Memo to Environmentalists: It's Time to Seriously Address the Number One Cause of Global Warming

In the August 27 New Yorker, there is a cartoon showing two men on a private plane. Off to the side is a recycling bin; as one man tosses a piece of paper into the bin, he explains, "I try to do my part." This cartoon made me think of environmentalists who urge people to drive less, switch to hybrid cars, use energy-efficient light bulbs, and make other similar changes, while they ignore the global warming, waste, and pollution that is produced by funneling crops through chickens, pigs, and other farmed animals.

Last week, The New York Times ran an article about the animal protection community's efforts to convince the environmental community to break its silence on the critical fact that almost 20 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions are the product of our national addiction to chicken nuggets and other animal products. That's more than all the cars, trucks, and planes in the world combined, according to the 2006 U.N. report, "Livestock's Long Shadow."

And the environmental problems with eating animals transcend global warming: The U.N. report concluded that the meat industry is "one of the ... most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." The U.N., in its 408-page indictment of the meat industry, specifically addressed the contribution of eating meat to "problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity."

Since the best thing you as an individual can do for the environment is to adopt a vegetarian diet, wouldn't you think that the environmental community would be addressing the issue in a significant way? Sadly, Al Gore doesn't discuss the issue at all. According to Mr. Gore's deputy press secretary, however, the suggestion to "modify your diet to include less meat" appears on Page 317 of An Inconvenient Truth (though it's not in the movie at all). And the Sierra Club, when listing "10 things you can do to help curb global warming," ignores this number one issue completely.

There are signs of change, fortunately. Although Environmental Defense neglects the issue in its main global warming brochure, it does address it on its global warming Web page, noting that "If every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetables and grains, for example, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads... Having one meat-free day per week would be the same as taking 8 million cars off American roads." So imagine the impact of adopting a fully vegetarian diet!

Greenpeace has done just that. The group both walks the walk and talks the talk, serving only vegetarian food at all the organization's events. And they call attention to the connection between meat and environmental degradation on their Web site, noting that a vegetarian diet means "saving vital chunks of rainforest, consuming less raw materials, saving water and generating less pollution." Greenpeace has also targeted KFC for the destruction of the rainforests because the Amazon is being razed to grow feed for KFC's chickens.

Don't get me wrong: I have a deep respect and admiration for Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, Carl Pope, and all the others who selflessly trying to make the world a better place. I know that they genuinely care about ending global warming and all environmental issues.

But evidence shows that eating animals is the number one individual cause of global warming and that it's in the top three causes of every significant environmental problem, from the smallest to the largest. So it's past time for the environmental movement to tell people the truth--that adopting a vegetarian diet is the most important action any of us can take, both to decrease our support for global warming and also to address our support for all the rest of the "most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global" (to quote the United Nations).

Get started right away with recipes, menu plans, cookbook recommendations and more at www.VegCooking.com.

Comments

[KathyF]

Quite a few people here advocate the eat-less approach rather than the eliminate-entirely i.e., cold turkey approach.

Dr. Dean Ornish addressed this in one of his books. He points out how difficult it is to switch to 2 percent milk after enjoying whole milk if you only have 2 percent once or twice a week. You are constantly reminded of what you're giving up, and the 2 percent is always considered lacking as you compare it to the taste of whole milk.

But if you switch to 2 percent milk completely and never look back, you very quickly forget what whole milk tasted like and you never long for the taste again. In fact, you find it rather gross!

I had a similar experience when I gave up coffee. Has anyone else found it easier to give something up completely than to reduce it incrementally?

[Stewart]

Of course locally grown and sustainably raised foods are very important issues. But absent from this conversation is the simple fact that eating locally produced animal products is not a solution for the masses. It"s impossible for more than a miniscule percentage of Americans to eat only locally produced meat, dairy products, and eggs without consumption being drastically curtailed.


Over 300 million people living in America, and in excess of 6.5 billion on the planet. The amount of land we use for agriculture is staggering, and increasing exponentially. Most of it is used to grow food to feed animals. Raising animals on small farms would require more land. In the US, moving the 9 billion chickens raised for food annually into outdoor sustainable environments (50 per acre) would require over 40 million acres. That"s an area much larger than most US states. And that"s just for the "broiler" chickens; much more land would be needed for the egg-layers, pigs, veal calves, ducks, turkeys, cows, and other animals now raised in intensive confinement. The massive deforestation and the wildlife destruction that would accompany such a change is clearly not an acceptable, eco-friendly alternative to factory farming. Nor is it economically feasible. Calls for a return to the perceived quaintness of the family farm of days gone by are unrealistic. Twenty-first century solutions require that we look forward, not backward.

