The impact of meat on global warming

Time magazine has a great article on how meat makes global warming worse:

In a 2006 report, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions — by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions.

I've written a few things on my experiment with complete meatlessness, and how one of my motivations is the environmental impact of raising cattle. As of a few months ago, I started eating white meat again. I never plan to eat pork or beef again regularly, although there will probably be times when I'm trapped somewhere and all they offer is BBQ or something. On the ethics, I suppose I just don't think that birds have the same sort of conscious awareness as mammals like pigs and cows do.

Meatlessness

Yesterday, Kristof of the NYT wrote a column about animal rights:

So, yes, I eat meat (even, hesitantly, goose). But I draw the line at animals being raised in cruel conditions. The law punishes teenage boys who tie up and abuse a stray cat. So why allow industrialists to run factory farms that keep pigs almost all their lives in tiny pens that are barely bigger than they are?

Defining what is cruel is, of course, extraordinarily difficult. But penning pigs or veal calves so tightly that they cannot turn around seems to cross that line.

More broadly, the tide of history is moving toward the protection of animal rights, and the brutal conditions in which they are sometimes now raised will eventually be banned. Someday, vegetarianism may even be the norm.

Perhaps it seems like soggy sentimentality as well as hypocrisy to stand up for animal rights, particularly when I enjoy dining on these same animals. But my view was shaped by those days in the barn as a kid, scrambling after geese I gradually came to admire.

So I’ll enjoy the barbecues this summer, but I’ll also know that every hamburger patty has a back story, and that every tin of goose liver pâté could tell its own rich tale of love and loyalty.

His colleague, Mark Bittman, gave a talk at TED that had a lot more moral force behind it:

I went for about a year eating very, very little meat. I gained a lot of weight. Although I wasn't 100% strict, since I would partake of fish and seafood on occasion, I certainly felt good about my decision. When people asked me why I was a vegetarian, I told them three reasons:

1. ethics -- I don't like to cause animals to suffer; they feel pain just like we do
2. health -- studies have been done showing that a plant-based diet is very good for your ticker, while red meat has been clearly linked to cancer and heart disease
   
3. the environment -- the amount of our resources diverted to raising animals for food is vast, and the efficiency of this system is low, compared to directly growing plants for human consumption

Now, none of those three things changes whether or not you choose to be a vegetarian, however, after reading Kristof I don't see how he can make the arguments he makes with a straight face while admitting to eating meat. He talks about the increasing role and rectitude of animal rights, and how his own experiences on a farm support that, but then admits to enjoying burgers and goose liver.

I guess it's like religion: they preach perfection while admitting to being imperfect with a straight face.

Back to me for a moment, this summer I've started eating some poultry again. For one thing, I am getting really tired of what we eat; for another thing, I've gotten really fat. Part of the problem is just eating too many damned carbs, but I think the bigger problem for me is the feeling of being full. High-protein foods are very filling to me, while low-protein foods leave my stomach rumbling an hour later.

Unlike Kristof, I'll not preach it if I'm not practicing it, but I don't know how much I did before.

The big issue for me is getting people to wake up to the environmental impact of raising cattle, but I am afraid that won't happen any time soon.

More animal outrage

I just read the CNN article about the largest beef recall in American history, and watching the accompanying video made me want to cry and punch the slaughterhouse workers at the same time. They take these poor sick diseased animals that are unable to stand and jab them with electric prods, stab them with forklifts, drag them by ropes attached to one foot...

The animals literally scream in pain. It's horrible. If you can't see the ethical implications, you're not capable of rational thought.

If you want to see more animal abuse TV, see here. If you need rational arguments for becoming a vegetarian, or at least cutting meat down to a rare item in your diet, see here. As I said a few months ago, some people just don't understand the environmental impacts of the meat industry -- how much of our fresh water supplies are polluted and how much forest is burned simply to raise cattle. The toll is significant. It really can't be overstated. For those interested in sustainability and the relationship between oil and agriculture, the data is out there.

"Meet your Meat" (12:28), narrated by Alec Baldwin, follows below:

Wake-up call for carnivores

My wife and I have been meatless for a long time now. It feels really good, and though we occasionally (once a month?) used to have fish/seafood, we are cutting that out entirely now. An eye-opening report in the NYT explains the global, environmental and economic impact of American's carnivorism.

Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation.

To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

Read it all.

Some people just don't understand the environmental impacts of the meat industry -- how much of our fresh water supplies are polluted and how much forest is burned simply to raise cattle. The toll is significant. It really can't be overstated. For those interested in sustainability and the relationship between oil and agriculture, the data is out there.

Common Misconceptions

I asked an old friend of mine, Crazilla, if he had anything interesting to say lately...and he sure did. The following are his thoughts, or you can view them at their original source:

Common Misconceptions, by Crazilla

FYI, in a spirited but lighthearted tone:

• There is no "free trade vs. fair trade" conflict. Anyone with a conscience and an understanding of the term desires fair trade; from what i've gathered, its meaning is little more than literal. Free trade, on the other hand, has to do specifically with lessening the restrictive effects of legislation and taxation on the flow of resources, materials, products, labor, and capital across boundaries. It is opposed by many--but, it seems to me, supported, in concept, by many more--proponents of fair trade. The central problem with free trade seems to be that a product (or labor) that comes cheap from one source has the ultimate advantage over the corresponding products (or workers) from other sources of comparable quality, hence free trade undermines competition between sources of differing standards; for example, manufacturing plants in China that pay workers Jack Shit In A Can draw business from the U.S., which has become dependent upon low prices, and as a result businesses that pay U.S. workers decent salaries are sold out. (Overall, i see this as a positive effect of free trade; in the long run it will incite workers the world over to establish criteria of fairness which no company will be able to escape by simply changing location. This is a long way off, however.) Anyway, most advocates of fair trade seem to support relatively free trade on the condition of transparency. The popular myth that free trade and fair trade are opposing ideals seems, as far as i can tell, to stem from misleading reports that focus only on (apparently marginal) calls for balancing tariffs, which would merely serve to price foreign products similarly to domestic products; that is, establishing fairness for the companies in the eyes of the consumer (particularly the U.S. consumer)--the two most overprivileged entities in the trade system (far behind, for example, the farmers, laborers, and undeveloped governments). I obviously am very fresh on this subject, so any further suggestions for reading or thinking (and especially personal opinions) are encouraged.
• You are a feminist. To some extent, you support fairness between (among?) the sexes and (nearly) equal opportunity for men, women, and whomever else in endeavors for which they're comparatively qualified. (If you read through the article, or at least this definition, and do not fit the description, I apologize; among my LJ friends i find no one known to me to oppose this concept. Speaking of which, what in blazes is the matter with you!?)
• Everybody seems to like making fun of vegans. I kinda do, too--at least the ones who found their moral principles on the well-being of animals, particularly in an age when at least a quarter of people the world over are living on less than $1/day. However, it is important to note that many vegetarians and vegans care little (or, as in my case, not at all) for animals' so-called "rights" and humane treatment, and instead found the habit on the larger concern of sustainability--that is, they do it for the betterment of the world human population as a whole, and to better enable our species to fulfill its purpose of avoiding extinction and, in the meantime, to provide better living conditions to those without. However misguided you may feel some of these tactics to be, the cause itself is the noblest possible, and in any case meatless diets cause no one (except, in rare cases, the dieter) harm.

So, no one wants to join me for wine and cheese?

________________
Technorati tags: Free Trade, Fair Trade, Feminism, Vegan, Vegetarian, Sustainability