Vegetarianism versus Fuel Efficiency

Despite the overwhelming discourse and evidence pertaining to finite resources and the necessity of sustainability etc, society and huge corporations generally consider environmental conscientiousness as the mutterings of liberal pundits. With respect to corporations this is fundamentally because the sustainability theory is generally in opposition with the corporate goals, i.e. profit. In order to foster and entrench viable change, the discourse must be altered so that it makes economic sense to corporations. Thus far, corporations point out that in general, a significant portion of the dialogue pertains to restrictive regulations which inadvertently restrict their range of activities and as such active participation is nonexistent or at best paltry. Based on this, advocates could solicit greater participation/involvement by detailing how corporations can make money via environmental conscientiousness. When such methods have been utilized, we discover that the assignment of economic value to the conservation movement remains the greatest incentive for participation.

 Our discussion this term has pertained to which movement (vegetarianism versus fuel conservation) would result in greater sustainability. The evidence indicates astonishing statistics in regards to our consumption of resources. Whilst both endeavors are admirable in nature, when viewed in a socioeconomic perspective manner, I personally believe that vegetarianism is the more realistic pursuit to subscribe to. What is the basis of this decision? 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 and “livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. I found it particularly interesting that the food industry generates more greenhouse emissions than 600 million cars. Couple that with the subsequent water pollution, deforestation, livestock epidemics, unsavory conditions that livestock are reared, contaminated produce etc it becomes obvious that vegetarianism is the most viable movement to follow.

The fundamental basis of my argument stems from the fact that I believe that it is infinitely easier for a larger number of people to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle than to persuade a similar group to switch to fuel efficient/hybrid vehicles. Since people are largely motivated by economic incentives and by applying the concept of assigning economic value to these movements, we can determine the probability of adherence. The global economy could benefit significantly by considering the environmental advantages of vegetarianism. From a surface view, it would appear that the American or the economy of any other developed country does not necessarily need to implement any change to their current practices. The problem rests in a reliance of a flawed system: i.e the economy. Most developed countries flourished because of natural resources, which are finite and will run out eventually. Its interesting to note that most of the discourse out there focuses on our oil dependence and fails to mention that it would be easier, and cheaper to implement vegetarianism as it is simply more realistic. Consider for example that it is much less expensive, for instance, to buy a car that is fueled by gasoline than to buy a car that runs on hydrogen, even though hydrogen is a renewable resource that produces an almost insignificant amount of waste. Furthermore, more than three quarters of the world cannot afford to buy these fuel efficient vehicles, maintain them etc. In the end, each movement is an honorable one with numerous benefits that have the potential of generating income and benefits for future generations.



By Khalaf Al Khalaf


References:
- http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
- http://www.detroitproject.com/readmore/nrdc_facts.htm