Conservation, once considered being the figment of liberal imagination and propaganda is steadfastly gaining recognition in the scientific and social world. There is currently concrete evidence that proves that the Earth cannot support society’s unabridged consumption of increasingly scarce resources. The nature of the problem is so relevant that numerous groups, despite conflicting ideologies have embraced conservationism as a movement. Fundamentally, the goal of the environmental conscientiousness movements seeks to lessen the impact of our presence on the planet.
Since the advent of environmental conscientiousness, organizations have based their apprehension of the movement on the belief that it affects profit. Typically these programs are expensive to implement and often restrict lucrative business practices. Of the numerous movements, the two most common ones are the vegetarian debate and the eco-friendly debate. Granted that both of these movements have their merits, eventually the most reoccurring question remains is which of these movements will have a greater impact on scarce resources?
Both groups answer this question from highly ideological standpoints. However, for the sake of this conversation, I would like to propose an alternative point of view in examining the debate on conservation: economics. Why economics you might ask? Well, because it propels, aids and hampers corporations and individuals in the decision making process. In order to determine which movement has a greater impact on the environment, it is necessary to ascribe economic values to the implementation of various practices and how this makes it more likely to be adopted by the general populace. Based on evidence that will be provided during the course of this discussion, we discover that vegetarianism is the economically sound movement and that it is one that can be implemented on a global scale.
By Khalaf Al Khalaf
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!
Friday, July 9, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
Eat Green, Drive Green -- Ditch the Blues? (Part One)
For most people, the advantages of eating green are known, if only at the periphery of their lives. More often than not, the health, moral, and environmental aspects of vegetarianism are touted. From longevity, heart disease-risk reduction, fewer animal deaths, reduced environmental waste, etc. – there’s no doubt about it: greening the belly just makes sense. And when we hit the road, there’s nothing like a hybrid to compound our green efforts. For starters – and most prominently – hybrid autos emit less than their 100-percent gasoline counterparts. Too, hybrid automobiles typically require less components in their construction, making for lighter autos overall. Of course, how one drives a hybrid plays an important role in whether they’ll reap any of the pocketbook and environmental benefits associated with such vehicles. But in our minds, whatever our reasons for choosing to eat green or drive green, what are these lifestyles' associated internal, psychological benefits or drawbacks?
A 2007 study of 9,113 Australian women found that female vegetarians and semi-vegetarians, when compared to female non-vegetarians, had "poorer mental health." For years, this assertion has dominated both academic and vegetarian circles -- it seemed something was missing from the most common vegetarian diets, a magical ingredient our neurochemistry had become dependent on in its balanced day-to-day functioning. Turns out the missing ingredients -- at least primarily -- were fatty acids, vitamin B-12, calcium and iron, all of which are typically found in omnivore diets. Still, a more recent analysis of mood states of vegetarians asserts that what has traditionally been thought to cause mental health problems in vegetarians is somewhat overblown, and their statistical evidence -- based on self-reports -- does seem to conflict with other research, with the authors stating, "We found no evidence that the absence of direct intake of [important] fatty acids in vegetarians adversely affects mood state."
What does this even mean, you might ask.
It seems the act of going green, with regard to the belly, carries an easy win -- the hopeful vegetarian (or even long-standing green-eaters) merely need keep in mind that their bodies (aside from any issues of individuality, politics or environmental awareness) are still hard-wired to operate most efficiently on certain inputs. A cave-dwelling vegetarian probably doesn't get enough Vitamin D, and so the smart hermit would probably plan ahead by purchasing a case of dietary supplements. Taken a step further, though, the informed, smart cave-dwelling vegetarian should probably diversify their collection of dietary supplements, else plan their meals to include all that nifty, healthy stuff that keeps us chugging along like good little choo-choo trains. And while researchers argue over whether green diets equal happy people, it's best to err on the side of caution by supplementing your diet with either variety or, if you're worried (and not prone to paying strict attention to the nutritional value of what's going down your gullet), a few vitamins. Still, it seems the only gains vegetarians make by keeping balance in mind is just that: a normal balance of mind.
