One of the biggest controversies with livestock production is that the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that get released into the atmosphere. Its assumed that cars produce most if not all the greenhouse gas emissions however livestock has a big say in air pollution. According to Cassandra Brooks, writer for the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, 18 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions are due to livestock production. This is nearly 20% and can be greatly reduced if people reduced their demand for meat. The Environmental Working Group used a tangible variable for Americans stating “if everyone in the U.S. ate no meat or cheese just one day a week, it would be like not driving 91 billion miles – or taking 7.6 million cars off the road” (Goffman 9). Instead of taking the bus to work, switching your diet around could make just as much of an impact on the environment.
In fact, the amount of resources that go into production of animals for consumption is somewhat startling. When factoring in transportation, grains for feeding, etc. and directly comparing them to the output of protein for consumption, a vegetarian diet seems much more appealing. David Pimentel, a Cornell ecologist specializing in Agriculture and Life Science, stated beef production “requires a [fossil-fuel] energy output to protein output ratio of 54:1” and that 100,000 liters of water goes into just one kilogram of beef. Also, cows are notorious for producing large amounts of methane, totaling 500 liters per cow per day (Goffman 3). Methane traps heat in the environment, heating the surface of the earth causing problematic situations to occur all over the earth, including the ice caps melting and eliminating species. And when cattle, which are...
... middle of paper ...
...e Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters?” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21.6 (2008): 580-96. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.
Phillips, F. “Vegetarian Nutrition.” British Nutrition Foundation: Nutrition Bulletin 30.2 (2005): 132-167. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.
Pimentel, David. “U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists” Cornell Chronicle. Cornell University. 7 Aug. 1997. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
Rice, Suzanne. “Three Educational Problems: The Case of Eating Animals.” Journal of Thought (2013): 112-27. Web. 4 Apr. 2014.
Scheer, Roddy, and Doug Moss. “How does Meat in the Diet Take an Environmental Toll?” Scientific American. ScientificAmerican.com, 28 Dec. 2011. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.
Wyness, L, et al. “Red meat in the diet: an update” British Nutrition Foundation: Nutrition Bulletin 36.1 (2011): 39-71. Web. 21 Apr. 2014.
People can be classified into two categories, meat eaters and non meat eaters. Meat eaters or carnivores are common in society so there has to be a tremendous amount of meat production to meet these needs. But has anyone ever thought about the amount of fuel and energy it takes to make it and how it would ultimately destroy the Earth? Many have and it revealed to them that the cost of being a vegan or vegetarian is far less than continuing their carnivorous ways. Two authors have their opinions to offer, even if they are on the same side of the argument and want to convert people to being a vegan. In “Eating Green” Margaret Lundberg states why becoming a vegan is healthy, not only for the person, but also the environment. John Vidal’s “10 Ways Vegetarianism Can Help Save the Planet”
I will first show the lack of validity and soundness to Howard’s claim that A) a vegan lifestyle is a healthier choice and B) his claim that one must switch to that lifestyle to enjoy these said benefits. To the claim made in A, Howard uses his own health problems he endured on his meat diet, and uses it as a constant variable comparing it to his now relative healthy lifestyle as a vegan. On first glance anyone who eats a calorie-laden, unbalanced diet and ends up weighing 300 pounds, as Lyman himself admitted, will have health problems regardless of his orientation to meat or vegetables. With this said his comparing analogy is inertly flawed and must be disregarded from the argument he presents. On march 8 before the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, Mary K Young, MS.,R.D,NCBA Director of Nutrition Research and Information, presented the benefits of eating meat. Using Data from the 1995 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSI) she confirms that red meat enhances one overall diet quality. Young goes on to point out that red meat is the number one source for protein, B12, and zinc, number 2 source for B6 and third greatest source for iron, niacin and potassium. She also pointed out that red meat alone has the greatest concentrates of iron and zinc together. Also included cited in Young’s report was the research recently published in the Journal of the American...
Millions of animals are consumed everyday; humans are creating a mass animal holocaust, but is this animal holocaust changing the climate? In the essay “ The Carnivores Dilemma,” written by Nicolette Hahn Niman, a lawyer and livestock rancher, asserts that food production, most importantly beef production, is a global contributor to climate change. Nicolette Niman has reports by United Nations and the University of Chicago and the reports “condemn meat-eating,” and the reports also say that beef production is closely related to global warming. Niman highlights, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides are the leading greenhouses gases involved in increasing global warming. A vast majority of people across the world consumes meat and very little people are vegetarian, or the people that don’t eat meat, but are there connections between people and meat production industry when it comes to eating food and the effect it has on the climate? The greenhouse gases, methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxides are not only to blame, but we should be looking at people and industrialized farming for the leading cause of greenhouse gases in agriculture and the arm-twisting dilemma we have been lured into, which is meat production itself.
