More handpicked essays just for you.
How climate change is affecting animals
How climate change is affecting animals
Animal agriculture effects on the environment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How climate change is affecting animals
The major issue in this argument is that there's not enough space on earth to successfully sustain both animal agriculture and human society, the increasing global warming that could possibly end human life in the next 50 years. Greenhouse gases are profoundly caused by Animal Agriculture. Statics show that animal Agriculture leads all Greenhouse Gases by 51% compared to other resources. Could animal agriculture be the solution to human extinction.
He Goes to explain how Animal agriculture is the leading cause to human climate change, while also consuming 1/3 of the planets water and 45% of the earths land. it's also the leading cause for environmental destruction such as deforestation, world hunger and water scarcity . 91% of the land loss from the amazon rainforests is due to animal agriculture. With all the negative affects that animal agriculture have on the earth and human climate change. where do we go from here? Without enough space to sustain both human environment and animal agriculture one must eventually become obsolete for the other to grow. Are profits more important than humanity?
…show more content…
He also then goes on to explain logics and statistics such as I mention before, the 91% rainforest loss, 45% of consuming of earth land and the consumption of 1/3 of fresh water are statistically reason why the animal agriculture cannot successfully coexist with humanity. Ethically the arguer did what he thought was morally right, to whistle blow all main corporations that were not in the best interest of the human population which displayed an expression of
There are plenty controversial issues about bully breeds and whether they are acceptable or safe dogs to own. In July a woman was mauled in her yard and killed by a dog in Montreal. Due to this unfortunate incident the mayor Denis Coderre created a bill called BSL (Breed-Specific Legislation) which was approved by the legislation. This bill states that determined by their breed or pitbull features “American Pitbull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, American Bulldogs or any dog with strains of these breeds” will be unadoptable; they must wear a muzzle in public as well as a leash that’s 4 feet long and in most cases they will be euthanized due to their breed. BSL should be reversed because the real problem is irresponsible dog owners, the irresponsible owners will just switch breeds and any dog has the potential to hurt someone.
“We take care of animals, and the animals take care of us.” (Rollin 212). The preceding phrase is a policy that American farmers in the old west lived their lives by. Modern farmers live do not live their lives anywhere near to this phrase because they own factory farms, and the whole reason for having a factory farm is to fit as many animals in a small space as possible in order to maximize profit. Factory Farms, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) first appeared in the 1920s, right after Vitamins A and D, because if animals are given these vitamins in their diets, exercise and sunlight are not necessities for the animals to grow anymore (In Defense of Animals 1). The growing number of factory farms is coupled with the decreasing population of rural areas, which means that many people are beginning to factory farm because it yields a higher profit (“Agricultural Sciences” 170). In the 1950s, the average number of chickens on a given egg farm in the United States was 100, but now the average number is a shocking 10,000 chickens (“Factory Farms” 4). The reason for the increase of chickens has to do with new and cheaper technology developed just after World War II. The new technology increased the number of chickens, while it had the opposite effect on dairy and meat cows, their numbers went in the other direction. The number of cows used for milk was cut by more than half between 1950 and 2000, because farmers discovered new and more efficient methods for milking cows (Weeks 4). Many activists for animals’ rights are concerned about the methods used by factory farmers because they confine their animals into tight spaces and since there are so many of them in a small ...
...oss’ paper. Therefore, this objection is not sound because the number of naïve people are rapidly dwindling. The second objection stated that one person has no effect on the factory farming industry, so giving up meat is pointless because the industry is too large to feel the effects of someone converting to vegetarianism. I refuted this objection by saying that, yes, one person alone will not make a difference, but when more and more people become vegetarians, the industry will be forced to respond by producing less animals, therefore, preventing more animal suffering. Although these two objections were strong and valid, I believe I was able to successfully defend Norcross’ argument that factory farming is wrong and cruel.
Personally, I partially disagree with the argument. I support the idea that farm animals should be treated in a more humane way, but I do not think that we should stop consuming animals. They have been part of our diet for ages. Their meat is packed with essential nutrients, like proteins and
Traditional agriculture requires massive forest and grassland removal to obtain land necessary to farm on. Deforestation and overgrazing has caused erosion flooding, and enabled the expansion of deserts. But with drainage systems, leveling, and irrigation provided by the Green Rev, all this terra deforming will unlikely happen again. We can retain clean air and lessen the global warming effect caused by deforestation.Many people argue that a revamp in agriculture will be way too expensive and unrealistic especially for those poor farmers in third world countries. However many times, they exaggerate the price.