Another issue seldom raised is that few people can afford or have access to locally raised animal products. What is everyone else supposed to eat? Should the masses continue to eat factory-farmed foods that destroy the planet? Or perhaps only the poor need become vegetarians? Rather than this becoming a class issue, society should, instead, recognize and encourage the necessity of a shift towards plant-based diets. "Elite meat" is not the answer.

[SmackwaterJack]

Forget-about-it!

I got a solution...

If we just started eating people, we could have our meat and eat it too. :)

Ok, so that's a little extreme, how about just the legs, Bush says "we can get'em a new set of legs." Just a thought.

[1will]

I only eat the tasty animals. I figure if they're sitting on my hamburger bun they they are not hurting the enviroment. Me and Al Gore, true enviromentalists.

[BruceGFriedrich]

It may be "natural," but that doesn't make it right, of course.

Other animals are more like us than they are unlike us, that they are our "cousins," to quote Richard Dawkins. Other animals are made of flesh, blood, and bone, like we are. And of course a dead animal is, like a dead human, a corpse. Other animals have the same five physiological senses of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch. Any difference between a human and another animal is a difference of degree, not kind.

Dr. Albert Schweitzer put it well when he stated that "compassion, in which ethics takes root, does not assume its true proportions until it embraces not only man but every living being." Interestingly, the animal rights perspective has been embraced by a wide range of brilliant thinkers and humanitarians that includes Pythagoras, Leonardo da Vinci, Albert Einstein, Harriet Beecher Stowe, C.S. Lewis, Susan B. Anthony, Leo Tolstoy, and Mahatma Gandhi.

More recently, we have moral heavyweights on our side that include Carl Sagan, Peter Singer, Richard Dawkins, and John Rawls"three of the foremost thinkers of the past 100 years, including the foremost Darwin scholar, Dawkins, and the man who the New York Times called the most influential philosopher alive, Peter Singer.

Check out the "Why Animal Rights" section of www.PETA.org.

[ndavis]

Thanks for posting this!

It's amazing the denial some people are in. I get an environmental email newsletter and they suggest things like only putting as much water in your tea kettle as you intend to use right away. That way you aren't heating extra water. But they don't suggest becoming vegan.

Hello? Which is worse for the environment, all those animals we raise, all the grain we feed them, and all the chemicals we pump into them, or my tea kettle? Not that I'm not going to stop filling it up...

As for the commenters saying that eating meat is natural, that's irrelevant. We can live without it and it's killing us, the planet, and billions of animals. Living indoors with electric lights isn't natural either actually. We're so apart from nature now we can't claim we're cave men hunting with rocks any longer.

For those who think that local and organic/free range meat is the answer, get real. Look at the world population and ask if there's enough land and resources for every single person on earth to eat free range local animal products every day? With our population and our eating habits there is no way eating animals can be carbon neutral.

[Boxorox]

Misanthrope2-
Based on what yout said:
"Those who dine on corpses get really angry when you point out how cruel they are."
I would suppose that you probably believe in the ultra-nobility of the American Indian of centuries ago. There is the mythology of how they lived off the land, preserved their environments, and took only what they needed. Well, that's a bunch of bull. Case-in-point: The American west has numerous historical landmarks of so-called Buffalo Jumps, hillsides and cliffs to which the Indians would force a herd of buffalo to stampede and thereby cause them to fall, jump or even be pushed over the edge toward their deaths. Hundreds of animals would die in such chases, all to suit the immediate needs of tribe of 20 - 50 individuals. Don't preach to me about the moral responsibility of shunning meat. I like it. It's good for me. I waste nothing. I shall eat even more now. Thank you!

[IsaacKuo]

Mankind has been eating meat since before the dawn of history. Natural predators have been eating meat since long before the existence of man. Meat eating doesn't inherently destroy the environment, it's part of the environment.

Advocating the total elimination of meat eating is unnatural. Environmentalists who actually go out and EXPERIENCE the environment see with their own eyes how meat eating as an inherent part of nature. That's the reason why most environmentalists don't go around advocating the elimination of meat eating. It both sounds crazy and is crazy.

That said, advocating a reduction in meat consumption is reasonable and natural. Humans are omnivores, and historically our diets have been more balanced.

Also, the environmental impacts of current meat production methods are undeniable and could be dramatically reduced. There's no reason meat consumption can't be carbon neutral--that's the way meat was consumed for millions of years.

