Pros And Cons Of Cowspiracy

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.

However, Andersen is not only trying to prove damage to the ozone layer, but agriculture is also responsible for rainforest destruction, habitat loss, ocean dead zone, and pretty much every other environmentally detrimental aspect.

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

course.
This film really made me wonder why it is so hard for the organizations to at least acknowledge the problem rather than completely avoiding it. Andersen claims that there must be more than oblivion, but rather, some sort of anomaly that deters these people from speaking out against factory farming and veering the audience towards fossil fuel divestment. It occurred to me and Andersen that perhaps, because most the meat in this country is well privatized by leading companies, those entities have so much power that they can literally hush the greenest advocates, to possibly not risk fundraising or support. Although I completely disagree with the ethics of that stand point, it is true that people cannot simply change their lifestyles of eating meat in comparison to showering, driving less, etc. However, the fact that I learned that cows, which population is almost two times as much as humans, use 45 times more water and land than the already very destructive species of people, made me feel very guilty of eating meat. Even though I am an environmental major, I continue to practically fuel the factory farming industry by just eating 1 hamburger. Like Andersen, I realized I could take the shortest showers, recycle as much as I want and not have a car, yet if I just eat 1 burger, there goes 300 gallons of water and other resources to make that 4 pounds of meat. It is evident that truly not many talk about this issue, either. I have spent almost 2 years as an environmental studies major, yet agriculture as a detriment, much less as the main one, comes up much less often than fossil fuels, wastes, and other environmental justices, so this film teaches me and possibly other audiences the inconvenient truth about something so dear to our everyday lives.
Nonetheless, Andersen acknowledges that while people should know, they cannot be easily changed in a heartbeat. However, he also wants people to be aware that institutional and individual attention to selected environmental issues will not make a collective difference unless we also confront the realities of animal agriculture. Animal agriculture’s environmental effects are so pervasive that apparent progress elsewhere cannot counter its destructive and growing impact. We can save parts of the ocean, allocate lumbering from the Amazon, etc. but that will never truly save the Earth unless something is done about the agriculture industry- especially in the US. While we can make cheaper or produce less cows, it will nonetheless have the “second-hand consumption” where someone else has to take the rest of the costs for our transitions to be convenient, such as production of soy for fake meat.
It sparked my interest to think why organizations like Rain Forest Network refuses to speak on this topic. And the answer is: because it so heavily imbedded into our society and people will disagree if they were to ever asked to changed their lifestyle. Also mentioned in the film is that there has been measures to face animal agriculture in Brazil. Despite many locals’ efforts, they were all killed by the people who were cutting down the forest to make room for cattle grazing. This includes the murder of an US nun who was advocating to stop deforestation, indicating that these evils will show no mercy in order to gain. I believe that is the reason why so many people are silent about this issue, because something this dire could happen to them, or even worse, the companies will have the power to make the common people turn the other way.
So the film made me think, what in society, could we do about this? It is right in front of us, destroying the planet by the second, yet it is tucked away tightly in the hands of greedy corporations where even the loudest environmental voices cannot reach. How do we find the breadth of understanding to face these challenges and make people aware? And more importantly, how will society find a way to balance their diets?
Yes, money makes the world go round, but there is no point if there is no Earth to make money off. Like in Community Garden Outreach, we have the goals to promote small-scale local farming and having others know that food grown right in your backyard is better than fruit shipped from 1000 miles away. People should be able to be brought together by food, rather than fear if anything. To promote vertical farming is already producing a more sustainable agrarian lifestyle where people can learn ancient farming techniques such as the Iroqious Three Sisters or for the livestock in an urban setting and ethics, with free grazing until they are truly ready to be eaten, rather than rapidly stuffed. If people change their mentalities of eating local foods and supporting small farms- all while suppressing their meat diet- it could slowly be a solution. From our farmstands to the community gardens, we use little to no meat, and everyone is still happy with their meals. Although the documentary states that even small-scale farming would not help the current situation, I am optimistic that if at least Americans can be educated on the cow industry and be able to eat a balance diet, solutions are not as bad as they seem. Yes, humans are meant to omnivores, but a plant-based diet does not only advocate for an animal’s life, but thousands of gallons of water, grain, and forests. And if one thinks about it, it is quite easy; there’s less money to be spent on produce than meat, no corporate boardroom decisions and no tax incentives. One can could even start little by little; no meat some days and more until you’re completely fine without it. Then, all the grains used to be allocated to livestock can be used to feed the world’s starving population instead.
There has never been a single recorded instance where a person is malnourished from a vegan diet, because as one of the farmers in the documentary said, “milk is good for you but it was never for you, its for baby cows.” We as a species need to deviate our mindsets and rid of the myths and accept the truth, as change will happen as quickly as we convince each other to change what we eat. We are imperative to sacrifice some for the sake of planet as much as it already has sacrifice for humans.