According to “Meat the Truth”, a 2007 documentary directed by Karen Soeters, the film exposes the consequences of meat and dairy. It influences people about increasing the consumption of a plant-based diet and decreasing the intake of meat. Marianne Thieme, the narrator of the documentary and a Dutch politician who is a Member of the Party for the Animals in the Dutch Parliament, states, “Eating meat is the number one most environmentally destructive behavior, not cars, planes and power plants”. A consumer can make a great impact by changing their diet and restricting the consumption of meat. The transition to a plant-based diet is strongly informed by the film. Consumers have fallen into the advertising and marketing of meat to trigger minds the satisfaction of meat. Statistics from the Food and Agriculture Organization prove that from 1950 to 2000, the population of the world went from 2.6 to 6 billion and from this meat production increased five times as great. It is possible it can keep doubling this amount every fifty years if there isn’t a change that occurs. From the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, they state, “The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that roughly 80 percent of ammonia emissions in the U.S. come from animal waste.” Raising animals to
How can we play a role in influencing what humans are doing to the planet? And how can we approach these issues when political and economic forces can undermine efforts to address the climate crisis? One answer lies in the choices that we make every day: what we eat. I know this because in the text it say's , ''A study published in Nature found that, by 2050, a projected 80% increase in global greenhouse gas emissions from food production can be avoided, if the global diet is an equal-parts mixture of the Mediterranean , pescatarian and vegetarian diets.'' That means there would be more vegans in the world and maybe the world would be more healthy , but also maybe humans would be more healthy too. But within that spectrum, fewer animal products are what's best for the planet, and our collective future. The Mediterranean diet alone (one that includes lower amounts of animal products) will still result in increased emissions, and the pescatarian diet (a vegetarian diet that includes fish) will lead to only a small degree of reduction in emissions. However, a global vegetarian diet, the same study showed, would be the most effective of all diets (not including vegan) in achieving a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as a decrease in agricultural land demand and land clearing. In the text it says , " It follows that the vegan diet, by eliminating dairy and egg, would reduce emissions the most, as confirmed by a subsequent study. Adopting a plant-based diet is, therefore, one of the most powerful choices an individual can make in mitigating environmental degradation and depletion of Earth's natural resources.'' This means that Beyond contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions that cause rising temperatures and sea levels, here's what eating meat also does to our world: While almost 800 million people suffer from chronic
In the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author talks about, not only vegetarianism, but reveals to us what actually occurs in the factory farming system. The issue circulating in this book is whether to eat meat or not to eat meat. Foer, however, never tries to convert his reader to become vegetarians but rather to inform them with information so they can respond with better judgment. Eating meat has been a thing that majority of us engage in without question. Which is why among other reasons Foer feels compelled to share his findings about where our meat come from. Throughout the book, he gives vivid accounts of the dreadful conditions factory farmed animals endure on a daily basis. For this reason Foer urges us to take a stand against factory farming, and if we must eat meat then we must adapt humane agricultural methods for meat production.
Taylor and Taylor’s first argument is that there is not enough meat to feed everyone in the world. The unstated premise here is that if there is not enough meat to feed everyone, then the consumption of meat is unethical. First, they argue how a large percentage of land is being used for cattle-raising “instead of being used to grow staple crops, which could feed local people directly” (1). They support this by using the fact that it takes approximately 16 pounds of grain and 2,500 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat, which would feed one or two people compared to 16 people on grain (1). While many are dying of starvation, it seems unfair that the industrial meat industry benefits from this production. Next, they argue that this meat is high-priced and its production is a less-efficient use of land and resources. For example, “an acre of land used for grain-fed beef could feed 10 times as many people if used for crops” (4). Taylor and Taylor also argue that the concept of sustainability needs to be changed to question if the world’s population can be fed on sustainable animal products (2). They believe that “there is no truly sustainable and humane way to f...