Krizmanic, J., (1995). “The Best of Both Worlds” Vegetarian Times Nov. 1995: 96-101. Retrieved: February 13, 2011, from:
This statement is a myth and can be backed up by Meat Mythcrushers. According to the video, Myth: Going Meatless One Day a Week Can Have a Significant Environmental Impact, “reducing meat consumption one day per week as recommended by the Meatless Monday campaign has a negligible impact on greenhouse gas emissions.” This means that of the 3.4 percent of the gas emissions that are from animal agriculture, beef only contribute 1.4 percent. Even if the whole world were to reduce their beef consumption for one week, their carbon footprint would be just a meager .2 percent (2013). This misconception comes from people believing that livestock production is causing large emissions of greenhouse gas emissions when it is more so the transportation and energy production causing the problem. Meat is both economically and nutritionally efficient. Today, livestock farms require less land, water and energy than was required in the past
...farmers and ranchers today raise 13 percent more beef from 30 percent fewer cattle. The modern cattle rancher uses less water, produces less greenhouse gas, and is preventing overgrazing. Cattlemen today are more environmentally sustainable than they were 30 to 40 years. Although cattle farmers have a more efficient beef production today, producing 16 percent less carbon emissions, using 33 percent less land, and requiring 12 percent less water to maintain.
Hall, Don. "Why Be a Vegetarian?" Vibrant Life May-June 2010. General Reference Center Gold. Web. 30 Oct. 2011.
Roughly over 20% of 121,000 middle-aged men and women died over a period of 28 years during a study of red meat effects on the body (Harding). Beef, pork, lamb, mutton, and veal are all red meats. While these meats are rich in vitamins and protein, they can lose much of their benefits through cooking and processing. Limiting how much red meat an individual eats could add years to their life by avoiding heart disease, certain cancers, and diabetes. By simply replacing one meal weekly, that consists of red meat, for a meal that is poultry, fish, nuts, or vegetable based could reduce the risk of dying in middle aged years by 7 to 9% (Harding).
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.
The author, Barbara Young in “Global Warming: An Issue Facing the Industry” reflects on the impact of the meat industry on the worsening of global warming. She notes the 2006 United Nation Food and Agriculture Organization's report which concluded that worldwide livestock farming contributes 18 percent of the planet's greenhouse gas emission due to deforestation and the nitrous oxide from animal manure. She likewise relates the CLEARPulse survey conducted by Clear Seas Research in 2008 which signifies that meat industry can ignore environmental
Most people in America live on an omnivorous diet, but with the new vegetarian diet trend, there has become much controversy over if a vegetarian diet is truly as healthy as vegetarians believe. Because both sides make strong arguments, neither side wants to back down and claim defeat, but do they have to? There is a large amount of people who claim there is nothing wrong with the standard western diet, even though there is evidence showing it is quite unealthy, however, many studies show that a low-meat-intake diet can ,along with a vegetarian diet, reduce risk of premature death, as well as show positive impacts on common chronic diseases, reduces risk of certain cancers, and even provides essential amino acids.
This is a much bigger deal than people think. In fact, according to an article by Peta, How Does Eating Meat Harm the Environment, it has such an effect on the environment that the Union of Concerned Scientist list meat eaters as the second biggest environmental hazard facing the earth. The number one affect being fossil fuels produced by cars. It was also found in a report published by the Worldwatch Institute that nearly 51 percent of all greenhouse gasses are produced from animal agriculture. This is a very staggering number when a lot of research is being done to make vehicles more environmentally friendly when we could make a huge impact just by changing the way we eat. It is even more astounding that it takes the same number of fossil fuels to produce one hamburger as it takes to dive one car 20 miles (Peta How Does Eating Meat Harm the Environment). The production of this meat is also a big cost. It takes more than 80 percent of the corn we grow and more than 95 percent of oat are feed to livestock. The world’s cattle alone are feed the equal amount that would be needed to feed 8.7 billion people. That’s more than the entire world population. If we cut back on our consumption of meat we could take corn and oats that we produce and feed the world. When producing meat many of our natural resources are used. We use water, fossil fuels and top soil, and we are
...ming I will be willing to contribute in any way that I can, and becoming a vegetarian will help the environment a great deal. Becoming a vegetarian can also lead to becoming a healthier person and living a healthy lifestyle. And lastly, the way animals are killed and treated in factory farms are unethical and they should not be treated the way they are just to create a meal for the next person.Consider that the animal you are eating was a vegetarian and the meat contains all the minerals and vitamins of the plant foods it ate when you eat it. Along with fats yourbody needs in substantial amounts to stay healthy.....more on the fats later. Meat is as close to a complete meal as you can get because of this.
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
Research According to the article “The Carnivore’s Dilemma”, in American, most carbon dioxide emissions ... ... middle of paper ... ... veryday foods require a lot of energy and release a lot of greenhouse gases to produce. This is the reason we should stop wasting the foods, consume less meat, and eat more locally grown food.