Does The Usa Have A Moral Obligation On End Meat And Dairy Subsidies?

The articles “The Climate Crisis at the End of Our Fork” by Anna Lappe and “Why Bother?” by Michael Pollan urge us to see the connections between food and the environment. In the article “The Climate Crisis at the End of Our Fork”, Lappe insists the methods used in food production and distribution have a massive impact on the planet. In the article “Why Bother”, Pollan provides us reasons why people should bother to help stop global warming. There are three main causes between food production and food distribution that play a big role in global warming. Changing the way food is produced and distributed could diminish the dangerous effects of global warming. However, in order to stop global warming everyone has to assist as a group instead of individuals.

A luxury tax on meat items can help the solution of cattle grazing by slowly luring people into buying less meat products. With a luxury tax on meat, people may finally realize that meat is indeed a luxury food product. This solution has never been active in any parts of the world but even adding fifty percent or doubling the price for its original would help the cause of deforestation. This extra amount of money can be used for replanting forests and advertising so people know exactly where the money is being contributed to. By replanting these forests will help rebuild the earths most natural resources that in time will create habitants to millions of species. Over time the grazing of cattle has taken up much space to raise animals and is being over used because of the production of meats in which people don’t realize is

In the science article, “Beef and Climate Change Collide”, Los Angeles Times argues that beef is unhealthy for planet Earth due to the released gases that contribute to climate change. They claim that the U.S. beef production uses twenty eight times for land and eleven times more water than any other types of meets. Beef production pumps up five times more planet warming gases into our atmosphere than chicken, or pork. Furthermore, developing nations raising cattle have significantly increased the amounts of gases they produce. These developing countries have increased fifty one percent from 1961-2010. Although gases from cattle have been increasing, U.S. beef industry claims that the U.S. create the least amount of greenhouse gases being

Introduction (Attention Step): What do you think is the greatest cause of emission pollution? What do you believe is harming our planet? Well if you guessed that fossil fuel emissions are the biggest emission polluters, then you are completely wrong (attention getter). Animal Agriculture is actually the number one Greenhouse Gas emitter in the planet. Yes, cow farts are destroying the environment. It sounds crazy, but ever since the mid 60’s, agriculture associations have been spreading across the Americas and dominated the industry. The most destructive of all Ag corps are Livestock Corporation. These associations include IBP, Conagra, Perdue, Farmland National Beef, Cargill, etc … Animal Agriculture is effecting every single person in this room because we all breathe in the same air, drink the same water, and eat the same (credibility). The buildup of Animal Agriculture is a great destruction to our planet and our species because it is creating

One of the biggest controversies with livestock production is that the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that get released into the atmosphere. Its assumed that cars produce most if not all the greenhouse gas emissions however livestock has a big say in air pollution. According to Cassandra Brooks, writer for the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, 18 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions are due to livestock production. This is nearly 20% and can be greatly reduced if people reduced their demand for meat. The Environmental Working Group used a tangible variable for Americans stating “if everyone in the U.S. ate no meat or cheese just one day a week, it would be like not driving 91 billion miles – or taking 7.6 million

Is global warming a moral dilemma? Is it the public policy problem from hell? In "The Environmental Issue from Hell," Bill McKibben uses many of such phrases en route to arguing for a new approach to global warming. By discussing hell and morals, the reader’s mind is already equating it with two heavily debated issues. Therefore, we begin to question their existence and how we should deal with the subjects. McKibben wisely chooses these disputes to represent his main concerns: the ways in which consumerism affects the global ecosystem, and the impact of humans on the environment. McKibben presents a solution on how to handle each of these environmental issues, utilizing both the people and the government.

Brought up in the southern of China, I often heard about that people from there “eat anything with four limbs except tables, anything that flies except aero planes, and anything that swims except ships”. Nevertheless, I eat more fruit, vegetables, nuts, and whole grains but less meat to make careful choices for environmental protection. Similarly, Kathy Freston argues that animal agriculture is one of the top contributors to global warming. In her Huffington Post selection “Vegetarian Is the New Prius,” Freston lists how many emissions of greenhouse gases people make when they eat meat and illustrates the consumption of tree in animal agriculture. She effectively convinces her audiences that the livestock results in the most serious environmental problems and encourages people to lead a greener diet to protect our environment. However, ardent craving, poor health, and perpetual hassle and cost prevent all Americans from being vegetarian.