So, is ignorance bliss? A non-vegetarian may never consider the implications of their diet, whether on the environment or their pocketbook, or even Wilbur, and so their intrapsychic life continues on: largely unaware, and probably just as variably moody as everyone else. In this, we find a trophy, though. Our emotional lives -- whether internal or expressed as self-reported mood states -- typically benefit from us making 'good choices.' We ace an exam, land a good job, enjoy and perform well in relationships, and those successes help us build confidence in ourselves, in our choices and beliefs. It's just a matter of reasoning, then, that while any one person has both countless opportunities throughout life from which to grow, lessons to be learned to influence their intrapsychic lives, vegetarians might just have a few more reasons to feel good simply because of their choice to eat green, less the contents of their diets.
Indeed, studies show vegetarians are more likely to have larger social circles and more group memberships than meat-eaters. Too, less conservative people -- be they from any age group, race, ethnic group, etc. -- are more likely to be vegetarian, as are people that demonstrate stronger degrees of altruism. And it's becoming more common for researchers to posit that smart children are more likely to become vegetarians. This doesn't mean socialites, radical liberals or Ainan Cawley, thought by many to be the world's smartest child, are happier than non-vegetarians. Socialites can be drama queens! Radical liberals can be annoying! And smart kids...well, they're just so pretentious. Right?
Kidding.
But it goes without saying that eating green gifts more than just external benefits -- feeling good about what you're doing, aside from knowing it's making a difference in the ether, definitely helps.
By Jason M. White
A 2007 study of 9,113 Australian women found that female vegetarians and semi-vegetarians, when compared to female non-vegetarians, had "poorer mental health." For years, this assertion has dominated both academic and vegetarian circles -- it seemed something was missing from the most common vegetarian diets, a magical ingredient our neurochemistry had become dependent on in its balanced day-to-day functioning. Turns out the missing ingredients -- at least primarily -- were fatty acids, vitamin B-12, calcium and iron, all of which are typically found in omnivore diets. Still, a more recent analysis of mood states of vegetarians asserts that what has traditionally been thought to cause mental health problems in vegetarians is somewhat overblown, and their statistical evidence -- based on self-reports -- does seem to conflict with other research, with the authors stating, "We found no evidence that the absence of direct intake of [important] fatty acids in vegetarians adversely affects mood state."
What does this even mean, you might ask.
It seems the act of going green, with regard to the belly, carries an easy win -- the hopeful vegetarian (or even long-standing green-eaters) merely need keep in mind that their bodies (aside from any issues of individuality, politics or environmental awareness) are still hard-wired to operate most efficiently on certain inputs. A cave-dwelling vegetarian probably doesn't get enough Vitamin D, and so the smart hermit would probably plan ahead by purchasing a case of dietary supplements. Taken a step further, though, the informed, smart cave-dwelling vegetarian should probably diversify their collection of dietary supplements, else plan their meals to include all that nifty, healthy stuff that keeps us chugging along like good little choo-choo trains. And while researchers argue over whether green diets equal happy people, it's best to err on the side of caution by supplementing your diet with either variety or, if you're worried (and not prone to paying strict attention to the nutritional value of what's going down your gullet), a few vitamins. Still, it seems the only gains vegetarians make by keeping balance in mind is just that: a normal balance of mind.
So, is ignorance bliss? A non-vegetarian may never consider the implications of their diet, whether on the environment or their pocketbook, or even Wilbur, and so their intrapsychic life continues on: largely unaware, and probably just as variably moody as everyone else. In this, we find a trophy, though. Our emotional lives -- whether internal or expressed as self-reported mood states -- typically benefit from us making 'good choices.' We ace an exam, land a good job, enjoy and perform well in relationships, and those successes help us build confidence in ourselves, in our choices and beliefs. It's just a matter of reasoning, then, that while any one person has both countless opportunities throughout life from which to grow, lessons to be learned to influence their intrapsychic lives, vegetarians might just have a few more reasons to feel good simply because of their choice to eat green, less the contents of their diets.
Indeed, studies show vegetarians are more likely to have larger social circles and more group memberships than meat-eaters. Too, less conservative people -- be they from any age group, race, ethnic group, etc. -- are more likely to be vegetarian, as are people that demonstrate stronger degrees of altruism. And it's becoming more common for researchers to posit that smart children are more likely to become vegetarians. This doesn't mean socialites, radical liberals or Ainan Cawley, thought by many to be the world's smartest child, are happier than non-vegetarians. Socialites can be drama queens! Radical liberals can be annoying! And smart kids...well, they're just so pretentious. Right?
Kidding.
But it goes without saying that eating green gifts more than just external benefits -- feeling good about what you're doing, aside from knowing it's making a difference in the ether, definitely helps.
By Jason M. White
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Is hybrid worth your money?
