PRO/CON: Hot dog vs. hot planet

South Korean animal rights activists wearing livestock masks stage a rally for farm animals slaughtered due to foot-and-

mouth disease and bird flu, encouraging people to be vegetarians, Seoul, South Korea, Feb. 6, 2011. Photo: AP/ Lee Jin-

man

PRO: To help stop global warming, we have to eat less meat

Meat consumption around the world has been rapidly increasing. Unless this trend is

reversed, grazing livestock will continue to release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere

and further damage the environment.

Greenhouse gases, which also come from the burning of fossil fuels, build up in the

atmosphere once they are emitted. They trap heat and, over time, have caused a sharp

rise in average global temperatures. Known as global warming or climate change, this

increase has had serious ecological effects, such as rising sea levels, disrupted weather

patterns and more water shortages.

One way Americans can help reduce the buildup of greenhouse gases is by changing

their eating habits. The major players in the livestock industry describe beef, lamb, chicken

and pork as healthy food choices. They are not.

Livestock production currently accounts for significant greenhouse gas emissions

worldwide and the situation is not getting any better. Deforestation to produce more

grazing lands also contributes to the growing ecological crisis.

By Tribune News Service, adapted by Newsela staff on 01.11.16

Word Count 1,556

"Livestock's Long Shadow"

The big livestock companies have mounted an aggressively deceptive campaign against

their critics.

They have even gone so far as to suggest, using junk science pushed by climate change

deniers, that vegetarians contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than meat eaters.

Nothing could be more absurd.

In 2006 the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization released a groundbreaking

report, titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow.” It concluded that 18 percent of annual global

greenhouse gas emissions were caused by cattle, sheep, buffalo, pigs and poultry.

More recent scientific studies have raised to a whopping 51 percent the percentage of

greenhouse gases being emitted by livestock. It is an amazing fact that livestock produce

more greenhouse gases than all the cars, trucks, airplanes, trains and ships in the world

combined.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also sounded the alarm bell over the

production of methane gas by livestock. The EPA has stated that methane emissions

resulting from the digestive systems of livestock, a process known as enteric fermentation,

represents a third of all emissions associated with U.S. agriculture.

Adding to the problem of methane emissions is improper manure handling procedures on

the part of the livestock industry. In order to save money, massive industrial farms and

ranches expose manure storage areas to oxygen and moisture, which contributes to

methane levels in the atmosphere.

No one championing an environmentally sound livestock industry is calling for a ban on

Big Macs or porterhouse steaks. However, there is a need for an overall reduction in the

consumption of meat products by the United States and other economically advanced

nations.

A Growing Problem

Now that consumers in China and India are able to afford meat products, global demand

has skyrocketed. So have the adverse effects on the environment. Increased demand for

feed grain has also contributed to global climate change.

Reducing meat consumption must be part of an overall strategy for “clean” farming.

Feeding practices, animal husbandry techniques and livestock health management must

all be improved to make them less environmentally destructive. In addition, there is a

pressing need for a system that can transform livestock waste into clean energy.

Medical experts agree that reducing meat consumption also benefits one’s health.

Whether a person opts to be a vegetarian or a carnivore is a personal choice, however.

Proposals by governments to impose meat and dairy taxes to offset the cost of

environmental damage and public health problems go too far. Governments should not try

to dictate what people eat.

When it comes to the livestock industry and the environment, it is a far better strategy to

stick to the basic problem of greenhouse gas emissions. There is no need to add medical

concerns to the debate.

The big livestock companies scoff at the notion of a link between their industry and climate

change. However, consider a study conducted by the respected medical journal Lancet. It

found that a reduction in meat consumption of just a half cup a day can significantly

reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions.

We can all afford to make that easy sacrifice and our environment will be better off for it.

ABOUT THE WRITER: The newly elected president of the Tampa Bay Press

Club, Wayne Madsen is a progressive commentator whose articles have

appeared in leading newspapers throughout the U.S. and Europe. Readers

may write him at 414 Choo Choo Lane, Valrico, FL 33594.

