|
|
| Fig. 1: This is an example of a cow farm. (Source: Wikimedia Commons) |
The meat industry plays a rather large role in global warming. Why? 18% of the global production of greenhouse gases can be attributed to the raising of livestock for food. The only industry that produces a greater level of greenhouse gases is the global energy production, which is 21%. [1] The global average for beef consumption is 22 pounds per year. However, developed countries, such as the US, tend to have higher amounts of consumption per year, as wealthier countries tend to be able to afford meat. The world beef consumption continues to increase, as countries, such as Asia, become more developed. [1] This, in return, results in an increase in the raising of livestock and consequently, an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Fig. 1 shows an example of standard cow farm.
Specifically, in the United States, animal agriculture accounts for 42% of total agricultural emissions. [2] Compared to the global 18%, the United States total emissions for agriculture is only 8%. This is not because the U.S. raise less livestock than other countries, but because the United States produces greater amounts of greenhouse gases from power plants and in the transportation sector. The beef industry is very large in the U.S., yielding 94 million head of cattle worth around $73 billion. Beef production is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the US. [3]
Will a Vegan diet save the planet? The results of a study of a hypothetical vegan world drastically impacted the planet. [4] A vegan world would produce 49% less greenhouse gas emissions from the food industry. Additionally, this vegan world would result in 50% less acidification of the land and use 19% less water. [4] These results are bases on a world with 0 meat producing farms. Ultimately, a vegan diet, with 0 meat production would help save the planet, but is rather unrealistic.
While a Vegan diet, given meat production globally is greatly reduced or eliminated, would drastically reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, this hypothetical situation is unrealistic. A more realistic option would be to cut down on the production of meat, without completely eliminating it. While the results will not be as beneficial, any reduction in the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from meat industry would be positive.
© Hannah Howell. The author warrants that the work is the author's own and that Stanford University provided no input other than typesetting and referencing guidelines. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.
[1] B. Plumer, "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rose Last Year. Here Are the Top 5 Reasons," New York Times, 22 Mar 18.
[2] L. Friedman, K. Pierre-Louis, and S. Sengupta, "The Meat Question, by the Numbers," New York Times, 25 Jan 18.
[3] J. Schwartz and K. Pierre-Louis, "A Reason to Be Thankful: We're Not Necessarily Doomed," New York Times, 21 Nov 18.
[4] N. Kilvert, "Would You Go Vegan to Save the Planet? Researches Say It Might Be Our Best Option," ABC News (Australia), 31 May 18.