Recently, people concerns about the state of the environment especially from cars. It is well known that every single car pumps carbon emissions to the environment every day which causes major harmful consequence overtime. This is where the hybrid cars come in handy and became more and more popular each year. Hybrid cars uses alternative fuel source such as electricity which can be refueled by charging up the batteries.
It is known that the hybrid cars cost more than the gasoline cars because of the cost of the rechargeable batteries. People believe that in the long term hybrid cars will cost less since they are depending on the other alternative fuel rather than using the gas and harm the environment.
There is, however, a tax deduction from several states and incentives for people who purchase hybrid cars. The tax deduction depends on the car model. Insurance companies give discounts for people who have hybrid cars because they have a lower risk of being involved in an accident. According to Edmunds.com site, the regular maintenance for hybrid cars does not require that much such as brake pads. Hybrid cars’ regenerative braking systems and their reduced heat means that their brake pads last longer than normal cars.
With all the cost benefits and the tax incentives, hybrid cars will attract more people to buy them and this will help the environment in the long term.
Abdulrahman Al-Homaid
It is known that the hybrid cars cost more than the gasoline cars because of the cost of the rechargeable batteries. People believe that in the long term hybrid cars will cost less since they are depending on the other alternative fuel rather than using the gas and harm the environment.
There is, however, a tax deduction from several states and incentives for people who purchase hybrid cars. The tax deduction depends on the car model. Insurance companies give discounts for people who have hybrid cars because they have a lower risk of being involved in an accident. According to Edmunds.com site, the regular maintenance for hybrid cars does not require that much such as brake pads. Hybrid cars’ regenerative braking systems and their reduced heat means that their brake pads last longer than normal cars.
With all the cost benefits and the tax incentives, hybrid cars will attract more people to buy them and this will help the environment in the long term.
Abdulrahman Al-Homaid
Ecology vs. Economy
There is little doubt that driving hybrid vehicles is more ecologically sensible than their gas-burning counterparts. By being more fuel efficient through burning fewer fossil fuels on a per mile basis hybrids are responsible for the release of less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and therefore less impact on the environment. However, there is a drawback to hybrid vehicles: the price.
Oftentimes hybrid vehicles can be up to $10,000 more than their gasoline kin (Edmunds.com). Manufacturers argue that this money can be recouped through savings at the pump, frequently using the looming specter of $4.00 per gallon gasoline to convince consumers to purchase hybrids. However, an Edmunds.com study (found here) examined these claims and discovered discrepancies in the theoretical savings. For instance, to recoup the cost difference (between hybrid vs. gasoline vehicles) for the Ford Escape gasoline must cost $5.60 per gallon (assuming annual driving rate of 15,000 miles) or the annual mileage would need to exceed 30,000 miles. The only comparison where the hybrid comes close is a Toyota Prius vs. a Toyota Camry.
Many people would love to make the ecological and nature-friendly choice when it comes to their automobile, but economic factors frequently dictate reality. Though hybrid sales continue to increase, they still only account for 3.4% of retail sales (Hybridautoreview.net). Until they become economically more sound, the average American will still be unable to make the ecological choice.
-Andrew Diamond
Oftentimes hybrid vehicles can be up to $10,000 more than their gasoline kin (Edmunds.com). Manufacturers argue that this money can be recouped through savings at the pump, frequently using the looming specter of $4.00 per gallon gasoline to convince consumers to purchase hybrids. However, an Edmunds.com study (found here) examined these claims and discovered discrepancies in the theoretical savings. For instance, to recoup the cost difference (between hybrid vs. gasoline vehicles) for the Ford Escape gasoline must cost $5.60 per gallon (assuming annual driving rate of 15,000 miles) or the annual mileage would need to exceed 30,000 miles. The only comparison where the hybrid comes close is a Toyota Prius vs. a Toyota Camry.
Many people would love to make the ecological and nature-friendly choice when it comes to their automobile, but economic factors frequently dictate reality. Though hybrid sales continue to increase, they still only account for 3.4% of retail sales (Hybridautoreview.net). Until they become economically more sound, the average American will still be unable to make the ecological choice.
-Andrew Diamond
Saturday, July 3, 2010
‘Hybrid vs. Vegetarian, a study’
Kyle Knuth
There are advantages and disadvantages to owning a Hybrid or being a vegetarian that can affect the environment. Sustainability is a huge deal right now and so all the factors for these issues are very important. “Sustainability means using natural resources in a responsible way that does not upset and ultimately destroy the earth’s delicate ecosystem” (Miller 1). First we will look at the advantage of being vegetarian and the disadvantages and then do the same with the hybrid cars. We will compare and contrast and try to get a little closer to finding which is more sustainable and why.
