The Gray Solution to an Environmental Crisis
We have created a crisis. Our planet, our land, our home. It is dying. To say that we have an environmental crisis, an emergency with the place in which we all inhabit, cannot be taken lightly. However, it is not just the mere fact that our actions have already led to the shrinking of our beloved glaciers and earlier flowering trees and will inevitably result in catastrophic climate change by 2030. It is not just the photos of what were once adorable polar bears, now shriveled down and emaciated to nearly nothing. It is not just the cruelty to our beloved domestic pets, totaling at 10,000 puppy mills in the United States and 1.5 million pets being euthanized each year in shelters. We cannot continue being so ignorant as to prioritize our selective concerns only towards the species we care most strongly towards. This dangerous mindset ignores the greater problem being faced. While most recognize the detrimental impacts of our emerging ecological footprint, our environment will only further deteriorate shall we continue our careless use of animal products and reckless means of agriculture.
Let us start at the surface. It is clear, starting with the easiest of questions, that abstaining from animal products would significantly benefit our suffering environment. According to a study published in the magazine Nature last October, due to population growth and the continued consumption of red meat, environmental pressures could spike up to 90 percent by 2050. However, research consistently suggests that by drastically reducing animal product consumption and living a more plant based lifestyle, we would be able to substantially reduce our impact on the environment. This means that we would require less energy, use less land, reduce greenhouse emissions, lead to less water being used, and cause less pollutants to be produced.
Greenhouse gases. Those two notorious words cover piles and piles of headlines on end of from the New York Times, the Guardian, and so forth. We talk about them endlessly, yet not enough thought is ever given to what we really have done to our environment. Now this concept, all this methane and carbon dioxide, has to be arguably the most significant impact of our mindless consumption of animal products. While we tend to discuss and blame the impacts of transportation, especially our beloved gas-fueled cars, on our environmental footprint, it is so imperative to understand how little they actually contribute in comparison to animal products.
When you drive to school or work, then to the grocery store, off to the car wash, go shopping at the mall, and finally head home at night after driving over to the gym, all of that gas spurting from your engine is still less than the emissions that brought your chicken and lasagna to your dinner plate. Your average nuclear family of four contributes to more greenhouse gas emissions from meat than from driving two cars on a daily basis. Even researchers at the University of Chicago concluded that switching from a standard American diet to a vegan one is more effective in fighting global warming than switching from a standard car to a hybrid. In essence, the majority of greenhouse gas emissions are generated by animal products, with our food products accounting for up to 78 percent of total agricultural emissions. For example, beef alone is 100 times more emissions intensive than legumes.
However, this only makes sense, considering that cows need on average 10 kilograms of feed, often from grains, to grow only one kilogram of body weight. That feed requires water, land, and fertilizer in order to grow and animals like cows, sheep, and other ruminants emit especially high amounts of the greenhouse gas methane as they digest. In the end, you are no longer growing enough grains to feed yourself. You are growing about 16 times more grain, in order to provide the nourishment to fatten up that one hefty piece of meat on your table.
By reducing the amount of animal products consumed on a daily basis and switching to plant based diets, we could easily and significantly reduce our overwhelming greenhouse gas emissions. In 2014, a UK study was published in the journal Climate Change, where it was discovered that eating a diet high in meat resulted in a staggering 7.2 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions per day, whereas vegetarians only contributed 3.8 kilograms of emissions daily and a minimal 2.9 kilograms daily by vegans. Similarly, in a paper by Joseph Poore of Oxford University, he discovered that going vegan would eliminate more than half of the carbon emissions from food production. As a result, simply limiting amounts of red meat and animal products has the potential for crucial emission reductions. Your 7.2 kilograms of emissions per day could easily be halved, simply with more thoughtful and environmentally aware choices.
Naturally these findings also raise the question of plants and their own faulty emissions. Does moving all of this energy and effort towards growing crops really solve the long lasting issue of emissions? If we all lived off legumes and soya products, would anything really change?
While plants also require inputs from the environment to grow, they require significantly less and their impact proves to be markedly less concerning. We do produce a great deal of soya, yet not in the purpose one would quite expect. In fact, 93 percent of the soya that we consume was fed to the animals that we later eat! If we were not so heavily reliant on animal products, a huge fraction of this figure would no longer be necessary.