[BruceGFriedrich]

It may be "natural," but that doesn't make it right, of course.

Other animals are more like us than they are unlike us, that they are our "cousins," to quote Richard Dawkins. Other animals are made of flesh, blood, and bone, like we are. And of course a dead animal is, like a dead human, a corpse. Other animals have the same five physiological senses of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch. Any difference between a human and another animal is a difference of degree, not kind.

Dr. Albert Schweitzer put it well when he stated that "compassion, in which ethics takes root, does not assume its true proportions until it embraces not only man but every living being." Interestingly, the animal rights perspective has been embraced by a wide range of brilliant thinkers and humanitarians that includes Pythagoras, Leonardo da Vinci, Albert Einstein, Harriet Beecher Stowe, C.S. Lewis, Susan B. Anthony, Leo Tolstoy, and Mahatma Gandhi.

More recently, we have moral heavyweights on our side that include Carl Sagan, Peter Singer, Richard Dawkins, and John Rawls"three of the foremost thinkers of the past 100 years, including the foremost Darwin scholar, Dawkins, and the man who the New York Times called the most influential philosopher alive, Peter Singer.

Check out the "Why Animal Rights" section of www.PETA.org.

[cvandijk1]

The problem isn't meat. (I do agree we eat to much of it, but it's not the problem.) The problem is how we are producing meat and what we are feeding meat. Corn. 25% of the items in the average supermarket contain corn. Livestock is fed corn. Cows are herbivores and eat grass. The grow slowly. But in factory farms they are fed corn so they reach slaughter weight faster. Their feed also goes through them faster and is unable to be used as fertilizer as the grass is and produces methane, a larger contributer to greenhouse gases than co2. Instead of letting cattle roam and graze freely, rotating grazing fields that replenish the grasses, they are penned in large numbers in areas that are clearcut and turned into giant kennels. Corn is grown to make oil, high-fructose corn syrup and feed. It will require 50 gallons of oil to cultivate and harvest one acre of corn. We have to transport the corn, which uses fossil fuels. We have to process the corn, which uses fossil fuels. It finds its way into almost all of our food. It is one of the main causes of the American obesity epidemic.

This has been documented very well in Michael Pollan's book, The Omnivore's Dilema.

The solution is a regression - a return to buying locally. Local grass fed beef, grain fed chickens who actually do roam free, not in pens. To buying from ranchers who work the land, family farms who don't use petroleum pesticides that pollute the ground water, local dairies with grass fed cows. Real food that does not have to be shipped across the country. It's not a meatless revolution, but a farmers market revolution... A green market revolution.

[devora]

"The solution is a regression - a return to buying locally."

Absolutely correct. After reading Pollan"s book and Barbara Kingsolver"s Animal, Vegetable, Miracle I am convinced that local is the answer. We can"t get Americans to give up much of anything, but maybe we can get them to shop for local products.

(And stop breeding like rabbits!??)

[KathyF]

Well, I personally find it much easier to simply give up animal foods than to exist on a local diet. I've tried both, and I live in a relatively rural area with several farmers markets within a few miles.

[ellencramer]

Thanks Bruce Friedrich. There is no good reason not to go vegetarian given environmental and healthy benefits, the given the horrifically cruel farming practices that are ubiquitous in today's meat industry.

Some people don't want to go vegetarian because they are afraid of change. Once those people try vegetarianism for two weeks, they will most likely regret that they didn't do it sooner. I know this was the case with me.

[Sumocat]

I've chosen to not eat meat, but I believe the problem with meat is not so much about eating meat but about the way it is produced. Factory farms have nearly swept traditional farming into obscurity. While a true farm is environmentally friendly, the food factories that now dominate are every bit as polluting as industrial factories, if not more so since they do not follow the same guidelines.

I certainly wouldn't mind being in the company of more vegetarians, but reducing our meat consumption to healthy levels (the rise in heart disease is directly related to our overconsumption of meat) and supporting true farms would address the primary environmental problems of eating meat.

[ihavenobias]

Yes and no on the health impact.

I've known vegans that basically eat cheetos, twizzlers and mountain dew (or what have you), etc all day.

There are still plenty of refined, processed junk foods that contain no meat. In fact, almost the entire "junk food" section at your local grocer is stuffed with non-meat based products.

[Sumocat]

Actually, I didn't make any statements on the impact eating meat vs. not eating meat has on our health. Eating too much meat definitely does have negative effects, and I think that needs to be reduced to healthy levels in order to address the environmental problems presented here. But that's not a matter of one vs. the other.