“A 2006 United Nations report found that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than all the SUVs, cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined. Eating 1 pound of meat emits the same amount of greenhouse gasses as driving an SUV 40 miles” (GoVeg.com). The prominent vegetarian advocacy group Go.Veg made this pretty bold statement basically saying that being vegetarian is more sustainable than driving a Hybrid. But, we need to look at all the factors and see if this is actually true. The University of Chicago also agrees that going vegan is 50% more effective than driving a Hybrid car. Raising animals in groups creates large amounts of methane and CO2. It looks like being vegetarian would help make the earth a lot more sustainable but methane would still be produced even if everyone went vegetarian. Going vegetarian can create problems for people in relation to their own personal health. It can be difficult to get the necessary nutrition like protein without eating meat however this does not hurt the environment. Going vegetarian is also an economical advantage as it takes more land to raise animals then to raise vegetables.
Hybrid cars promote the idea of sustainable mobility, which reduces transportation impacts and petroleum based fuels. Hybrid cars do not use much gas as they are electric. This helps the environment and the economy because cars will not be based solely on oil. This makes buying gas cheaper as well as emitting less toxic gas into the environment reducing greenhouse gasses. But, does a Hybrid actually help the environment in the long run? It is said that the Hybrid is actually bad for the environment but how can that be if they get better gas mileage? When considering the environment gas mileage is not the biggest factor. “It's actually the production of the car that matters. The raw materials' sources, the manufacturing effort, and the shipping costs all have an impact on the environment (Helena 1). The nickel that the hybrid is made out of is a heavy pollutant on the environment. After all the shipping and manufacturing from country to country the development of this nickel costs about $3.25 per mile. The hummer costs around $1.95 per mile in comparison. “Each Prius consumes the equivalent of 1,000 gallons of fuel before its odometer clicks to 1(Helena 1). After the car battery dies it is hard to recycle it creating even more damage. Toyota is improving their battery sustainability by trying to get people to send their batteries back to Toyota. Even California Air Resource Board (CARB) a prominent advocacy group for Hybrid cars is thinking about pulling the plug.
As far as sustainability goes I personally am leaning towards going vegetarian as being more beneficial then owning a hybrid car. It also seams economically more beneficial as it costs less to farm vegetation than animals and it costs a lot of money to create and manufacture a hybrid car. In the long term vegetarians waste fewer resources and use their resources well. The shipping and farming of vegetables is cheaper than that of animals although there is not the added bonus of the leather and other animal based products. This is still better though then the manufacturing of the hybrids and there is not much use that we can get out of an old battery. Obviously more research is needed to discover if vegetarianism is more beneficial than hybrid cars, however, vegetarianism has less known disadvantages that I have found than hybrid cars. I believe we should do more research and if vegetarian lifestyles are better than hybrid cars we should get the information out there and target local and federal news groups to promote the public.
There are advantages and disadvantages to owning a Hybrid or being a vegetarian that can affect the environment. Sustainability is a huge deal right now and so all the factors for these issues are very important. “Sustainability means using natural resources in a responsible way that does not upset and ultimately destroy the earth’s delicate ecosystem” (Miller 1). First we will look at the advantage of being vegetarian and the disadvantages and then do the same with the hybrid cars. We will compare and contrast and try to get a little closer to finding which is more sustainable and why.
“A 2006 United Nations report found that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than all the SUVs, cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined. Eating 1 pound of meat emits the same amount of greenhouse gasses as driving an SUV 40 miles” (GoVeg.com). The prominent vegetarian advocacy group Go.Veg made this pretty bold statement basically saying that being vegetarian is more sustainable than driving a Hybrid. But, we need to look at all the factors and see if this is actually true. The University of Chicago also agrees that going vegan is 50% more effective than driving a Hybrid car. Raising animals in groups creates large amounts of methane and CO2. It looks like being vegetarian would help make the earth a lot more sustainable but methane would still be produced even if everyone went vegetarian. Going vegetarian can create problems for people in relation to their own personal health. It can be difficult to get the necessary nutrition like protein without eating meat however this does not hurt the environment. Going vegetarian is also an economical advantage as it takes more land to raise animals then to raise vegetables.