Even with that in mind, producing that high amount of sustainable protein is not nearly as environmentally harmful as the counter option. In Poore’s paper, he compiled data from 570 studies, encompassing 38,700 farms. He observed 40 common foods and analyzed how much land and water were required by them as well as to what extent these foods were causing problems, such as groundwater and freshwater becoming more acidic. Through his analysis, it became clear that none of our common animal products are more environmentally friendly than the plant based alternatives. In fact, adopting plant based diets could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than half. That. Is. A. Lot. As Chloe Cornish summarized in the Financial Times, as a result of his findings, “Poore ate his last Pret a Manger cheese-and-tomato croissant and went vegan.”
As Tim Benton, from the University of Leeds, states well, “Most people don’t think of the consequences of food on climate change, but just eating a little less meat right now might make things a whole lot better for our children and grandchildren.” A day will come when we leave our children, then their children, then their children, and so on and on, to inhabit this planet. Our actions may seem minimal, but the difference between even one extra animal product each day will amplify into months of impact, which will become years, and turn into decades and generations. Our future children and grandchildren will be left to live on this planet. How do we want them to live? If catastrophic climate change is predicted in the next two decades, what will our mindless actions now bode for our grandchildren and their children?
Meanwhile, if we want to consider all environmental impacts, we cannot overlook another major aspect: loss of biodiversity. Food products, especially livestock, take up a pretty great deal of land. Take a second and just make a mental note. Think about each and every farm, full of cattle, pigs, and empty land, that you always see in the horizons out of car windows on long road trips; try to picture just a few of the ones you have seen. They are so expansive, covering acre after acre. The world has approximately an overwhelming five billion hectares, or 12 billion acres, of land devoted to agriculture alone.
Of that land, nearly 80 percent is put aside for rearing animals; plant based diets would cut this use of land for agriculture by 76 percent, markedly reducing that amount. George Monbiot, an environmental campaigner, states that the land currently being used for grazing livestock could be used for “rewilding”. In effect, this would allow ecosystems destroyed by livestock farming to finally recover, “absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, protecting watersheds, and halting the destruction of species”. By freeing this substantial amount of land, remaining pastureland could be used to restore grasslands and forests, capturing carbon and further alleviating climate change.
Meanwhile, one of the most intriguing aspects and greatest driving forces behind the call to change lifestyles for the internally motivated is our own personal health. I will be quite blunt here: we are all, in the name of human nature, intrinsically motivated. We might make changes, and hopefully would consider, in the hopes of a better planet, but at the end of the day we all put ourselves at utmost priority, even when not intended.
While it is of course undeniable that any diet can be done healthfully, mindfully, and appropriately, moving towards a plant based diet appears to have promising health results. In 2016, a study was published by the Oxford Martin Program on the Future of Food, modeling what could happen to our health and the global economy if we all converted to more plant based diets and reduced animal product consumption. Even by simply keeping our diets within the current recommended dietary guidelines, it is predicted that 5.1 million deaths would be avoided by 2050. If we all went vegetarian, the number would skyrocket up to 7.3 million lives saved, which would only further rise to 8.1 million would we all become vegan. Even these small, subtle, and seemingly insignificant changes have the power to save millions of lives. Similarly, the same concept was well demonstrated in Springmann’s computer model studies. If everyone went vegetarian by mid century, we would see a global mortality decrease of six to 10 percent, as result of less frequent coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and several cancers.
In 2009, yet another study from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics formally supported this concept. The association agreed that a vegetarian diet is a promising way to reduce risk of many health problems, especially heart disease, blood pressure, and diabetes. If you know someone with these conditions, then you know how these health risks can be fatal, or at least incredibly inconvenient. The elimination of meat alone may be enough to avoid damage on your heart, which seems like a worthwhile change in lifestyle for the benefits you could reap.
Looking more specifically at the vegan diet, scientists at the University of South Carolina published their own study, concluding that a vegan diet contributes to easier weight loss and healthier body mass index than a regular vegetarian diet or one including meat. Countless other organizations and laboratories, including the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, the British Medical Association, and the World Health Organization, have all published their own studies with overwhelmingly similar conclusions.
They have come to consensus that plant based diets provide a multitude health benefits, all with findings to support lower weight and cholesterol levels as well as reduced risk of cancer. Considering the obesity epidemic that has sprawled across our country, this could be the solution for over 160 million Americans who are overweight or obese. Even for everyone without current conditions, do any of us really want to be told half a lifetime from now that we have cancer? No one can be certain that they are not at risk, but we can at least try to prevent the onset of fatal mutations and conditions. Even down to minimal inconveniences…who really wants to put themselves at greater risk for unhealthy cholesterol levels?
