PRO/CON: Hot dog vs. hot planet By Tribune News Service, adapted by Newsela staff on 01.11.16 Word Count 1,556 South Korean animal rights activists wearing livestock masks stage a rally for farm animals slaughtered due to foot-andmouth disease and bird flu, encouraging people to be vegetarians, Seoul, South Korea, Feb. 6, 2011. Photo: AP/ Lee Jinman PRO: To help stop global warming, we have to eat less meat Meat consumption around the world has been rapidly increasing. Unless this trend is reversed, grazing livestock will continue to release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and further damage the environment. Greenhouse gases, which also come from the burning of fossil fuels, build up in the atmosphere once they are emitted. They trap heat and, over time, have caused a sharp rise in average global temperatures. Known as global warming or climate change, this increase has had serious ecological effects, such as rising sea levels, disrupted weather patterns and more water shortages. One way Americans can help reduce the buildup of greenhouse gases is by changing their eating habits. The major players in the livestock industry describe beef, lamb, chicken and pork as healthy food choices. They are not. Livestock production currently accounts for significant greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and the situation is not getting any better. Deforestation to produce more grazing lands also contributes to the growing ecological crisis.
"Livestock's Long Shadow" The big livestock companies have mounted an aggressively deceptive campaign against their critics. They have even gone so far as to suggest, using junk science pushed by climate change deniers, that vegetarians contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than meat eaters. Nothing could be more absurd. In 2006 the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization released a groundbreaking report, titled Livestock s Long Shadow. It concluded that 18 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions were caused by cattle, sheep, buffalo, pigs and poultry. More recent scientific studies have raised to a whopping 51 percent the percentage of greenhouse gases being emitted by livestock. It is an amazing fact that livestock produce more greenhouse gases than all the cars, trucks, airplanes, trains and ships in the world combined. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also sounded the alarm bell over the production of methane gas by livestock. The EPA has stated that methane emissions resulting from the digestive systems of livestock, a process known as enteric fermentation, represents a third of all emissions associated with U.S. agriculture. Adding to the problem of methane emissions is improper manure handling procedures on the part of the livestock industry. In order to save money, massive industrial farms and ranches expose manure storage areas to oxygen and moisture, which contributes to methane levels in the atmosphere. No one championing an environmentally sound livestock industry is calling for a ban on Big Macs or porterhouse steaks. However, there is a need for an overall reduction in the consumption of meat products by the United States and other economically advanced nations. A Growing Problem Now that consumers in China and India are able to afford meat products, global demand has skyrocketed. So have the adverse effects on the environment. Increased demand for feed grain has also contributed to global climate change. Reducing meat consumption must be part of an overall strategy for clean farming. Feeding practices, animal husbandry techniques and livestock health management must all be improved to make them less environmentally destructive. In addition, there is a pressing need for a system that can transform livestock waste into clean energy. Medical experts agree that reducing meat consumption also benefits one s health.
Whether a person opts to be a vegetarian or a carnivore is a personal choice, however. Proposals by governments to impose meat and dairy taxes to offset the cost of environmental damage and public health problems go too far. Governments should not try to dictate what people eat. When it comes to the livestock industry and the environment, it is a far better strategy to stick to the basic problem of greenhouse gas emissions. There is no need to add medical concerns to the debate. The big livestock companies scoff at the notion of a link between their industry and climate change. However, consider a study conducted by the respected medical journal Lancet. It found that a reduction in meat consumption of just a half cup a day can significantly reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions. We can all afford to make that easy sacrifice and our environment will be better off for it. ABOUT THE WRITER: The newly elected president of the Tampa Bay Press Club, Wayne Madsen is a progressive commentator whose articles have appeared in leading newspapers throughout the U.S. and Europe. Readers may write him at 414 Choo Choo Lane, Valrico, FL 33594. This essay is available to Tribune News Service subscribers. Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Tribune or Newsela. CON: Fewer farm animals won't take a bite out of climate change Recently. representatives of most of the world's nations met in Paris for a nearly two-weeklong conference. Together, they hashed out an agreement on what must be done to fight global warming. Climate change activists are disappointed with the Paris agreement, however. In the words of Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders, it does not go far enough. High on the list of climate change activists' policy goals is a tax on meat. Such a tax would be similar to the "sin taxes" levied on tobacco and alcohol, which are meant to help discourage the use of those products. The theory is that meat, especially beef, is disproportionately responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. The activists claim that if we were able to change how people eat, primarily in wealthier countries like the United States, we could take a significant bite out of climate change. Case Against Meat A Stretch A blueprint to achieve the meat tax is laid out in a November report by Chatham House, a London-based think-tank. The group concedes that the issue is complex.
Yet it advises governments to push for the taxes through publicly funded public relations campaigns which make the matter appear clear-cut. The reason for this, it says, is that people "respond best to simple messages. This is an unusual recommendation for a group known for promoting open debate. It is one thing to push vegetarian diets on the basis of health claims or animal rights. The environmental case against meat is a stretch, however. It requires fuzzy math and politicized science. Those backing the taxes point to the United Nations Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model, or GLEAM. In 2013 GLEAM concluded that livestock farming, including beef, poultry and milk production, accounted for 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. However, the model was not developed as fodder for anti-meat campaigns. Rather, it was intended as a tool to guide the livestock industry toward more sustainable production. Using GLEAM as scientific evidence to argue against meat consumption is as far-fetched as it would be to fight organic agriculture because it relies on manure, a source of methane and nitrous oxide, both greenhouse gases. No wonder advocates want to keep their messaging simple. Challenging A Simplistic Claim The idea that reducing meat consumption would make both humans and the Earth healthier is challenged by considering the environmental impact of the alternatives. For instance, almonds, a darling of health food advocates, are highly water-intensive. The U.N. has not yet calculated the water-footprint of your almond milk-based smoothie. So what would be the environmental impact if we did reduce our caloric intake and shifted to the U.S. government s dietary guidelines? Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University evaluated just that. In a study published in Environment Systems and Decisions recently, they said such a change increases energy use by 38 percent, blue water footprint by 10 percent, and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions by 6 percent. Or, as the British newspaper The Independent reported it, Lettuce is three times worse than bacon for emissions and vegetarian diets could be bad for the environment. Of course, replacing meat with lettuce and comparing emissions on a calorie-for-calorie basis is absurd. However, it underscores a major point: meat is a highly efficient source of nourishment and tasty too. The report explains that these perhaps counterintuitive results are primarily due to USDA recommendations for greater caloric intake of fruits, vegetables, dairy and fish/seafood." Such foods "have relatively high resource use and emissions per calorie. USDA is the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
This is not the first study to challenge the simplistic meat is bad for the environment claim. According to a recent study from the University of Michigan s Center for Sustainable Systems, a shift from the "current average U.S. diet to USDA dietary recommendations could result in a 12 percent increase in diet-related GHG emissions." The lesson: if you want to advocate for meat taxes, you will have to keep it simple. Otherwise, the science will get in the way of your agenda. ABOUT THE WRITER: Jeff Stier is director of the risk analysis division of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank. He earned his law degree from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and served two terms as editor-in-chief of the Cardozo Law Forum. Readers may write him at 20 F Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington DC 20001 or reach him on Twitter at @JeffAStier. This essay is available to Tribune News Service subscribers. Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Tribune or Newsela.