Hybrid cars promote the idea of sustainable mobility, which reduces transportation impacts and petroleum based fuels. Hybrid cars do not use much gas as they are electric. This helps the environment and the economy because cars will not be based solely on oil. This makes buying gas cheaper as well as emitting less toxic gas into the environment reducing greenhouse gasses. But, does a Hybrid actually help the environment in the long run? It is said that the Hybrid is actually bad for the environment but how can that be if they get better gas mileage? When considering the environment gas mileage is not the biggest factor. “It's actually the production of the car that matters. The raw materials' sources, the manufacturing effort, and the shipping costs all have an impact on the environment (Helena 1). The nickel that the hybrid is made out of is a heavy pollutant on the environment. After all the shipping and manufacturing from country to country the development of this nickel costs about $3.25 per mile. The hummer costs around $1.95 per mile in comparison. “Each Prius consumes the equivalent of 1,000 gallons of fuel before its odometer clicks to 1(Helena 1). After the car battery dies it is hard to recycle it creating even more damage. Toyota is improving their battery sustainability by trying to get people to send their batteries back to Toyota. Even California Air Resource Board (CARB) a prominent advocacy group for Hybrid cars is thinking about pulling the plug.
As far as sustainability goes I personally am leaning towards going vegetarian as being more beneficial then owning a hybrid car. It also seams economically more beneficial as it costs less to farm vegetation than animals and it costs a lot of money to create and manufacture a hybrid car. In the long term vegetarians waste fewer resources and use their resources well. The shipping and farming of vegetables is cheaper than that of animals although there is not the added bonus of the leather and other animal based products. This is still better though then the manufacturing of the hybrids and there is not much use that we can get out of an old battery. Obviously more research is needed to discover if vegetarianism is more beneficial than hybrid cars, however, vegetarianism has less known disadvantages that I have found than hybrid cars. I believe we should do more research and if vegetarian lifestyles are better than hybrid cars we should get the information out there and target local and federal news groups to promote the public.
If you want to quantify the environment impact of your diet...
While doing research as an effort to find more detailed scientific data that may help estimate exactly how much impact on environment there is for going hybrid and going veggie, I came across a good blog Vegans vs. Hybrids. Then it got me searching for the report Diet, Energy and Global Warming that it referenced to. That blog and the report are really good sources for me to understand the issue from a more quantitative perspective. However, as the report was written back in 2005, and the blog was posted in 2007. I decided to look for more recent data. Then I found the following article that I would like to share with all of you. The paper was published more recently than the aforementioned two in May 2009 by American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and the title of the paper is Diet and the environment: does what you eat matter?
To be fair, I must say I have no idea about the reputation of this journal, but I do find this paper a very interesting read, and very easy to follow for anyone with little or no medical background. As I am seeking more scientific data on the issue of environmental impact from our diet habits, this paper provides the exact source of knowledge I am looking for. As stated in the abstract,
Note that, since the research work carried out by authors in this paper require a big enough sampling space to establish their findings as statistically true or convincing, with 34000 California Adventists participating, the data collected there may be 2 to 3 years old (I was looking for the age of the data in the paper but failed to find it, I probably have missed). However, I think the data there are still fresh enough to provide some guideline this this context. Note that this paper is based on the authors work limited only in California residents. It is important that, while data will vary drastically among different areas where the trend of the environmental impact is expected to remain the same.
Allow me to quote the following analysis from this paper to conclude my post,
Can Mao, CL/R, 07/03/2010
To be fair, I must say I have no idea about the reputation of this journal, but I do find this paper a very interesting read, and very easy to follow for anyone with little or no medical background. As I am seeking more scientific data on the issue of environmental impact from our diet habits, this paper provides the exact source of knowledge I am looking for. As stated in the abstract,
...The literature supported this notion. To accomplish this goal, dietary preferences were quantified with the Adventist Health Study, and California state agricultural data were collected and applied to state commodity production statistics. These data were used to calculate different dietary consumption patterns and indexes to compare the environmental effect associated with dietary preference. Results show that, for the combined differential production of 11 food items for which consumption differs among vegetarians and nonvegetarians, the nonvegetarian diet required 2.9 times more water, 2.5 times more primary energy, 13 times more fertilizer, and 1.4 times more pesticides than did the vegetarian diet. The greatest contribution to the differences came from the consumption of beef in the diet. We found that a nonvegetarian diet exacts a higher cost on the environment relative to a vegetarian diet. From an environmental perspective, what a person chooses to eat makes a difference.
