diet and half did so within a year, so the claim that growth is occurring is at least dubious in the United States.
Progressive reductions in the consumption of red and processed meat can be observed in some countries, mainly in response to the 800+ studies the World Health Organization has reviewed for their October 2015 conclusions. But produce imports remain prohibitively expensive for some areas so this planet will not become vegan or vegetarian.
Yes, Tesla's ‘Megacharger’ technology will enable produce and grain producers to avoid using diesel to deliver goods, but local meat and dairy producers that would use these vehicles to deliver to their primary markets on one charge would also use this technology, reducing their use of electricity. And their local forage providers could also use that technology.
The Tesla Semi has a range of 400 miles on one charge, which would be quite sufficient for deliveries within a small area like Eastern Ontario, where I live. And although Greenhouses may be a solution for areas that are hostile to growth, these require heat and water.
Iceland has successfully used its abundant geothermic energy to operate greenhouses but these are generally quite expensive to build and operate in areas where permafrost persists and could be dependant on power generation from diesel, oil, coal, hydroelectric dams and nuclear power.
It is currently cheaper to simply grow produce and grains in nature, and to ship it to smaller communities through-out the world because smaller communities can't afford to pay the prohibitively expensive shipping costs to bring those renewable technologies into their communities.