Vegetarianism, once considered another unpalatable liberal agenda, is finally gaining credence and being extolled as one of the most viable ways by which society might address the looming environmental crisis. Vegetarians were long considered as forward-thinking, idealistic, radical and misguided tree huggers who were hell bent on disseminating their hippie propaganda. At first glance, one would imagine that the linkages between vegetarianism and global warming would be paltry at best. However, the Chief Scientific Advisor to the Government of the United Kingdom, Sir David King, contended that the “climate change is a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism”. Considering the current state of national security, one would imagine that this assertion would be a cause for great alarm; however, as usual there was hardly a marked improvement or significant change in policy or a clarion call to address the ensuing potential dangers of global warming. This nonchalance has been typical of most conservative politicians who tend to scoff at the scientific community, particularly when they offer any sort of criticisms or predictions about the state of the environment. Fundamentally, our issue this semester deals with society’s ecological footprint and ponders the efficacy of vegetarianism versus conservationism. Fundamentally, we are concerned with a cost-benefit analysis of these movements so that you, our audience can weigh the consequences of each and come to a conclusion about will reduce our ecological footprint.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization “the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation. Furthermore, “livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems”. This evidence suggests that the discussion pertaining to vegetarianism has evolved into something other than a lifestyle choice. Global warming refers to the increase in average global temperatures. Natural events and human activities are believed to be the most pertinent factors to average global temperatures. Scientists have noticed in the past century that there has been a steady increase in the average global temperature. Recent research attributes this to the greenhouse phenomena. The greenhouse phenomenon is based on the presence of CFCs and the combustion of fossil fuels- gases which trap heat from the Earth and prevent it from leaving the atmosphere. Scientists attribute the greenhouse effect to the melting of glaciers and polar caps, the rise in sea levels, the recent unpredictability of weather patterns and the spread of certain diseases.
From a sociopolitical perspective, even conservative scientists have admitted that the correlation between corporate animal husbandry and the degradation of the environment is a just one, particularly in the wake of the myriad of natural disasters. On the other hand, as aforementioned, the US is the largest industrial polluter as a nation in the world because special interest groups and their lobbyists are instrumental in creating governmental policy that maintains the status quo. Consider Tyson Foods Inc, the second largest processor of livestock in the world- Tyson processes “42.5 million chickens, processes 170,938 cattle and 347,891 pigs” on a weekly basis. The ripple effect of this multinational organization reverberates throughout society in ways that are almost impossible to fathom. Apart from the idealistic toll on animal populations, it is estimated that the grain spent to feed these animals could feed 800 million people worldwide several times over- and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
This is an argument that presents a facet of vegetarianism that is often left undiscussed. In my opinion, the environment is the greatest proponent when considering vegetarianism. We know of all the other benefits, venture out and see how else you can make a difference by abstaining from meat.
By Khalaf Al Khalaf
References:
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3381425.stm
- http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyson_Foods
- http://www.tyson.com/
Welcome to EcoLife! This blog, which is hosted by Portland State University students, aims to motivate, inform, and inspire change. We want you to learn about the complicated issues surrounding homelessness, while going beyond the tip of the iceberg. We hope to establish a connection with you through our posts regarding the lives and experiences of homeless individuals, expressed in these numerous stories and articles. We hope you enjoy our blog!
Vegetarianism can contribute positively toward a more sustainable future, but this doesn't necessarily or absolutely mean that eating meat is degenerative for the environment, and claiming that all meat-eating is degrading to the environment is misleading and is the result of confirmation bias. The HOW of this equation -- how the animal is raised and pastured -- determines whether running livestock is degrading or regenerative. Running cattle & chickens over a landscape at a herd population and land area that is appropriate in scale for the fertilization needs of the landscape can be very healing for land, no to mention that animals are very important in agricultural systems that are designed to use very little or no petroleum.
ReplyDeleteBig meat packers like Tyson are of course degenerative for the environment. The treat animals like machines instead of living things, concentrate them in areas too small for healthy living, feed them food that causes all sorts of health problems, and in general, their practices mimic an unhealthy and cancerous ecological pattern.
A good basic question to keep in mind when making claims about sustainability is, what ecological pattern is this practice mimicking?
Also, taking the FAO's calculation of animal-caused CO2 and claiming meat-eating is a major contributing factor to global warming is very misleading and leaves out several complex factors. The imbalance in the Carbon Dioxide-Oxygen cycle is caused by the combination of an increase in CO2 emissions and a degeneration of natural systems that can absorb it. Raising animals that are eaten and eaten from does not itself create this imbalance. The way a human being chooses to raise them, and alterations that human beings make to the landscape that affect ecology's ability to absorb CO2 emissions determine whether the practice is regenerative or degenerative to the landscape, human health, and the planet.