How can such a small change in diet bode such substantial changes for the better? The elimination of red meat alone accounts for half of this major decline, whereas the other half can be rooted back to less calories consumed and an increase in the amount of fruits and vegetables that we eat. Following the flow of logic, with fewer people suffering from food-related chronic illnesses, there would also be a natural decline in medical bills. (That new laptop that you wanted? Use what otherwise would have been spent on unwanted visits to the doctor!) Such an effect is even estimated to save between two and three percent of the global gross domestic product, which is breathtaking.
Amongst all of the opposing perspectives, the most unique one to consider is that of animal rights, or the driving force of the philosophy behind the ethical choice. Some people eat their chicken wings mindlessly, yet are completely appalled when they discover the existence of puppy mills. For another individual, it may be animal neglect that hits them in a dark light, but their real leather boots never raise a question. This guiding theory, the goals of the animal rights movement, identify all abuse of animals as problematic. It is best stated by Tom Regan in the “Case for Animal Rights”, when he says, “What’s fundamentally wrong with the way animals are treated isn’t the details that vary from case to case. It’s the whole system”. The hypocritical mindset that is held by our entire society is jarring, astonishing, and incredibly concerning. Regan provides his own definition of the fundamental wrong, which is in essence “the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us — to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or for money”. The greater issue at hand is not a matter of specifically to what extent is it ethical for one to abuse fellow living, breathing creatures. It was these guiding philosophies that fed the flame for the growing animal rights movement, arguing that not only is the use of animal products unjustifiable, but that the whole manipulated and hypocritical system is as well.
At the same time, unfortunately if one becomes too lost in idealism, then they will certainly lose sight of grounding fact and logic. The dark and harsh reality is that we cannot avoid our current situation, either. In fact, more than two billion people are undernourished today in the modern world. For each of those two billion people, it becomes essential that we find ways to provide both cheap yet sustainable means of nourishment.
So … how do we even try to approach a modern famine?
Here’s the interesting thing about that question: a plant based planet would fare just fine. According to a recent study from Lancaster University, we already grow enough edible crops to feed not only the population now, but even the population projected for 2050. In fact, the meat and dairy industry rely on feeding 34 percent of all human edible crop calories to animals globally, which is incredibly inefficient. In essence, we are wasting over one third of all produced calories on an industry that gives little returns in comparison. If we had that extra third of crops back for use, the idea of the modern famine would change entirely.
It sounds quite extreme, though. Could a vegan diet really feed the world? According to many experts, the answer is a resounding yes.
In an analysis published by the Los Angeles Times, experts have claimed that we could feed all 327 million Americans, plus a projected 390 million more people, simply by converting to veganism. These researchers concluded that we could easily supply enough food to the 9.7 billion people expected to inhabit this planet in 30 years, without any changes to the current crop yield. Similarly, recent studies claim that we could feed an additional four billion people today, simply with the abundant crops currently being used to fatten livestock. By using the land currently put aside for animal products instead towards a “nutritionally equivalent” combination of potatoes, soybeans, peanuts, and other edible crops, the amount of food available to the world has the ability to increase by 120 percent. In other words, we could end world hunger.
I will repeat that louder for the people in the back. We. Could. End. Not subtly reduce, but end. World hunger. By reallocating land that is poorly put to waste towards edible, more sustainable forms of protein, we could have the chance to help not only the billions of animals killed each year for food, but also the 815 million people who do not have enough to eat everyday.
Then, the next sequential question of concern to raise must be addressed: what about jobs? What about the economy? Everything always comes back to infrastructure and employment. If society were to make a major shift away from animal products to plant based nourishment, people who were previously engaged in the livestock industry would need to transition to new careers. There are definitely many fields within agriculture that could use their labor; these people could help with reforestation or produce bioenergy from the crop byproducts that we currently depend on as livestock feed. At the same time, some farmers could also be paid to keep livestock, except for environmental purposes. According to Peter Alexander, a researcher at the University of Edinburgh, “I’m sitting here in Scotland where the Highlands environment is very manmade and based largely on grazing by sheep. If we took all the sheep away, the environment would look different and there would be a potential negative impact on biodiversity.” Such a change in animal breeding would certainly damage our environment with a major toll on biodiversity, so it would remain essential to keep paying people to take care of livestock.
