Peter1469
04-08-2018, 03:52 AM
The case for sustainable meat (http://quillette.com/2018/04/05/case-sustainable-meat/)
Many people claim that raising animals for meat harms the environment. I agree with them when it comes to commercial factory farming methods. The dreaded green house gas- the cow fart is really only a problem when you are feeding them grain - which their guts are not evolved to properly process. (Methane is a much more powerful green house gas than CO-2.) That is just one example, of course there are more examples of how CFF methods harm the environment.
This is a long article about sustainable meat. When cows are free range they actually help the environment. One example- the grasslands they feed on prevent desertification and actually act as better CO-2 sinks than forests.
But as I said it is a long article and I only scratched the surface.
I. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
Meat, we are told, is bad for the planet. It causes global warming, destroys forests, diverts substantial proportions of the world’s grain for feed, all to produce meat which only wealthy Westerners can afford. The iniquity of the situation led George Monbiot to declare in 2002 (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/dec/24/christmas.famine) that “Veganism is the only ethical response to what is arguably the world’s most urgent social justice issue.” Monbiot later recanted (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production-veganism-deforestation) but, since then, we are told with increasing regularity that to save the planet we must radically reduce our consumption of meat (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/28/eating-less-meat-save-planet-dietary-guidelines). In the face of what seems to be universal agreement on the sins of meat eating, is there really a green argument for meat? I think there is, and I think we should be talking about it. Not only is the public discourse heavily one-sided, but the anti-meat message risks destroying the very environment is claims to be protecting.
The possibility of livestock farming being part of the solution rather than the problem is looking increasingly probable, logical, and exciting. But for it to succeed, consumers of all tendencies need to be aware of the issues and make choices about the kind of meat they buy and eat. It does not mean we all have to eat meat, but conversely, we should think twice before promoting vegetarianism as the default green option. By many counts, permanent pasture is greener than arable land and silvopastoralism is better still. Your choices as a consumer determine which we see in the future.
Read the entire article at the link.
Many people claim that raising animals for meat harms the environment. I agree with them when it comes to commercial factory farming methods. The dreaded green house gas- the cow fart is really only a problem when you are feeding them grain - which their guts are not evolved to properly process. (Methane is a much more powerful green house gas than CO-2.) That is just one example, of course there are more examples of how CFF methods harm the environment.
This is a long article about sustainable meat. When cows are free range they actually help the environment. One example- the grasslands they feed on prevent desertification and actually act as better CO-2 sinks than forests.
But as I said it is a long article and I only scratched the surface.
I. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
Meat, we are told, is bad for the planet. It causes global warming, destroys forests, diverts substantial proportions of the world’s grain for feed, all to produce meat which only wealthy Westerners can afford. The iniquity of the situation led George Monbiot to declare in 2002 (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/dec/24/christmas.famine) that “Veganism is the only ethical response to what is arguably the world’s most urgent social justice issue.” Monbiot later recanted (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production-veganism-deforestation) but, since then, we are told with increasing regularity that to save the planet we must radically reduce our consumption of meat (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/28/eating-less-meat-save-planet-dietary-guidelines). In the face of what seems to be universal agreement on the sins of meat eating, is there really a green argument for meat? I think there is, and I think we should be talking about it. Not only is the public discourse heavily one-sided, but the anti-meat message risks destroying the very environment is claims to be protecting.
The possibility of livestock farming being part of the solution rather than the problem is looking increasingly probable, logical, and exciting. But for it to succeed, consumers of all tendencies need to be aware of the issues and make choices about the kind of meat they buy and eat. It does not mean we all have to eat meat, but conversely, we should think twice before promoting vegetarianism as the default green option. By many counts, permanent pasture is greener than arable land and silvopastoralism is better still. Your choices as a consumer determine which we see in the future.
Read the entire article at the link.