Comment of the (Earth) Day: Vegetarian = Less Pollution

Vegetarian and pollution of the meat industry
Photo by ILoveButter via Flickr

There are still many comments to be left today by readers, but torrmoz's comment on an earlier story about vegetarian eating highlights points from a New York Times Mark Bittman story (Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler) about meat production and the environment. These are well worth bringing to the forefront:

  • If Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan to a Prius.
  • Livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world's greenhouse gases — more than transportation.
  • Agriculture in the U.S. contributes to nearly three-quarters of all water-quality problems in the nation's rivers and streams.
  • Meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world's tropical rain forests.
  • About two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption.

In February, Chino's Westland/Hallmark Meat Company came into the spotlight when the government recalled beef after secret video footage revealed staff was mistreating the animals.

On a more positive note, vegan and vegetarian restaurants are becoming neighborhood staples in Los Angeles -- definitely a good thing, whether you choose to eat meat or not.


Comments (3) [rss]

An Excerpt from "new Yorker" some months ago

"Does producing a pound of lentils involve burning less fossil fuel than producing a pound of hamburger meat, or more? How many square miles of forest are cleared to graze cattle? How much biodiversity is lost both in grazing livestock and in raising the corn and soybeans to fatten them?"


Yet the energy-cost argument is formidably complicated and cannot by itself support refusing all forms of meat in favor of all forms of plant matter: shooting and eating the deer chewing up the tulips in your garden may turn out to be more environmentally virtuous than dining on tofu manufactured from Chinese soybeans, and walking to the local supermarket for a nice hanger steak cut from a grass-fed New Zealand steer may be kinder to the planet than getting into your Toyota Prius to drive five miles for some organic Zambian green beans.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/01/22/070122crbo_books_shapin?currentPage=all

Kokrra (and the New Yorker) is absolutely right, but I think the more important point is that every person should be more aware of the impact of their food choices. One can't deny the detrimental effects of agribusiness (meat or veg) and I don't think a lot of people are aware of them. So having the discussion and making food choices that at least *try* to minimize your impact is worthwhile. Although, if you're choosing to go veg for environmental reasons, then buying beans that have traveled half the planet may defeat the purpose.

And about clearing forests to graze cattle - I think everyone should be eating less meat anyway so we should be raising less cattle and hopefully it would kinda even out. Of course, that's easy for me to say since I don't eat meat :P

nuts and meat use the most water per pound to sustain. i think meat was at 20,000 or so. it was ridiculous. besides, less meat is healthier.

Post a comment (Comment Policy)

Tips

About LAist

LAist is a website about Los Angeles. More

Editor: Zach Behrens Co-Editor: Lindsay William-Ross Publisher: Gothamist

Contribute

Latest Tip:


[more]

Latest Photo:

Subscribe

Use an RSS reader to stay up to date with the latest news and posts from LAist.

All Our RSS

Links