BTW, by definition, a vegan doesn't eat Cheetos, so your friend was not technically a vegan.

[Misanthrope2]

As a vegetarian, I am very careful about telling flesh eaters what not to eat animals. Those who dine on corpses get really angry when you point out how cruel they are. Years of studied ignorance makes them violent when they are told the simple truth that their existence is based on unnecessary cruelty. It's hard to tell carrion lovers that they are really not very nice people or they wouldn't dine on the flesh of slaughtered feeling, living, thinking beings.

[CriminallySane]

If you think that's difficult, try putting up with the self-righteous.

[BruceGFriedrich]

LOL.

[andygaus]

Is raising cows, sheep, and pigs practical at all if they aren't to be raised for their meat? Can we also do without all the other products of those animals, such as dairy products, leather, and wool? Obviously we need less meateating and fewer animals, but do we want zero cows or do we want a smaller cow population of some optimal size? How many pigs? None whatever? A few? Has anyone tried to model the various factors and imagine what size of livestock holdings would be ideal for the United States?

[BruceGFriedrich]

These questions are discussed in the "Why Animal Rights" section of www.PETA.org.

[Heather Shirley]

Love the article.

I switched to vegetarian living a couple years ago (and virtually no dairy). It was so much fun, because I love adventure, trying new things, and learning about new ideas. Every time I went shopping, I'd explore new vegetarian products. I found that without the following three products, I might not have been able to make the switch with so much ease: 1) Veganaise (better than Hellman's mayo, 2) Soy Delicious Ice Cream (praline pecan or mint chocolate chip, and 3) the no-meat beer brats and veggie burgers.

Good luck to anyone who decides to explore the unknown while making a huge positive difference to so many of us.

[ihavenobias]

Heather,
One thing that people promoting vegetarian/vegan diets shouldn't ignore is that soy protein is NOT an optimal protein source for men, and that while it has some positive qualities it also has some negatives.

While adults should be concerned, this is especially true in babies and pre-puberty children where it can potentially have serious negative consequences (primarily due to the phytoestrogens, the same estrogen like compounds that are used to market soy for women).

Also, a high soy intake can interfere mineral intake (among other things) due to the high phytate content.

Finally, while there are concerns about RGbH and hormones in milk we shouldn't ignore pesticides and the like used to produce soy.

[ihavenobias]

I meant to say mineral *uptake*, not intake.

PS---Soy chicken nuggets and corn dogs taste EXACTLY like the real thing. The burgers? No, not really.

[BruceGFriedrich]

It's worth remembering that more than 90 percent of soy is fed to farmed animals.

But yes, we should eat beans, grains, nuts, etc., not just soy!

Re: pesticides and herbicides, since they are fat soluble, one gets about 14 times as much pesticide/herbicide residue from eating meat than from eating crops, because the crops that are fed to animals are also drenched in pesticides/herbicides, and they concentrate in the animals' milk, eggs, and flesh.

This is discussed in the health section of www.GoVeg.com, in the contaminants section.

[SteveWeisert]

Please explain how cattle ranches and pig farms cause more pollution than automobile exhaust and factory emissions. You make this claim, but don't prove it.

[FrankenforSenate08]

Check out www.GoVeg.com/eco. That goes in depth into your questions. The "Livestock's Long Shadow" U.N. report (which you can find with a Google search) also answers this question in detail.

[stevesrant]

Thankyou Mr. Weisert - We have known for thirty years how factory farming of animals decimates our water and uses ten times the land area for feed crops. I have yet to read a consistent, focused explanation that lays out the facts (numbers would be nice) about this emission issue. Also,for what it's worth, PETA and environmentalists in general (and I am one) would greatly further their cause if they would stick to the subject at hand instead off using every issue as a springboard to further their entire agenda. It would also help if they addressed the global population on gloabal issues instead of only Americans - last I checked, McDonalds et al., were doing quite well in China and almost every other country in the world.

[BruceGFriedrich]

If we have to grow massive amounts of grain and soy"with all the tilling, irrigation, crop dusters, and so on that are required"truck all that grain and soybeans to factory-style farms and feedlots, feed it to the approximately 10 billion land animals who are raised for food in the U.S. each year, truck those animals to automated slaughter facilities, truck the dead animals to processing centers, run the processing and packaging machines, and then truck the packaged meat to grocery stores"well, there"s a lot of energy being used up at each one of those stages.