If we failed to provide clear employment alternatives and subsidies for former livestock-based workers, there would be a significant rise in unemployment and resulting social upheaval, especially around rural communities with close ties to the industry. Ben Phalan, who researches both food demand and biodiversity at University of Cambridge, states that “There are over 3.5 billion domestic ruminants on Earth, and tens of billions of chickens produced and killed each year for food. We would be talking about a huge amount of economic disruption.” With the agricultural industry having revolved around livestock for such a great span of our history, it has become an unacknowledged yet fundamental piece to our economy. Ultimately, in order to make lasting change even possible, it is necessary that people can rely on new, diverse job opportunities that support an ever growing, adapting, and evolving economic structure.
While these jobs could work fine in most areas, what if they could not provide alternative livelihoods for everyone? Nearly one-third of the land on Earth is composed of semi-arid and arid rangeland, which best supports animal agriculture. When people previously tried to convert parts of the Sahel, a massive region in Africa, from livestock pasture to croplands, they quickly were faced with desertification and loss of productivity. Phalan even goes as far as to note, “Without livestock, life in certain environments would likely become impossible for some people.” This concern can be seen most evidently amongst nomadic groups, especially the Mongols and Berbers, who would have to settle permanently in cities or towns without their livestock, likely prying away their cultural identity by doing so. Even by observing on a smaller scale, even those whose entire livelihoods are not dependent on livestock would still inevitably suffer.
So how do we as a society, we as a nation, and we as a larger planet even attempt to make such a drastic shift? Let me pose another question.
Is massive change away from animal products possible? Perhaps. Likely? About as likely as climate change magically ameliorating in a matter of days. In other words, no. Our world today loves its meat, dairy, and eggs. Our wonderful American culture is defined by a common love of Big Macs and Whoppers, with a huge chocolate milkshake on the side.
People love those Big Macs, after all. People love the cultural norms that they have been raised alongside and few people can be inspired to change their entire lifestyles when potentially at their expense. To be blunt and blatantly realistic, no clear cut change could be that readily accepted at this day and age by our firmly opinionated society or implemented in a global economy that thrives off livestock industry. Although the numerous statistics and reports make it clear that the benefits of a plant based lifestyle far outweigh the initially and seemingly concerning logistics, it can be hard to make lasting change. Especially in a world today that thrives off convenience and resistance to change.
Change is defined as act or instance of making or becoming different. Notice that definition utilizes the word “instance”. It also does not specify to what extent one must become different. To say quite simply, it does not take a great deal to change. Change can be as markedly noticeable as adopting an entirely new lifestyle, but who said change can’t be minimal? Is one vegan meal a week or one meatless Wednesday dinner every week not considered change? So let’s start there. One little dinner a week. Or one vegan meal or one day of no meat. That will add up, quickly if I might add.
Even if our entire modern society is not ready or able to fully adopt veganism and the perspective of the growing animal rights movement, no issue is defined strictly to black and white solutions. The solution to overwhelming animal cruelty and the rapidly worsening environmental crisis will have to fall somewhere in the uncomfortable shades of gray, if there is any hope of reaching an idealistic goal while still remaining confined to the boundaries set by prevailing realism and logic.
With that in mind, small changes have endless potential in terms of helping our environment and all who inhabit it. Extensive research supports that, even if everyone went vegetarian for simply one day, the United States would save 100 billion gallons of water and greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by 1.2 million tons of carbon dioxide. That amount of water from only one day would be enough to supply every home in the entire New England region for months, whereas the amount of carbon dioxide saved is equivalent to the amount produced by all of France! That same single day of veganism would also save 1.5 billion pounds of crops, which would otherwise be fed to livestock, 70 million gallons of gas, three million acres of land, 33 tons of antibiotics, and three million tons of soil erosion. The impact of such seemingly simple actions cannot be underestimated. No matter how trivial it may seem, having one more meal of sustainable protein sources like lentils, beans, or quinoa in place of that Big Mac will in fact make a significant difference. Another figure from Environmental Defense suggests that if every American substituted vegetarian food for chicken one time each week, the carbon dioxide emissions saved would be equivalent to removing more than half a million cars off our roads. While it can be tempting to believe that dramatic, full scale changes must be necessary to address the problems, even one little meal or a simple day of ethical choices ultimately has the power to leave a major impact on the environment and all of us who share it as our home.