Note that, since the research work carried out by authors in this paper require a big enough sampling space to establish their findings as statistically true or convincing, with 34000 California Adventists participating, the data collected there may be 2 to 3 years old (I was looking for the age of the data in the paper but failed to find it, I probably have missed). However, I think the data there are still fresh enough to provide some guideline this this context. Note that this paper is based on the authors work limited only in California residents. It is important that, while data will vary drastically among different areas where the trend of the environmental impact is expected to remain the same.
Allow me to quote the following analysis from this paper to conclude my post,
As it is pointed in the paper, "The outcome of our studies provided evidence for the much higher ecologic cost of an animal-based diet. The approximated effect ratios for water use efficiency, energy use efficiency, pesticide use efficiency, and fertilizer use efficiency are presented in Table 2. Our analysis further showed that these differences resulted primarily from the inclusion of beef in the diet of the nonvegetarian. This finding is similar to those published by groups in Europe (4, 19), Japan (51), the United States (27, 52), and Australia (6, 53).
Can Mao, CL/R, 07/03/2010
Vegetarian and some impacts
I just found an interesting article that presents information about being a vegetarian and what are the impacts of being vegetarian. In additions, the findings are by so far from credible resources. Here I took some information so you can take a look at it.
The U.N has published a report on livestock and its effect on the environment. They came up with an interesting finding which is: "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." Which means that raising animals for food is a major reason of land degradation, pollution, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, and not least of all, and global warming.
“Last year researchers at the University of Chicago took the Prius down a peg when they turned their attention to another gas guzzling consumer purchase. They noted that feeding animals for meat, dairy, and egg production requires growing some ten times as much crops as we'd need if we just ate pasta primavera, faux chicken nuggets, and other plant foods. On top of that, we have to transport the animals to slaughterhouses, slaughter them, refrigerate their carcasses, and distribute their flesh all across the country. Producing a calorie of meat protein means burning more than ten times as much fossil fuels -- and spewing more than ten times as much heat-trapping carbon dioxide -- as does a calorie of plant protein. The researchers found that, when it's all added up, the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by going vegetarian than by switching to a Prius”
Which literally shows what are the impacts of raising animals for their meet.
“According to the UN report, it gets even worse when we include the vast quantities of land needed to give us our steak and pork chops. Animal agriculture takes up an incredible 70% of all agricultural land, and 30% of the total land surface of the planet. As a result, farmed animals are probably the biggest cause of slashing and burning the world's forests. Today, 70% of former Amazon rainforest is used for pastureland, and feed crops cover much of the remainder. These forests serve as "sinks," absorbing carbon dioxide from the air, and burning these forests releases all the stored carbon dioxide, quantities that exceed by far the fossil fuel emission of animal agriculture”
http://www.alternet.org/environment/47668
By; Dhiya Al Suliman
The U.N has published a report on livestock and its effect on the environment. They came up with an interesting finding which is: "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." Which means that raising animals for food is a major reason of land degradation, pollution, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, and not least of all, and global warming.
“Last year researchers at the University of Chicago took the Prius down a peg when they turned their attention to another gas guzzling consumer purchase. They noted that feeding animals for meat, dairy, and egg production requires growing some ten times as much crops as we'd need if we just ate pasta primavera, faux chicken nuggets, and other plant foods. On top of that, we have to transport the animals to slaughterhouses, slaughter them, refrigerate their carcasses, and distribute their flesh all across the country. Producing a calorie of meat protein means burning more than ten times as much fossil fuels -- and spewing more than ten times as much heat-trapping carbon dioxide -- as does a calorie of plant protein. The researchers found that, when it's all added up, the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by going vegetarian than by switching to a Prius”
Which literally shows what are the impacts of raising animals for their meet.
“According to the UN report, it gets even worse when we include the vast quantities of land needed to give us our steak and pork chops. Animal agriculture takes up an incredible 70% of all agricultural land, and 30% of the total land surface of the planet. As a result, farmed animals are probably the biggest cause of slashing and burning the world's forests. Today, 70% of former Amazon rainforest is used for pastureland, and feed crops cover much of the remainder. These forests serve as "sinks," absorbing carbon dioxide from the air, and burning these forests releases all the stored carbon dioxide, quantities that exceed by far the fossil fuel emission of animal agriculture”
http://www.alternet.org/environment/47668
By; Dhiya Al Suliman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)