When you sit down in front of your plate every day, you speak louder about your feelings towards the environment than perhaps any other time throughout your day. Previous attempts at pointing this out result in overwhelmingly negative responses, but you don't have to take my word for it. A little bit of science and math (something that we Dems are known to love), are all that are needed to prove the point.
Within this article, I want to cover the environmental impacts of meat, then the scientific and political factors that prevent the information from becoming mainstream. This is important because it is easy to compare the quieting of scientists in this case to Global Warming scientists.
Livestock Population and Concentration
When discussing the environmental concerns of meat production, it is important to note the sheer quantity of animals that exist simply for our future consumption.
There are 20 billion head of livestock taking up space on the Earth, more than triple the number of people. According to the Worldwatch Institute, global livestock population has increased 60 percent since 1961, and the number of fowl being raised for human dinner tables has nearly quadrupled in the same time period, from 4.2 billion to 15.7 billion. U.S. beef and pork consumption has tripled since 1970, during which time it has more than doubled in Asia. 4
Now the extremity of the problem can be assessed from this point of view: At least three head of livestock exist for each person on this earth. It then follows that any person that contributes to this problem through consumption takes responsibility for the wastes that are produced by the livestock that represent them. From the same article, the author notes that the "The Union of Concerned Scientists points out that 20 tons of livestock manure is produced annually for every U.S. household."
4
Further, as Americans, we take the lead (as usual) in the consumption of meat, in a major way. We of course have massive quantities of wealth output (but I'm not going to get into the economic ramifications of the mess), and therefore would take the lead here, as we do in fuel consumption, and most other forms of consumption, for that matter:
Global meat consumption is highly concentrated, dominated by only a few nations. The United States and China, which contain 25 percent of the world's population, combine to consume 35 percent of the world's beef, over half of the world's poultry, and 65 percent of the world's pork. If Brazil and the European Union are included, this group consumes over 60 percent of the world's beef, over 70 percent of the world's poultry, and over 80 percent of the world's pork.1
Energy Inefficiency
Making a pound of meat is highly inefficient compared to the vegetarian diet.
The 4.8 pounds of grain fed to cattle to produce one pound of beef for human beings represents a colossal waste of resources in a world still teeming with people who suffer from profound hunger and malnutrition.
...
More than a third of all raw materials and fossil fuels consumed in the U.S. are used in animal production.
...
"Beef production alone uses more water than is consumed in growing the nation's entire fruit and vegetable crop."4
or
Each kilo of meat represents several kilos of grain, either corn or wheat, that could be consumed directly by humans. If the 670 million tons of the world's grain used for feed were reduced by just 10 percent, this would free up 67 million tons of grain, enough to sustain 225 million people or keep up with world population growth for the next three years. If each American reduced his or her meat consumption by only 5 percent, roughly equivalent to eating one less dish of meat each weak, 7.5 million tons of grain would be saved, enough to feed 25 million people-roughly the number estimated to go hungry in the United States each day.1
how about
More than one third of the world's grain harvest is used to feed livestock.
...
Some 70 to 80% of grain produced in the United States is fed to livestock.
...
Half the water consumed in the U.S. is used to grow grain for cattle feed.6
The basics of the matter is, meat is a highly inefficient use of resources. Articles on peak oil sometimes show up here, to great applause, but the connection of energy = food and the waste that sits on your plate is mentioned, it is often rejected. I can understand this, because, like most Americans, we want to be left alone, and what we eat is our business. I understand this, but the fact of the matter is that our modern agricultural infrastructure is on the brink. Its just one more thing waiting go give way.
If future generations matter to you at all, now is the time to make a choice to preserve the existing resources that we have. The best way you can do this is by getting meat off your plate as often as possible.
Livestock Waste
Livestock (which outnumber us three to one) produce massive quantities of waste in comparison to normal human activity.
Energy-intensive U.S. factory farms generated 1.4 billion tons of animal waste in 1996, which, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, pollutes American waterways more than all other industrial sources combined.4
You take all of the industries that we complain about, all of that pollution, and realize that all of the work is for naught when someone puts a steak on their plate.
Scientific analysis has shown that the livestock sector produces more ammonia than any other industry in the country, accounting for 73 percent of ammonia emissions each year. 5
Ammonia, big deal, right? Most of this ammonia comes from
chicken farms which are, oddly enough, exempt from pollution reporting requirements
5.
According to EPA, the world's livestock herds account for roughly 25 percent of anthropogenic emissions of methane-a potent greenhouse gas contributing to climate change.1
Methane is about eight times as potent as carbon monoxide as an effect for global warming. I'm hoping that at this point, the defense of carnivorism is become more and more difficult, even without other considerations. Just for good measure, and so that the extent of waste that is created by livestock can be
fully appreciated:
The massive quantities of waste produced by livestock and poultry threaten rivers, lakes and other waterways. In the United States, where the waste generated by livestock is 130 times that produced by humans, livestock wastes are implicated in waterway pollution, toxic algal blooms and massive fishkills. And livestock farms are getting larger throughout the world: one 50,000-acre hog farm under construction in Utah will produce more waste than the city of Los Angeles.1
Free Range Beef
While more sustainable, free range beef results in a different set of problems that need to be considered. This includes the desertification of massive tracts of land to the threatening of endangered species.
This is a process which turns productive land (normally, but not always, productive semi-arid land), into non- productive desert. It is a misconception that droughts cause desertification. Overgrazing is the major cause of desertification worldwide.2
And this is only the beginning, because once desertification happens, another trend becomes apparent.
