More handpicked essays just for you.
Greenhouse gases and air pollution
Greenhouse effect and global warming
Greenhouse effect on the environment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Greenhouse gases and air pollution
When we think of greenhouse gases, the first thing that pops up in everyone’s minds are fossil fuels and how we need to use less energy and drive less. However, no one ever really considers the other factors of greenhouse gases, especially one that actually make up more GHG than transportation; agriculture. Cowspiracy is a groundbreaking film that discusses the conspiracy of agriculture being the silenced cause of climate change, and one that too many are almost afraid to admit. Kip Andersen is on an extensive mission to prove why agriculture is not discussed nor challenged by environmental groups such as 350.org, GreenPeace, RAN, the list goes on. One day, he reads an article where the UN claims that cows and other livestock emits almost 86 times more greenhouse gases than transportation does. That is literally the amount of emissions all cars, trains, and airplanes give out combined. Worse thing is, methane is more toxic to the air than carbon dioxide, a chemical that comes from cow’s flatulence. …show more content…
Yet, as he checked various organizations’ websites, no one even mentions the cons of agriculture, and instead, everyone continues to focus on attacking fossil fuels. As he personally approaches more and more of these entities, he discovers it is almost a “taboo” to talk about the detriments of animal agriculture. The executives either refuse to comment, or if they do, does not have much of say about it. It was not until a representative at Oceana finally admitted to livestock being the number one environmental problem, after quite a while prompting of
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.
To help end these negative effects, McKibben ends his argument suggesting that herding our cows and letting them roam and graze could also help, “put much of the atmosphere’s oversupply of greenhouse gases back in the soil inside half a century” (page 202). Although this won’t make a radical change, it could help the environment. McKibben simply believes that
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
In his 2009 article “The Omnivore’s Delusion”, Blake Hurst takes a stand against the numerous non-farmers who are attempting, and in some cases succeeding, to degrade and ‘clean’ the farming industry. Hurst’s main points of contention are the lack of true knowledge these intellectuals have on the inner workings of today’s farms and their insistent belief that the farmers themselves “…are too stupid to farm sustainably, too cruel to treat their animals well, and too careless to worry about their communities, their health, and their families” (24).
The cattle industry produces vast amounts of strain in the environment. It is energy inefficient, pollutes water, occupies many acres of land, and deteriorates the health of the people who abuse its consumption. The government subsidizes this industry. Therefore, the price paid for meat doesn’t reflect the environmental hazards involved in the process. In order to protect our health and the health of the environment we should pay close attention to our food choices and make sure we don’t support industries that degrade it.
618.3 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent are produced each year in the United States alone for agriculture (EPA). Agriculture is one source of greenhouse gasses we can’t eliminate, but we could as a species decide to eat greener. Cows are a massive producer of methane, but very few people are willing to give up or downsize their stake intake. With so much greenhouse gas produced the problem is compiled when the amount of clean water used is taken into context. “Globally we use 70% of our water sources for agriculture and irrigation, and only 10% on domestic uses.” On the same note of water conservation 783 million people don’t have access to clean water. The issue as addressed isn’t agriculture, but where we invest most of our resources in production (The Water Project). McDonalds would not have been happy if he mentioned this, but a Big Mac produces 6.8 lbs. in greenhouse gas emissions (Ganeshan,
My starting point for this paper was the movie Food Inc. directed by Robert Kenner. Although the film’s main purpose was to expose how detrimental today’s food industry is to our health, at the same time I found myself wondering how the food industry and our diets affect the environment. The film mentions how the meat industry takes heavy tolls on the environment because of the land that must be devoted in order to raise livestock—both to grow the food for the animals to eat and to provide a place for the animals to reside. The film also mentions how there are only 4 or 5 major crops that are grown in America—including corn, wheat, and soybean, which are used a lot for animal feed—which decreases America’s biodiversity (Food). All of these things led me to pursue the question: how does our consumption of animal products affect the environment?
Even though there is a variety of nutritious food all over the world, while the food you have during the winter is less vitamin deficient the food comes at a great ecological cost. With every action comes a consequence; hence, humans do not take the time to acknowledge what they eat and how it affects our environment. Transporting a variety of foods from all over the world hurts our plant due to the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, which causes more pollution (Source D). This transportation issue can be resolved by simply purchasing locally grown food because the carbon dioxide being released to the atmosphere causes drastic climate change. McWilliams asserts, “But New Zealand lamb is raised on pastures with a small carbon footprint, whereas most English lamb is produced under intensive factory-like conditions with a big carbon footprint.”(Source C). Not only is carbon a consequence of transportation but also of the factory conditions; hence, the amount of carbon released i...
...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.
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
... decomposing manure and other factors, including the energy needed to store and transport meat’’ were all responsible for that18% of greenhouse gas emissions in the estimations. The amount of gas emission from these factory farms has accelerated climate change faster than all of the ways in which we burn fossil fuels to create energy. Even with these high numbers, people are still continuing industrial agriculture and there aren’t enough concerns out there to show how serious this situation is. Meat is equivalent to cars, which both are deeply set in American culture. Not much protest was hold strongly against the production of meat because many environmental groups realize that people may get very upset if meat production was cut off. This is only because they aren’t well aware that meat is slowly killing our planet and should be taken care of before it’s too late.
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.
Furthermore, factory farming can also be very dangerous for the environment. Gale (2013) states, “...the livestock industry accounts for 80% of the greenhouse gas emission, while the methane produced by cattle and their manure has a global warming effect equivalent to that of 33 million automobiles.” By working together to stop factory farming, people can save their environment. They will also have a cleaner air to breath ...
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.
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.