Environmental vegetarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Environmental vegetarianism is the practice of vegetarianism based on the belief that the production of meat by intensive agriculture is environmentally unsustainable. The primary environmental concerns with meat production are pollution and the use of resources such as fossil fuels, water, and land.

The use of large industrial monoculture that is common in industrialised agriculture, typically for feed crops such as corn and soy is more damaging to ecosystems than more sustainable farming practices such as organic farming, permaculture, arable, pastoral, and rain-fed agriculture.

Animals fed on grain and those which rely on grazing need more water than grain crops ^[1]. According to the USDA, growing crops for farm animals requires nearly half of the U.S. water supply and 80% of its agricultural land. Animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and 70% of its grain. (This evidence doesn't support this claim.) [2]. In tracking food animal production from the feed through to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1. ^[3] The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits, though this might not be largely true for animal husbandry in the developing world where factory farming is almost non existent making animal based food much more sustainable.

1 Emissions
2 Grazing and land use
3 Water resources
4 Aquatic ecosystems
5 Petroleum and fossil fuels
6 Related economic and social considerations
7 Other criticism
8 Notes
9 References
10 See also
11 External links

[edit] Emissions

Cattle in a feedlot, one of the most inefficient and environmentally harmful ways of producing meat.

Globally, the agriculture sector produces between 50-75% of anthropogenic methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions respectively, and about five percent of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO₂). Agricultural activities contribute to greenhouse gas emissions directly and indirectly. Direct contributions resulting from emissions of CH₄, N₂O, and CO₂ are due to deforestation, biomass burning, ruminant animals, decomposition of soil organic carbon from tillage practices, rice cultivation, fertilizer application, use of manure, and degradation of wetlands. Ploughing or soil turnover is the major cause of CO₂ emissions from cropland. Livestock account for nearly 20% of the total U.S. methane emissions. [4]

Indirect effects account for most of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, and are attributed to emissions of nitrous oxides and other gases from concentrated livestock operations and from microbial activities in soil and water following applications of fertilizers. [5]

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "methane is emitted from a variety of both human-related (anthropogenic) and natural sources. Human-related activities include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (enteric fermentation in livestock and manure management), rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of methane to the atmosphere. It is estimated that 60% of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities. Natural sources of methane include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires." ^[6]

Diagram of agricultural soil N cycle and nitrous oxide production

The American Public Health Association and the United States National Academy of Sciences have stated that "pollution from massive animal factories jeopardizes public health in rural communities across the nation. Bearing no resemblance to the traditional family farm, these facilities pack thousands of animals into small spaces, produce as much waste as a small city, and spew toxic gases and other pollutants into the air. Livestock production is the single largest contributor of ammonia gas release in the United States, and giant animal factories also emit hydrogen sulfide and fine dust particles—both of which are linked to respiratory illness—in dangerous quantities." ^[7]

A study by Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, vegetarians, and assistant professors of geophysics at the University of Chicago, compares the CO2 production resulting from various human diets in the United States. They find that a person in the United States who switched from the typical diet to a vegan diet would, on average, reduce CO2 production significantly more than switching from a Toyota Camry to a hybrid, Toyota Prius. ^[1] Relatedly, the production and consumption of meat and other animal products is associated with the clearing of rainforests, resource depletion, air and water pollution, land and economic inefficiency, species extinction, and other serious environmental harms, as well as various health issues such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, obesity, diabetes, and others ^[2].

Greenhouse gas emissions are not limited to animal husbandry; for instance, in many countries where rice is the main cereal crop, rice cultivation is responsible for most of the methane emissions. ^[8]

[edit] Grazing and land use

Livestock can be an important means of converting otherwise unusable vegetation and crop by-products into high value milk and meat.

Although it has a smaller direct footprint, factory farming requires large quantities of feed and large areas of land. Free-range animal production requires land for grazing, which has led to encroachment on undeveloped lands as well as clear cutting of forests. However, many point that Slash and burn agriculture among other unsustainable agricultural practices are equally, if not more responsible for the cutting down of forests.[9] Such expansion has increased the rate of species extinction and damaged the services offered by nature, such as the natural processing of pollutants. ^[10]

According to the United Nations, "Ranching-induced deforestation is one of the main causes of loss of some unique plant and animal species in the tropical rainforests of Central and South America as well as carbon release in the atmosphere." ^[11] The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) agrees, saying that "Expanding livestock production is one of the main drivers of the destruction of tropical rain forests in Latin America, which is causing serious environmental degradation in the region." ^[12] An earlier FAO study which found that 90% of deforestation is caused by unsustainable agricultural practices. Logging and plantation forestry, though not as major contributors to deforestation, play a greater role in forest degradation. ^[13]