Once rangelands are fully exploited, substantial future gains in beef production can come only from feedlots. At that point, the competition with pork and poultry for feed grain will intensify. Beef production requires nearly twice as much grain as pork and nearly four times as much grain as poultry. (It takes 7 kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of beef: the conversion is 4 to 1 for pork and 2 to 1 for chicken.)1
Further, we have to face it. We cannot supply the meat needs (read:
desires) of the United States with this kind of production.
While "local food movements" and a resurgent interest in grass-fed and free-range animal production are gaining traction and deserve our full support, they will never be enough to stem the "blood-dimmed tide" of the livestock industry.7
Many of us are concerned about the rainforest, and natural predator populations as well.
We have altered vast ecosystems and devoted massive resources to support our livestock populations, which have grown much more rapidly than human population since mid-century. The ecological footprint of world meat production includes forest destruction for ranching in Central and South America, suppression of native predators and competitors in the United States, and the introduction of invasive forage species virtually everywhere commercial ranching exists.1
How Meat is So Cheap
Despite its massive energy costs, water waste and all the problems associated with waste management (that never occurs, really), meat is incredibly cheap. This is because of a number of reasons, but the most major one is obvious - government subsidy. Now, using the Farm Subsidy Database
8, there are some important statistics about meat production.
First, it must be noted that Dairy and Livestock come at numbers 9 and 10 for subsidy receipt, at $3,130,626,423 and $2,627,217,935. That isn't a lot of money, but remember that earlier it was noted that 70 - 80% of grain when directly towards feeding cattle in the US. This includes #1, 3 and 4 (corn, wheat, and soy) at values of $41,862,104,072, $19,834,815,250 and $13,017,619,410. Now, the savings for these products aren't passed directly to the vegetarian consumer (ever try to buy a pound of edamame at the store?). They are instead sold extremely cheap to meat producers, at below the cost of making them.
Looking further down the list, I thought that I'd note that the first item with
real nutritional value that is listed for vegan consumption would be apples, at #17, with $261,814,071. That is three below tobacco.
Even after all of this is said, it is worth noting that:
U.S. shoppers spend less on food as a percentage of their total annual expenditures than anyone else in the world. But this is because factory livestock farms--labeled "concentrated animal feeding operations" (CAFOs) by government agencies--don't pay for the natural resources they have squandered, the farm labor they have maltreated, the declining health of residents who live near their operations, or the animals that have been exploited far beyond their biological capabilities.7
This article contains further anecdotal information about Corporate Farms, which I'm just going to dump here, lacking a better place to put it.
Seaboard demanded and received $60 million in local and state government assistance. This worked out to $27,552 per new job, a tolerable sum if the jobs paid $20 per hour, but the average hourly Seaboard wage was less than $8.
...
Herein lies the rub. The same government and private industry partnership that brought CAFOs to America's marginalized rural communities is highly invested in not just keeping them there, but in seeing them metastasize. Through lax environmental regulations or the under-funding of agencies charged with regulating CAFOs, state governments have fostered CAFO-friendly policies at the public's expense.
...
In 1998, New Mexico State University researcher Stephen Arnold found serious air and water quality problems near dairy operations in southern New Mexico. When the results were released through professional journals and conferences, the dairy industry complained so vehemently to the university that Arnold abandoned his research.7
I imagine that last one is slightly undone today, thanks to the Oprah effect, but the fact remains that corporations are a major funding body for research institutes.
Inefficiencies in the ENTIRE system
Not wanting to be hypocritical, I might as well note that the entire food delivery system is pretty bad.
For every calorie of carrot, flown in from South Africa, we use 66 calories of fuel. The huge fuel use in the food system means more carbon dioxide emissions, which means climate change, which means more damage to food supplies, as well as other major health and social problems.
...
Moreover, at a time when we should be making massive cuts in the emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in order to reduce the threat posed by climate change, the food system is lengthening its supply chains and increasing emissions to the point where it is a significant contributor to global warming.3
That being said, it is clear that we do not need to make the system less efficient through the support of the meat industry.
Conclusion and Final Appeal
It is conclusive, I think. If you want to aid in the protection of the planet, the
best thing you can do involves your gullet (and not having kids, as others will inevitably point out).
Many of us here want to do as much as we can to protect the environment. Thus I appeal to you, not for economic or ethical concerns, but simply because of the environment, you should either quit eating meat or massively reduce your consumption of it (as noted in previous articles, some people are forced to eat it at least once a week for medical reasons).
Biblography:
1.
United States Leads World Meat Stampede. July, 2, 1998,
http://www.worldwatch.org/..., Accessed 3/28/2006.
2.
A True Picture of Meat and Dairy Consumption.
http://www.dfwnetmall.com/..., Accessed 3/28/2006.
3.
unknown title,
http://www.energybulletin.net/..., Accessed 3/28/2006
4.
The Case Against Meat, Jim Motavalli.
http://www.emagazine.com/..., Accessed 3/28/2006
5.
UCS Comments on Poultry Emissions, Susan Prolman, J.D., January, 13th, 2006.
http://www.ucsusa.org/..., Accessed 3/28/2006.
6.
Beef, Anup Shah.
http://www.globalissues.org/..., Accessed 3/28/2006.
7.
Meat-Industrial Complex, Mark Winne, In These Times.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/..., Accessed 3/28/2006.
8.
National Farm Subsidy Statistics, Farm Subsidy Database.
http://www.ewg.org/..., Accessed 3/28/2006.