Webmail: PlaNet www.pl.net
0800 752638
Planet Communications— delivering socially and environmentally conscious internet and media services since 1992.
PlaNet News & Views
|
|
|
Posted on 12-10-07 Behind Meat
By George Wuerthner, 11 October 2007, USA
Only one thing is certain in a future-world, less works better than more.
Just like the old Iron Curtain that squelched any critical discussion of
Communism's failures, we in the West live behind a "Bovine Curtain." The
Bovine Curtain is-like the Iron Curtain-operated by the state, using
taxpayer dollars to continuously broadcast propaganda about the virtues of
ranching in the West and suppressing any negative or critical information.
The mantra "cows are good" is repeated so often that it has attained cult
status, even among many conservation groups-who should know better.
Eating meat (domestic livestock), particularly beef, has one of the
biggest environmental impacts on the planet. In many ways making a change
from a livestock based diet to plants (or wild game) is one of the easiest
things that most of us can modify in our personal behavior to lessen our
collective burden upon the planet. Producing one calorie of animal protein
requires more than 10 times as much fossil fuel input-releasing more than
10 times as much carbon dioxide-than does a calorie of plant protein.
In the summer 2007 report, Livestock's Long Shadow, UN researchers
concluded that livestock production is one of the most significant
contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale
from local to global." According to the UN, livestock contributes to
"problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water
shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity." But few
environmental groups mention this report or its findings, particularly if
they are located in the cowboy West behind the Bovine Curtain. They would
have to admit that the findings conclusions apply equally as well to the
western U.S.
In particular the report singled out livestock production as a major
contributor to global warming emissions, yet even Al Gore ignored
livestock's role in global warming during his Live Earth Concert. I don't
want to denigrate Gore's efforts for he has brought much needed attention
to global climate change. Nevertheless, while it's well and good to ask
people to screw in florescent light bulbs to reduce energy demands, the
single biggest change that anyone could do to immediately reduce their
contribution to greenhouse gases is to eat less meat.
Eating less meat has a surprisingly big bang for effort. Ranch and farm
raised livestock produce millions of tons of carbon dioxide and methane
annually. These two gases account for 90 percent of US greenhouse
emissions. For instance, all the trucks, SUVs, cars, airplanes, trains and
other transportation combined accounts for 13 percent of global warming
emissions, while livestock production is responsible for an astounding 18
percent of all US greenhouse gases.
Not only are there the carbon dioxide emissions from livestock production,
but livestock, particularly cattle, are responsible for the majority of
emissions of several other greenhouse causing gases. According to the
U.N., animal agriculture is responsible for an whopping 65 percent of
worldwide nitrous oxide emissions. Bear in mind that nitrous oxide is
about 300 times more effective as a global warming gas than carbon
dioxide.
Methane is another gas produced by livestock. Methane traps 20 times more
heat than carbon dioxide. The EPA reports that livestock production is the
single greatest source of methane emissions in the US.
But when you live behind the Bovine Curtain most people are afraid to
speak the truth or have internalized group think so completely that it
does not even occur to people to ponder livestock's central role in a host
of environmental and health problems. Given their role as obsequious hand
maidens to the livestock industry, it's not surprising that federal and
state governments hide the connection between meat production and global
warming. But it's totally unacceptable for environmental organizations to
ignore this inconvenient truth.
For instance I recently checked the Sierra Club's global climate change
web site. They list ten things one can do to reduce global warming, from
driving a more energy efficient auto to supporting renewable energy
sources-but eating less meat is not one of them. It's hard to believe that
the Sierra Club is not aware of the UN report or other recent research
linking livestock production with global warming, but one must assume that
saying anything about livestock production is off limits when you live
behind the Bovine Curtain. Worse yet, some Sierra Club chapters even
promote ranching, despite the obvious impacts on global climate. A recent
article the Sierra Club's California/Nevada desert newsletter extolled the
virtues of livestock grazing in the Great Basin-a region that is likely to
suffer greatly from global climate change.
Similarly I reviewed National Parks and Conservation Association's new
report, "Unnatural Disaster," which describes the multiple ways that
global warming will impact our national parks. The report suggests a host
of solutions that range from more efficient energy use to adoption of
renewable energy, but I could not locate any mention of eating less meat
in the 48 page report. And the Wilderness Society, while advising members
to support carbon sequestration, mileage efficiency for vehicles, and
other common remedies, did not mention of the role of livestock production
and a meat diet in contributing to global warming.
Given that these national groups do not appear to see or more likely wish
to avoid talking about a connection between diet and environmental issues,
it's not surprising that many regional or local environmental groups
seldom mention livestock production as a global warming issue. They may
express great concern about the decline of whitebark pine or large
wildfires due to higher global temperatures, but they don't go the next
step to tie these issues to ranching and livestock production. Try to
raise any linkage to ranching and livestock and the Bovine Curtain slams
down. In the West, we don't talk about cows except to laud the ranchers
for being "good stewards of the land" or some other fawning palaver.
Global warming is only one reason to end livestock production,
particularly western ranching. Production of livestock is the single
greatest source of non-point pollution in the West. Livestock are among
the prime reasons for the spread of invasive plants like cheatgrass.
Producing hay and other irrigated forage for livestock is the reason our
rivers are dewatered each summer. Livestock are the reason bison and
wolves are killed outside of national parks. Livestock spread disease to
wildlife. Livestock are the reason native wildlife like prairie dogs are
being slaughtered. The list goes on, but few groups are willing to even
list these impacts, much less tackle the source of the problem-cows.
The obvious omission of diet preferences among the proposed solutions to
global warming is particularly noteworthy, especially when it involves no
new technologies, no major policy changes in government, and no
significant investment in new infrastructure. Eating less meat won't cure
global warming, but it's the easiest and more cost effective mechanism
available to ordinary citizens to start us on a new pathway towards global
sustainability.
If you can't afford a Prius, you can afford to eat less meat. Even if you
can't switch to solar energy, you can switch to a reduced meat diet. While
most of us can't design a wind mill, we can design a better diet. Eating
less meat is not only good for the planet's health, it's good for your
health. It's time for all of us to begin to view eating and our choice of
diet as more than a culinary decision, but as an environmental act.
George Wuerthner is an ecologist, writer and photographer. His latest book
is Thrillcraft: The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation. He
is the author of 32 books including Wildfire.
|