This essay is available to Tribune News Service subscribers. Tribune did not

subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and

do not necessarily represent the views of Tribune or Newsela.

CON: Fewer farm animals won't take a bite out of climatechange

Recently. representatives of most of the world's nations met in Paris for a nearly two-week-

long conference. Together, they hashed out an agreement on what must be done to fight

global warming.

Climate change activists are disappointed with the Paris agreement, however. In the words

of Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders, it does not go “far enough.”

High on the list of climate change activists' policy goals is a tax on meat. Such a tax would

be similar to the "sin taxes" levied on tobacco and alcohol, which are meant to help

discourage the use of those products.

The theory is that meat, especially beef, is disproportionately responsible for greenhouse

gas emissions. The activists claim that if we were able to change how people eat, primarily

in wealthier countries like the United States, we could take a significant bite out of climate

change.

Case Against Meat A Stretch

A blueprint to achieve the meat tax is laid out in a November report by Chatham House, a

London-based think-tank. The group concedes that the issue is “complex.”

Yet it advises governments to push for the taxes through publicly funded public relations

campaigns which make the matter appear clear-cut. The reason for this, it says, is that

people "respond best to simple messages.”

This is an unusual recommendation for a group known for promoting open debate.

It is one thing to push vegetarian diets on the basis of health claims or animal rights. The

environmental case against meat is a stretch, however. It requires fuzzy math and

politicized science.

Those backing the taxes point to the United Nations Global Livestock Environmental

Assessment Model, or GLEAM. In 2013 GLEAM concluded that livestock farming,

including beef, poultry and milk production, accounted for 15 percent of global

greenhouse gas emissions.

However, the model was not developed as fodder for anti-meat campaigns. Rather, it was

intended as a tool to guide the livestock industry toward more sustainable production.

Using GLEAM as scientific evidence to argue against meat consumption is as far-fetched

as it would be to fight organic agriculture because it relies on manure, a source of methane

and nitrous oxide, both greenhouse gases. No wonder advocates want to keep their

messaging simple.

Challenging A Simplistic Claim

The idea that reducing meat consumption would make both humans and the Earth

healthier is challenged by considering the environmental impact of the alternatives.

For instance, almonds, a darling of health food advocates, are highly water-intensive. The

U.N. has not yet calculated the water-footprint of your almond milk-based smoothie.

So what would be the environmental impact if we did reduce our caloric intake and shifted

to the U.S. government’s dietary guidelines?

Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University evaluated just that. In a study published in

Environment Systems and Decisions recently, they said such a change “increases energy

use by 38 percent, blue water footprint by 10 percent, and GHG (greenhouse gas)

emissions by 6 percent.”

Or, as the British newspaper The Independent reported it, “Lettuce is ‘three times worse

than bacon’ for emissions and vegetarian diets could be bad for the environment.”

Of course, replacing meat with lettuce and comparing emissions on a calorie-for-calorie

basis is absurd. However, it underscores a major point: meat is a highly efficient source of

nourishment — and tasty too.

The report explains that “these perhaps counterintuitive results are primarily due to USDA

recommendations for greater caloric intake of fruits, vegetables, dairy and fish/seafood."

Such foods "have relatively high resource use and emissions per calorie.” USDA is the U.S.

Department of Agriculture.

This is not the first study to challenge the simplistic “meat is bad for the environment”

claim.

According to a recent study from the University of Michigan’s Center for Sustainable

Systems, a shift from the "current average U.S. diet to USDA dietary recommendations

could result in a 12 percent increase in diet-related GHG emissions."

The lesson: if you want to advocate for meat taxes, you will have to keep it simple.

Otherwise, the science will get in the way of your agenda.

ABOUT THE WRITER: Jeff Stier is director of the risk analysis division of the

National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank. He

earned his law degree from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and served

two terms as editor-in-chief of the Cardozo Law Forum. Readers may write

him at 20 F Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington DC 20001 or reach him on

Twitter at @JeffAStier.

This essay is available to Tribune News Service subscribers. Tribune did not

subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and

do not necessarily represent the views of Tribune or Newsela.