"The price of greatness is responsibility." Sir Winston Churchill

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. Based on current ecological data, environmental vegetarians believe that intensive farming practices are harmful to the environment. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) "Most of the world's population today subsists on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets for reasons that are economic, philosophical, religious, cultural, or ecological." [1]

The concerns about meat production includes use of resources, consumption of fossil fuels, water resources, and pollution. The use of large industrial monoculture corn and soy fields is contributing to the loss of ecosystems, more so than is found in more sustainable farming or alternative farming practices such as organic farming, permaculture, arable, pastoral, and rainfed agriculture.

Animals fed on grain and those which rely on grazing need more water than grain crops. [2] According to the USDA, growing crops for farm animals requires nearly half of the U. S. water supply and 80% of it's 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. [3]. In tracking food animal production from the feed trough 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. [4] The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits.

Contents [hide] 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 References 9 See also 10 External links

 

Emissions

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. [5]

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. [6]

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "[m]ethane 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." [7]

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." [8]

Critics note, greenhouse gas emissions are not limited to animal husbandry. In many countries where rice is the main cereal crop, rice cultivation is responsible for most methane emissions. [9]

 

Grazing and land use

Although it has a smaller footprint, factory farming still 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. This move has increased the rate of species extinction and damaged the services offered by nature, such as the natural processing of pollutants. Over-grazed lands, especially in semi-arid regions, lose their ability to support animal production because of rapid topsoil erosion and desertification. [10] This makes all types of agricultural expansion necessary.

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 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]

Environmental vegetarians believe that the problem of overgrazing can be alleviated by adopting a vegetarian diet [14]. Such a switch might cause less plant-based food production as well as reduced factory farming, since much of worldwide grain used in livestock production are fit, outside of Genetically modified organism (GMO) laws, for human consumption.

Critics note, a proportion of grain produced is not suitable for human consumption, and this can be fed to animals to turn into meat, thus improving efficiency. [15] and [16]

 

Water resources

Water is becoming increasingly scarce or polluted in many parts of the world. [17] 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." [18]

Critics note, 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 [19]. 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. [20]

 

Aquatic ecosystems

Main article: 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. [21] 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. [22] [23] The extinction of many species has also been reported. [24] According to an FAO estimate, over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. [25]

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." [26]

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.[27]

 

Petroleum and fossil fuels

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. [28]

A Cornell University ecologist states that "[a]nimal 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." [29] Time magazine has also editorialised on the subject. [30]

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. [31]

Critics note, 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 [32]. The use of biogas to run mass transit is likely only possible as a side effect of industrial agriculture.

 

Related economic and social considerations

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 or 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, "[m]assive 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." [33]

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." [34] In addition, "[t]he 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." [35]

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. [36] [37] 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." [38]

Critics note, starvation in the modern world is largely a political problem and may not be solved through flooding world markets with more grain [39]. 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 [40]. Some 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.

 

Other criticism

A widely adopted vegetarian diet, in it 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, "[t]he heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable." [41]. It is worth noting also that adopting a vegetarian diet does not exclude other environmentally damaging practices, such as air travel, driving fossil fuel using automobiles, and failing to recycle. Indeed, as 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 echos the views of some non-vegetarian environmentalists when he states that "[b]eing meatless and guiltless seems seductively simple while environmental destruction rages around us." [42]. 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. [43] The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, for instance, promotes the Center for a Livable Future's Meatless Monday Project. [44]

 

References

• Marlow Vesterby and Kenneth Krupa, "Major Uses of Land in the United States, 1997," U.S. Department of Agriculture Statistical Bulletin
• John Robbins, The Food Revolution, Conari Press: Boston, 2001, p. 238
• John Robbins, Diet For a New America
• Corliss, R. (2002, July). Should We All Be Vegetarians? Time.
• (2003 May-June) How Many Vegetarians are There? 2003 national Harris Interactive survey question. Vegetarian Journal