« NY State Assembly kills congestion pricing. | Main | Earth Day - Why Bother? »

Back in January, there was a very comprehensive article in the NY Times detailing the environmental costs that meat-eaters generate whenever they order that steak or hamburger. Little known to most people, the meat industry contributes mightily to global warming:

Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated in a published paper 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.

How much meat do we Americans consume?

Americans are downing close to 200 pounds of meat, poultry and fish per capita per year (dairy and eggs are separate, and hardly insignificant), an increase of 50 pounds per person from 50 years ago. We each consume something like 110 grams of protein a day, about twice the federal government's recommended allowance; of that, about 75 grams come from animal protein.

Protein from plants works just fine, and the 30 grams or so we get from non-meat sources is plenty in one day.

The health issues are one thing, the impact on the environment is another:

Perhaps the best hope for change lies in consumers' becoming aware of the true costs of industrial meat production. "When you look at environmental problems in the U.S.," says Professor Eshel, "nearly all of them have their source in food production and in particular meat production. And factory farming is 'optimal' only as long as degrading waterways is free. If dumping this stuff becomes costly -- even if it simply carries a non-zero price tag -- the entire structure of food production will change dramatically."

And then there's the issue of whether it's moral to eat meat in the first place:

Animal welfare may not yet be a major concern, but as the horrors of raising meat in confinement become known, more animal lovers may start to react. And would the world not be a better place were some of the grain we use to grow meat directed instead to feed our fellow human beings?

That's an issue that is complicated and involved, that's for sure. But in the meantime, we can certainly focus on how meat-eating is harming the environment:

Mark Rosegrant of the International Food Policy Research Institute says he foresees "a stronger public relations campaign in the reduction of meat consumption -- one like that around cigarettes -- emphasizing personal health, compassion for animals, and doing good for the poor and the planet."

And the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization, in its detailed 2006 study of the impact of meat consumption on the planet, "Livestock's Long Shadow," made a similar point: "There are reasons for optimism that the conflicting demands for animal products and environmental services can be reconciled. Both demands are exerted by the same group of people ... the relatively affluent, middle-to-high-income class, which is no longer confined to industrialized countries. ... This group of consumers is probably ready to use its growing voice to exert pressure for change and may be willing to absorb the inevitable price increases" of alternative food choices.

Or as Michael Pollan so aptly puts it in this essay of his: "Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

GO VEGGIE!

Name (required)
Email
Website
Remember personal info? Yes   No
Comments

home | music | democracy | earth | money | projects | about | contact

Site design by Matthew Fries | © 2003-23 Consilience Productions. All Rights Reserved.
Consilience Productions, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.
All contributions are fully tax deductible.