Is eating meat a detrimental threat to the environment? This debate over meat’s involvement in the global warming crisis was what inspired Nicolette Hahn Niman to write, “The Carnivore’s Dilemma.” Niman hoped writing, “The Carnivore’s Dilemma,” would cause her audience to understand that eating meat, raised on traditional farms, was a superior alternative to vegetarianism. Niman supported her claim by explaining how industrialized farms and vegetarians produce more of the three greenhouse gases that caused global warming, than that produced by traditional farms. Niman’s article fell short of being effective due to flaws in her supporting evidence and conclusion.
He presents a compelling argument for why we have to recall lowering or casting off our intake of animal products, the use of evidence and records to guide his claims. for example, Foer cites the fact that animal agriculture is chargeable for more greenhouse gas emissions than all kinds of transportation combined. via presenting this statistic in a clean and concise manner, Foer makes a robust case for the environmental blessings of lowering our meat consumption. Foer additionally appeals to our sense of morality and values. He emphasizes the significance of compassion and duty in our food choices, encouraging readers to remember the ethical implications of consuming meat.
Kip Anderson of the movie documentary “Cowspiracy” shares a UN study states that the meat and dairy industries, and factory farming currently taking place on the planet emit more fossil fuels into the atmosphere than our entire transportation sector, including cars, boats, trains, planes. The study claims that as much as 18% of greenhouse gas emissions come from animal agriculture, while transportation exhaust totals 13% of all emissions. These emissions are split between three main contributors: carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide, and methane gases. With each gas, animals emissions comes out as a leading contributors with 51%, 32 billion tons, of CO2, 65% of nitrous oxide, and 26% of methane gas emissions directly or indirectly from our
In Mark Bittman’s talk, entitled What’s wrong with what we eat, he discusses all the food we waste and how to reduce our food waste. Due to all the meat we eat, “livestock is the second-highest contributor to atmosphere-altering gases and produces more greenhouse gases than transportation” (Bittman). Livestock also contributes to land degradation, air and water pollution, water shortages, and loss of biodiversity. However, Bittman is quick to point out that the problem isn’t the cattle, but how we use them. We are producing cattle simply to eat and much of the meat they produce is simply thrown away if it is not purchased by a certain date.
The author of this article is Mark Bittman. This article is about American’s meat consumption and the health and environmental problems that come with it. Mark’s argument is that Americans should cut down on meat consumption, because it causes environmental problems, health problems and a lower standard on animal welfare. The first point Mark presents is that meat consumption causes environmental problems.
I remember four years ago, I was watching a documentary that showed the process and handling of beef industries in Canada and US. I could not believe my eyes when I saw the numbers of animals that were killed for the beef industries. After seeing the documentary, I decided to stop eating meat. However, there are more convincing reasons not to eat meat if we see it’s negative effects on our environment. In CNN’s website, I read “Why Beef is The New Suv” written by John D Sutter, opinion columnist.
In “Is a no- meat world really better?” Marcelo Gleiser weighs the pros and cons of eating a strictly vegetarian diet. On one hand, it “ reduces the suffering of animals” (Gleiser 1) and has economic and environmental benefits. There would be “less demand for fresh water, less use of pesticides and antibiotics, more grains for people and less emission of greenhouse gases” (Gleiser 2). On the contrary, less meat eating would mean the “need to eat more plants (Gleiser 2) which would also have environmental impacts.
While methane gas is mostly harmless to humans it’s a major contributor to the global green house problem. Methane is roughly 20 times more harmful than most other carbon emissions to the atmosphere, and rapidly increases global temperatures. As an example of the devastating effect of to much methane emissions can cause, about 250 million years ago at the end of the Permian period the largest mass extinction known to man occurred. This resulted in the extinction of 96% of all sea life and 70% of all terrestrial animals. Scientist believe it was caused by a runaway greenhouse effect caused by methane emission from bacteria.
“Strong growth in meat production and consumption continues despite mounting evidence that meat-based diets are unhealthy, and that just about every aspect of meat production is an environmental disaster with wide sometimes catastrophic consequences.” “The Case Against Meat” article attempts to convince environmentalists to become vegetarians and achieves this purpose efficiently. “The Case Against Meat” is written by Jim Motavalli, a speaker, journalist, and author of nine books specializing in environmental issues. The article was published in The Environmental Magazine in February 2002, with fellow environmentalists as Jim’s target audience. Vegetarianism is a divisive topic today.
With climate change and global warming taking a toll on Earth, the environment is deteriorating: Droughts and heat waves are frequent, natural disasters are intensified, and the temperature continues to rise. Thus, the leading causes of climate change need to be examined and changes need to be executed to salvage the Earth and save it from being slowly uninhabitable. While there are many approaches to the issue, promoting a non-beef diet is the best approach in decreasing carbon dioxide that contributes to climate change and global warming. The production of beef requires significantly more resources than other meat such as chicken and pork.
The consumption of red meat has increased significantly in recent years. The link between red meat consumption and climate change is greatly evident. Therefore, this issue may be considered positive for various stakeholders, while also having a negative impact on others. Not only is the consumption of meat a major contributor to climate change, but the production of the meat consumed influences the climate as well. Livestock produces a considerable amount of greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide, which accounts for more than 18% of greenhouse gas emissions.
The natural reaction is to answer yes, because even if red meat is only a (large) fraction of total meat consumption, its production has proportionally the biggest impact on the environment. First, red meat requires a lot of resources to produce. One kilo of feedlot beef requires 15 500 L of water, about 7kg of grain and every kcal of beef requires 57 kcal of energy (mostly fossil). Even if range beef does not require grain and requires less energy per kcal, it still requires more water than their industrialized counterparts (even if the water footprints are completely different). These statistics reveal that red meat production and especially beef are eroding considerably our available natural resources: energy, water and
The first issue would be the amount of green house gases factory farms release into the atmosphere. Live stock production produces green house gases such as nitrous oxide, ammonia and methane which all have detrimental effects on our environment (Ilea, R.C. 2009, pg.143). The production of livestock such as the broiler chicken is responsible for 18% of the total global green house gas emissions in our atmosphere (Pearce, J.I. 2011, pg.447). Out of these greenhouse gases methane poses the largest threat, this is because it has 23 times the global warming potential than any other greenhouse gas. This is an alarming matter because the production of livestock is responsible for 35-40% of the total methane emissions in the atmosphere therefore it contributes to the harmful effects of climate change (Ilea, R.C. 2009, pg.143).
Beef is heavily consumed however, it is detrimental to the environment to raise a substantial amount of livestock. The results from the carbon footprint quiz were not surprising. The category with the greatest consumption is food and shelter. However, food plus shelter might contribute significantly to my carbon footprint; both are still somewhat smaller compared to a whole household of people.
Also, ubiquitous vegetarians negatively affect the environment. Hence, a regular diet consisting of meat outclasses vegetarianism in health and environmental impacts. To go along with poor personal health, vegetarianism negatively affects the health of the environment and endanger the lives of other organisms. For starters, David Pimentel and Marcia Pimentel from the “American Journal of Clinical Nutrition” states, “about 90% of US cropland suffers from topsoil loss at 13 times the sustainable rate” (qtd.
