Opinions EditorAlthough ethical arguments against the slaughter of other species are a primary motivation for those who adopt vegetarianism, there are equally compelling reasons which justify a societal shift from animal to plant-based foods. When I chose to stop eating meat in high school, it was not an overwhelming compassion for animal welfare that drove me to my decision. Rather, the fear of environmental degradation and global warming caused me to reconsider my diet’s heavy reliance on animal protein.
Few people know it, but the livestock industry is one of the primary consumers of our dwindling petroleum and water resources. The production of beef and other meats contributes significantly to global warming, oil depletion and desertification. Considering that Americans are responsible for a full quarter of world beef consumption, perhaps it is time our nation looked seriously at how our diets impact the earth. Not only must we reconsider how we are contributing to environmental problems, but we should also carefully examine the reasons behind our society’s decision to adhere to such an ecologically devastating diet.
Without a doubt, global climate change is one of the most serious problems faced by our generation. Scientists estimate that the planet may warm by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit in the next century, leading to devastating weather extremes and an unparalleled humanitarian crisis. All of this is due to our society’s inability to control emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. Often, when Americans think about what they can do to mitigate their contribution to global warming, they choose to purchase a hybrid car. However, researchers at the University of Chicago have found that switching to a vegetarian diet reduces individual greenhouse gas emissions far more substantially than purchasing a fuel-efficient automobile.
Such is the cause because raising livestock puts an especially heavy burden on our planet’s already unstable climate. The production of a single pound of beef adds 20 pounds of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, the same amount released by burning an entire gallon of gasoline. Cattle are also responsible for the emission of vast amounts of methane, a gas which traps heat at a rate 25 times that of carbon dioxide. Livestock add 60 tons of methane to the environment per year, enough to trigger even more global warming. In order to stop runaway climate change, we must take a closer look at the consequences of a diet laden with meats.
Beyond addressing global warming, we should also consider the other ecological effects of our diet. Desertification and water depletion are two serious results of cattle ranching, and they have both exacted a grave toll on the American West. Cattle transform productive land into deserts by eating all of the available vegetation and trampling whatever remains. Water is also consumed at an unsustainable rate by cattle ranching; growing sufficient feed and providing adequate drinking water to the animals means that one pound of steak requires 15 times as much water as one pound of vegetable protein. The ancient Ogallala aquifer, which lies underneath the Great Plains states, has already been depleted by 50 percent and threatens to be exhausted within the century. If society does not change its course soon, the American West may become a series of ghost towns, abandoned due to the mismanagement of our most precious resource.
Myriad factors, such as the lobbying efforts of the cattle industry and government subsidies for agriculture, have caused Americans to adopt such an ecologically destructive diet. The National Cattle-men’s Beef Association, for example, runs television commercials encouraging the public to buy and cook even more beef. Even more crucially, federal subsidies reduce the price of grain, thus making it easy to raise cattle cheaply, leading to an increase in consumption.
Political action is necessary to remedy these mistakes, but consumer choices offer a more immediate and direct solution to the problem. It is not necessary that everyone become a vegetarian in order to combat the aforementioned problems. Rather, a gradual shift away from a diet centered on animal protein is what our society needs. It has become evident that eating more consciously is the biggest step an individual can take in reducing his or her impact on the resources of our planet. When you decide to junk your SUV, it might be wise to take the steaks sitting in the freezer with you.
Posted by Steve Kaye
As a local farmer raising grass fed beef, I have heard the beef as polluter argument before. As Michael Pollan pointed out in The Omnivore's Dilemma, it is feedlot beef that consumes vast quantities of corn that takes vast quantities of fuel to produce. It is this corn fed beef housed in vast feedlots that produces measureable quantities of methane. Grass fed local beef grazing local pastures are dispersed over considerable acreage, turn grass into protien without the intervention of man-made energy. The grass, when it re-grows, consumes carbon dioxide.
It is the eater's choice: avoid all beef and destroy the fragile economy of local agriculture or buy local beef and support local farms that keep the local landscape green. If the farms disappear, sprawl will surely take their place. All beef is not the same.
Posted on October 15, 2007 04:34 PM