However, many of the suggestions almost feel like they are based on karma, where Mother Nature will strike back if we disrespect her. Also as I said, I do agree with the majority of the arguments here. It is rather disturbing to see actual pictures of the overcrowding of farms. Unfortunately, our society is very driven by statistics or numbers, much as the author described, and it can be difficult to force an opposing philosophy onto our court system. America stands by its freedom very strongly, even despite the times it gets out of control. So we really can’t acknowledge some of these religious beliefs. We can try and compare the negatives still, though. Cruelty to animals can get pretty extreme, so that right there should be the first thing that needs to be stopped. Generally speaking though, we cannot make the claim that we are disrespecting nature and
In today’s technological society, where negative pictures of agriculture can go viral in a matter of minutes, programs such as Global Animal Partnership (G.A.P.) can be both a benefit and a detriment to the meat industry. Producers use groups such as G.A.P. to help combat the negative publicity of inhumane treatment to the American food supply, but also battle the pressure from these groups to take things a step farther. I will examine the pros and cons of animal activist groups and how they impact the American meat industry, but first, let’s get a further understanding of some of these animal right groups.
Humans have been guilty for this great change that our planet is suffering. Humans are responsible for the increase of the temperature, for increase of the oceans levels, and for the extinction of some animals. Joseph DiMento affirms in the article “Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren” that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change affirmed that there is a strong evidence that humans have had a great impact on the global climate (65). Humans’ activities all around the world have destroyed a lot of important ecosystems such as the Amazon. The over population is affecting many ecosystems. As the population grows, we need more space because we are occupying at home to many animal species. Peter Singer mentions in his book “Practical Ethics” “…the discovery that human activities are changing the climate of our planet has brought with it knowledge of new ways in which we can harm one another” (216). Industries have more impact on climate change. Industries as oil industries release many issues in the atmosphere affecting the ozone layer. These issues are the ones that are warming up planet and destroying ecosystems. Also these oil industries throw so many waste materials away to rivers, lakes, oceans that are affecting the water and life of those places. Healey Justin mentions in her article “Climate
A United Nations report states that land used for animal agriculture, both for grazing and production of crops fed to livestock, takes up an astounding 30% of land on Earth. ("Meat Production Wastes Natural Resources") To meet the industry’s demands, over 260 million acres of forest in the U.S. have been cleared to grow grain fed to farm animals. ("Meat Production Wastes Natural Resources") With that in mind, the meat industry also dumps disease-causing pathogens through animal waste that pollutes water and forces the need for waste lagoons to be constructed, which are susceptible to leaking and flooding. ("Facts about Pollution from Livestock Farms”) Scientists say that about 14% of the world’s greenhouse gases are released by said agriculture industries, which is a growing concern for climate change and global warming. (Silverman) The meat industry uses one-third of all the fossil fuels consumed in the United States. (Moore) There is no question that farming animals has a negative effect on the environment and steps should be taken to mitigate air and water pollution risks and future deforestation. If animal agriculture was phased out, land used for animal grazing could be returned to forest land and some of it converted into fields for cultivating crops for humans. A global shift toward veganism, resulting in the elimination of the meat and animal agriculture industries, would protect the environment from various detrimental effects.
Studies have shown that raising livestock actually produces more greenhouse gases than the emissions given off by the total number of cars in the world! In 2001 there was 229 million tons of meat produced globally, it is projected that by 2050 that number will rise to 465 million tons. Equally important, is the deplorable and heartbreaking conditions that the animals are being forced to live in. Please keep in mind that animal products such as milk and eggs are not without cruelty. Per animalethics.org, annually there are over six billion male chicks killed just after hatching, since they do not lay eggs they are disposed of. Additionally, a hen in the wild will naturally lay 10 to 15 eggs per year, with genetic engineering the hens can produce 250 to 300 eggs per year. The dismal life of a dairy cow is typically decreased by 15 years of its natural 20-year lifespan; inseminated after its first year, a cow will produce milk for 10 months before it’s inseminated again to repeat the cycle. By the time the cow is 5 years old it will have likely developed a health problem from the stress of the factory, at which time the cow is sent to be
When these agricultural resources are given to the animals involved in meat production, these resources are lost. Besides the loss of land, the process of animal production is contributing to pollution and other greenhouse gases that are doing irreplaceable damage to the environment and contribute to untold negative health