Soy field

Environmental vegetarians believe that the problem of overgrazing can be alleviated by adopting a vegetarian diet ^[14], although "[l]ong-distance air transport, deep-freezing, and some horticultural practices for producing fresh vegetables may lead to environmental burdens for vegetarian foods exceeding those of locally produced organic meat."^[15]

While most meat production in western countries, especially the United States, currently utilizes inefficient grain feeding methods, not all meat production is inherently a poor use of land. A proportion of all grain crops produced is not suitable for human consumption. This can be fed to animals to turn into meat, thus improving efficiency and providing the most food from a certain land area. ^[16] ^[17] Non-commercially produced meats from wild sources, such as those obtained through hunting and fishing, do not add any burden to the local environment so long as their harvest is regulated to maintain healthy population levels. Performed correctly, this form of meat production can serve to manage local game populations that, having lost their natural predators to extirpation, otherwise grow beyond the carrying capacity of their environment and damage the local ecosystem. This form of management also makes use of and provides incentive for more natural areas that provide high quality habitat for all wild species, both game and non-game, as well as providing area for public recreation. To the extent that these practices replace a portion of the diet that would otherwise be produced through commercial means, they actually reduce the ecological footprint of an individual.

[edit] Water resources

Water is becoming increasingly scarce or polluted in many parts of the world. [18] Scientists at the World Water Week conference held in August 2004 advised that "growth in demand for meat and dairy products is unsustainable" and that "[a]nimals need much more water than grain to produce the same amount of food, and ending malnutrition and feeding even more mouths will take still more water." [19]

According to the vegetarian author John Robbins, it takes roughly takes 60, 108, 168, 229 pounds of water to produce a pound of potatoes, wheat, corn and rice respectively. A pound of beef however, requires 12,000 gallons of water.

Professor Pimentel explained of his calculations that:

the data we had indicated that a beef animal consumed 100 kg of hay and 4 kg of grain per 1 kg of beef produced. Using the basic rule that it takes about 1,000 liters of water to produce 1 kg of hay and grain, thus about 100,000 liters were required to produce the 1 kg of beef.

It should be noted that meat production is not the only culprit when it comes to misuse of water resources. Crops like rice pose a significant threat to other crops, and to the human food chain [20]. Farmers in some of the arid regions try to cultivate rice using groundwater bored through pumps, thus increasing the chances of famine in the long run. Furthermore, a study by the World Water Council on the "Virtual Water" (VW) concept shows that rice ranks right under beef, pork, poultry, eggs, and soybeans. [21]

[edit] Aquatic ecosystems

See also: Trawling

Trawling

Trawling, the practice of pulling a fishing net through water behind boats, removes around 5 to 25% of an area's seabed life on a single run. [22] Overfishing has also been widely reported due to increases in the volume of fishing hauls to feed a quickly growing number of consumers. This has led to the breakdown of some sea ecosystems and several fishing industries whose catch has been greatly diminished. [23] [24] The extinction of many species has also been reported. [25] According to an FAO estimate, over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. [26]

According to Nitin Desai, Secretary General of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, "Overfishing cannot continue, the depletion of fisheries poses a major threat to the food supply of millions of people." [27]

A 2005 report of the UN Millennium Project, commissioned by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, recommended the elimination of bottom trawling on the high seas by 2006 to protect seamounts and other ecologically sensitive habitats.[28]

Fisheries experts note that due to decreasing catch from natural sources, aquaculture has overtaken Capture as the main source of aquatic foods. Figures from Infofish indicate that fishing supply has plateaued and is likely to witness marginal growth in the future with captive fish breeding recording exponential growth. ^[29] This, critics note, would drastically reduce the environmental impact of deep sea ocean fishing while serving to create a sustainable food cycle in the Fisheries industry.

