How Does Cattle Production Affects Climate Change

Anna Lappé’s book, Diet for a Hot Planet, discusses the impact that meat consumption has on the planet and our environment. It discusses how the global food system is a major contributor to climate change, producing as much as one-third of greenhouse gas emissions. She writes about how the way we farm, what we eat, and how our food gets to our tables all

As humanity becomes more civilized, many of us perceive that eating livestock is morally incorrect, but aren’t we are designed to be an omnivore? Our teeth and digestive system serve the purpose of breaking down animal and plant foods and to bring these important nutrients to every part of the body. Despite the fact that, in 2011, U.S. meat and poultry production reached more than 92.3 billion pounds, the ethic of killing and eating animals as well as the concern of the environmental burden caused by the production of meats is debatable. However, animal based diet is necessary for the human body to function properly and we can choose the meat produced from environmentally sustainable farms to avoid the moral ambiguity.

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

Meat has been a staple food in the diet of mankind since the early ages of civilization. In the article “Is Any Meat Good to Eat?” by Sarah Boesveld, she interviews author Jonathan Safran to share his opinion on eating meat and factory farming. He believes that “...if [people] just ate according to the values they already have, then factory farming would disappear.” Whether or not people realize the sources from which meat in modern day society comes from, they cannot deny the fact that meat is delectable. Sadly, many people who are aware of where their meat comes from will argue that it is unethical to eat meat that is grown purely to satisfy the hunger of people. The ethics of eating meat should not be considered because of the extreme

Most people do not take a second thought about where their food came from. Whether it be chicken, steak, or pork, the meat was most likely raised in a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO). Hundreds to thousands of animals in horrid conditions from birth to slaughter at these factory farms. While damaging animals, CAFOs also damage the environment and the effects of these farms are worsening, with more farms resorting to these methods. Popular brands using these methods include global producers like Smithfield Foods and Tyson Foods. The United States Department of Agriculture defines a CAFO as an Animal Feeding Operation that houses “...more than 1000 animal units...” (nrcs.usda.gov). These “units” are later defined as “...an animal

Every year, an average American will consume approximately one hundred-twenty six pounds of meat. This meat can be traced back to factory farms where the animals are kept to be tortured to turn into a product for the appetite of humans. The terrible treatment these animals are forced to endure is the outcome of the greed and want for a faster production of their product. The industry of factory farming works to maximize the output of the meat while maintaining low costs,but will sadly always comes at the animals’ expense.

Most of the meat in grocery stores comes from these companies even though they are stamped “from farm”. This can be very misleading for consumers.

Lab-grown meat, otherwise known as synthetic meat, or cultured meat is made “using muscle tissue from animal stem cells in a lab rather than harvesting from livestock” (Hultin). Consuming lab-grown meat will be healthier than traditional meats. Vitamins and minerals could be enhanced in lab-grown meats, the unhealthy components such as saturated fat could be decreased in lab-grown meats, and diseases and pathogens that come from animals could be eliminated in lab-grown meats (Hultin). By removing the unhealthy elements and keeping the beneficial nutrients of lab-grown meats will help to sustain Earth’s growing population if there was an issue with food security. Also, producing lab-grown meats will positively impact the environment. As stated by Ginger Hultin, a Spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and

This is even more so if the hormones that were used to modify the meat for production have side effects that are passed down via this new food chain. If anything the regulations that the animals will get will end up being a regulation for humans too. It is something that is needed for health regulations not only of humans but of the animals that are in the business. The grounds for this argument are the horrible conditions that animals are faced with that include medical modifications, hormone and antibiotic injections, animals receive, and the why conditions in which they are stored to grow up in affect the output product. Along with the bad things that come from the lack of strong enough regulations the point of organic meat will help support the main claim by showing how that kind of meat is more beneficial. The main opposition to the core of this argument would come from the vegetarian standpoint. Knocking everything down from the meat, that would be the vegetarian point of view. This opposition will highlight the vegetarian diet and show the downsides of meat based on the quality of both diets.

In the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author talks about, not only vegetarianism, but reveals to us what actually occurs in the factory farming system. The issue circulating in this book is whether to eat meat or not to eat meat. Foer, however, never tries to convert his reader to become vegetarians but rather to inform them with information so they can respond with better judgment. Eating meat has been a thing that majority of us engage in without question. Which is why among other reasons Foer feels compelled to share his findings about where our meat come from. Throughout the book, he gives vivid accounts of the dreadful conditions factory farmed animals endure on a daily basis. For this reason Foer urges us to take a

The unfortunate part of Food Inc., is that its historical viewpoint of how we got our food vs. Food Inc.’s version of the “modern” way we get our food ─ is lacking on both ends. As far as historical (in Food Inc.’s viewpoint – better) food production ─ the slaughter of cattle, pigs, chickens, lambs, etc. in “historical times” was far more drastic, dangerous, and unsanitary than what it is today. In those days, the animals where either shot, or had their necks hacked/cut by individuals working the slaughter houses. Additionally, many children as young as 8 were used in these slaughterhouse procedures. You may wish to read The Jungle,

     It also needs to be pointed out that meat production industry is highly unfriendly to the environment. It has been proved that the results of this mindless actions are extremely harmful to the whole planet: trees are lost in creating farms for animal food, land is taken away from wildlife, additional erosion is caused, topsoil is lost, groundwater is wasted, and pesticide is excessively used. In fact, one chicken farm uses as much water as a little city. Few may know that this industry, compared to others, causes the biggest pollution at all.

What is one major cause of global climate change? One major cause of global climate change is the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which causes the warming of the Earth. These greenhouse gases are a result of human activities. Animal agriculture directly and indirectly contributes to the human activities that cause hazardous amounts of methane and carbon dioxide emissions. The impacts of livestock on global climate change are often underestimated and ignored; hence, these greenhouse gases are being emitted into the atmosphere at an increasing rate with population increase. The impacts of livestock on global climate change needs to be addressed to undermine its negative effects globally.

Climate change is one of the major issues surfacing earth over the past century. The earth’s temperature has increased over the years leading to detrimental effects on the economic and life sources of people, especially that of agricultural production and livestock. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary (2014), defined climate change as a change in global climate patterns apparent from the mid late 20th century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, (2007) predicts that by 2100 the increase in global average surface temperature may be between 1.8° C and 4.0° C. With increases of 1.5° C to 2.5° C, approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species are expected to be at risk of extinction. Moreover, the IPCC (2007)

Climate change otherwise known as global warming has been an ongoing issue for decades. Beginning in the 19th century, climate change has increasingly affected Earth and its atmosphere. Rising levels of carbon dioxide are warming the Earth’s atmosphere, causing rising sea-levels, melting snow and ice, extreme fires and droughts, and intense rainfall and floods. Climate change has and will continue to affect food production, availability of water, and can add to many health risks in humans and animals. In fact, in an article by Justin Gillis titled, “Scientists Warn of Perilous Climate Shift Within Decades, Not Centuries” he focuses on a paper written by a former NASA climate scientist, James E. Hansen, explaining the effects of climate change on Earth today. Although many believe Hansen’s theories in the paper are quite far-fetched, the author mentions, “Despite any reservations they might have about the new paper, virtually all climate scientists agree with Dr. Hansen’s group that society is not moving fast enough to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, posing grave risks” (Gillis). Gillis validates the fact that climate change has been rapidly expanding throughout Earth and society has not been able to reduce it fast enough. Many negative risks are being posed and will continue to mount if the issue of climate change is not taken seriously. Although climate change negatively affects nearly all aspects of Earth, it poses a big