Introduction of topic: I know from the survey that most people don’t believe in giving up meat and I also know that trying to guilt people into not eating meat by showing sad pictures of factory farming doesn’t work. However, giving up meat for even

Nations are judged and measured by their production and selling of goods and services. Not only has increased consumerism resulted in ecological imbalance, it is also depleting earth’s natural resources, which in turn is creating an environmental crisis. One of the biggest products being consumed is food. Rapidly growing world’s population requires increased food production. Author Anna Lappe does an excellent job expounding on the impact that food production and distribution has on the environment. Lappe (2015) argues that modern practices of food production directly contribute to air pollution and increases carbon dioxide emissions (par. 11). Crop production uses an absurd amount of land, artificial fertilizer, and harmful pesticides that seriously pollutes the environment and threatens young children and wildlife species. Author Sandra Steingraber (2015) also argues that increased consumerism has led to a high usage of harmful chemicals to produce products for consumers (par.

What if tomorrow’s news headline read, “U.S. GOVERNMENT BANS THE SALE OF KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUTS?” How would the country react? According to a study released by the National Center for Health Statistics (2008), “32.7% of American adults were overweight…an additional 34.3% were obese, and that 5.9% were extremely obese” (McGuinness 43). Americans are overweight and obesity is the cause of tens of thousands of preventable deaths in the nation each year (McGuinness 42). The nation is suffering a public health crisis due to overconsumption of nutritionally void food and beverages where “unhealthy eating and sedentary living has become the societal norm” (McGuinness 46). Some believe that the government should intervene by regulating American’s diets; however, others maintain that government intervention would set a dangerous precedent by undermining individual freedoms. Allowing the government to intervene is a slippery slope and could potentially lead to more intrusive actions (“Slippery Slope” 1). Instead of abrogating personal choice the government should re-evaluate the support it gives to institutions that contribute to the obesity epidemic.

33) is not true for some people, but not everyone. There is an increase in the number of people becoming vegetarians, and vegans in Canada. With this, those who do eat meat may only eat it because it is a cheaper source of protein. Thus, the line about making meat affordable is true, as with the rising rates of unemployment, the need to have meat at a lower price is critical, but that does not mean society is cutting short on how these non-human animals live. Those who eat meat based on either choosing too or a low income, would hopefully wish that non-human animals are raised in good farming conditions and are killed as humanly as

The cattle industry produces vast amounts of strain in the environment. It is energy inefficient, pollutes water, occupies many acres of land, and deteriorates the health of the people who abuse its consumption. The government subsidizes this industry. Therefore, the price paid for meat doesn’t reflect the environmental hazards involved in the process. In order to protect our health and the health of the environment we should pay close attention to our food choices and make sure we don’t support industries that degrade it.

In this essay, I will argue that we ought to ban the manufacturing of beef. The consumption and manufacturing of beef has been a leading cause of climate change over the years as it has led to a considerable increase in greenhouse gas emissions, which has led to human suffering. Statistics have shown that greenhouse gas emissions from the livestock industry approximately account for 15 percent of the global total, greater than direct emissions from the transport industry. (Bailey et al. page 2) Thus, if banning the manufacturing of beef can help with lowering greenhouse gas emissions, in turn leading to a more sustainable future, then society is morally required to take action. I come to this conclusion using the ethical approach of Anthropocentrism. I will raise an opposition to my argument based upon one primary claim: beef should not be banned because the manufacturing of beef could arguably cause more harm than good to people. As a result, we should not take such an action that would harm human beings as that would be morally wrong. However, I will show that this objection fails because although it might have short term societal human suffering, in the long run there would be more harm

Eating Fossil Fuels made me realize how lazy our country is in general. Many things we consume today are eating away our insides without even knowing. This book provided efficient evidence to our failing food market, oil industry, population overcrowding, etc. Additionally, I realized how the collapse of our agriculture effects the entire world, and how no one seems to care about it. I will explain how certain circumstances relate to my life and add opinions to certain sections of the book that caught my eye.

Australia is committed to a low carbon climate resilient future. Based on the 2015 Paris agreement, Australia has set a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) by 26-28% by 2030 (Department of the Environment and Energy, n.d.). A possible solution to negate the impacts of climate change is to enforce all Australians to become vegetarians (excluding all meat and fish). This conversion may also have health benefits to the society. However, the ramifications of such a drastic proposal and the ethical concerns associated with ceasing meat consumption should be carefully considered.