[edit] Petroleum and fossil fuels

Farmer ploughing rice paddy, in Indonesia. Animals can provide a useful source of draught power to farmers in the developing world

Petroleum and other fossil fuels are thought to be one of the resources freed up by a vegetarian diet. According to Environmental Health Perspectives: "Fossil fuel energy is also a major input to industrial agriculture. The food production system accounts for 17% of all fossil fuel use in the [[United States, and the average U.S. farm uses 3 kcal of fossil energy in producing 1 kcal of food energy. Meat production uses even more energy. In the typical feedlot system—where a little more than one-half of the cattle's feed is grain—the fossil energy input is about 35 kcal/kcal of beef protein produced. [30]

A Cornell University ecologist states that "animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein." [31] Time magazine has also editorialised on the subject. [32]

A 2006 study at the University of Chicago, "conclude[s] that a person consuming a mixed diet with the mean American caloric content and composition causes the emissions of 1485 kg CO2-equivalent above the emissions associated with consuming the same number of calories, but from plant sources."[33] The study also notes that "Far from trivial, nationally this difference amounts to over 6% of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions."

This view however reflects the situation in the developed world and does not take into account the situation in most third world countries. In the developing world, notably Asia and Africa, fossil fuels are seldom used to transport feed for farm animals. Sheep or goats, for example, require no fuel, since they graze on farmlands, while bales of hay for bovines are still transported mainly using bullock carts or similar devices. Little to no meat processing takes place in the vast majority of the developing world. Animals are also often herded to the place of slaughter (with the exception of poultry) resulting in a very low use of fossil fuels. [34] In fact farm animals in developing world are used for multiple purposes from providing draught power, to transportation while also serving as meat once it reaches the end of its economic life.

A more efficient use of animal waste may be a contributing factor in sustainability. The by-products of slaughtered animals can be used to provide biogas. Trains running on this fuel are already in operation in Sweden [35]. The use of biogas to run mass transit is likely only possible as a side effect of industrial agriculture.

[edit] Related economic and social considerations

Malnourished child and parent in India

Environmental vegetarianism can be compared with economic vegetarianism. An economic vegetarian is someone who practices vegetarianism either out of necessity or because of a conscious simple living strategy. Such a person may base this belief on a philosophical viewpoint, such as the belief that the consumption of meat is economically unsound or that vegetarianism will help improve public health and curb starvation. According to the Worldwatch Institute, "massive reductions in meat consumption in industrial nations will ease the health care burden while improving public health; declining livestock herds will take pressure off of rangelands and grainlands, allowing the agricultural resource base to rejuvenate. As populations grow, lowering meat consumption worldwide will allow more efficient use of declining per capita land and water resources, while at the same time making grain more affordable to the world's chronically hungry." [36]

Environmental vegetarians call for a reduction of first world consumption of meat, especially in the US. According to the United Nations Population Fund "Each U.S. citizen consumes an average of 260 lbs. of meat per year, the world's highest rate. That is about 1.5 times the industrial world average, three times the East Asian average, and 40 times the average in Bangladesh." [37] In addition, "the ecological footprint of an average person in a high-income country is about six times bigger than that of someone in a low-income country, and many more times bigger than in the least-developed countries." [38]

The World Health Organization calls malnutrition "the silent emergency", and says it is a factor in at least half of the 10.4 million child deaths which occur every year.[39][40] Cornell scientists have advised that the U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, although they distinguish "grain-fed meat production from pasture-raised livestock, calling cattle-grazing a more reasonable use of marginal land." [41]

Critics note, starvation in the modern world is largely a political problem and may not be solved through flooding world markets with more grain[42]. Indeed, critics of environmental vegetarianism point out that should the U.S. give this "freed" grain to the developing world, it would amount to dumping, undermining local markets and worsening the situation. Among other results, this could lead also to a decrease in biodiversity [43]. Some environmentalists go even as far as to characterise food aid, in particular grain, as a commercial enterprise interested more in supporting farmers in the developed world than alleviating famine in the developing world [44].

[edit] Other criticism

A widely adopted vegetarian diet, in and of itself, may not have profound effects on the health of the environment. The support of alternative farming practices (e.g. well husbanded organic farming, permaculture, and rotational grazing) and certain plant commodity avoidance such as rice, have a similarly beneficial impact on environmental health and sustainable agriculture. According to Cornell scientists, "the heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable."[45]. Some environmental activists point out, adopting a vegetarian diet may be a way of avoiding more radical changes in lifestyle and may merely be little more than a righteous gesture. Dave Riley, an Australian environmentalist, echoes the views of some non-vegetarian environmentalists when he states that "being meatless and guiltless seems seductively simple while environmental destruction rages around us." [46]. The adoption of a vegetarian or a more restrictive diet such as a vegan diet may not be necessary, because even modest reductions in meat consumption, in industrialized societies, would substantially reduce the burden on our natural resources. [47]