Jarvis323
- 1,247
- 988
WWGD said:I agree with the California part. Developing an agricultural industry in what's essentially a desert seems like lunacy.
Ironically, one of the biggest water wasters (I think the biggest water user) in California agriculture is actually alfalfa used to feed dairy cattle. It has been a while since I was researching the topic. I think it has gotten better to some extent because inefficient flood irrigation methods are being phased out more over time.
In terms of environmental costs of meat production, the commonly cited ones are
(1) Land use ( apparently 26% of Earth's ice free land is used for grazing). Forrest's are cleared to make room for more.
https://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf
(2) Soil erosion depending on how the livestock grazing is managed. Although, now I am seeing contradictory sources claiming that more grazing can actually help. I think this is actually an issue which depends on the local environment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overgrazing
(3) Water usage.
https://muse.union.edu/mth-063-01-f18/2018/09/16/the-water-footprint-of-livestock/
(4) Risk of animal diseases crossing over to humans.
(5) Energy use and greenhouse gases.
In general meat production is considered highly resource intensive. Most of the world consumes much less meat than the average American. As countries become more developed, and the middle classes rise up around the world, more and more people are eating more meat. When factoring in how much demand worldwide as the population grows and more people are able to afford it, the environmental cost becomes quite huge. There is already not much land available for more grazing, so it drives deforestation to make more room. It also leads to more industrial farming with livestock packed together, which is considered inhuman, and also brings high risk of disease, and heavy use of antibiotics that leads to resistant super-germs.
On a side note. Besides high meat consumption, individual people in the developed world also wreak quite a bit of havoc on the environment in other ways.
The average American produces about 1,700 pounds of trash per year. About 286 pounds of that is plastic.
If everyone in the world followed suit, it would mean 2,000,000,000,000 (2 trillion) pounds of plastic trash per year. That doesn't seem like much when considering the total plastic waste in the world is about 600,000,000,000 pounds per year already. But that's including industrial use, not just the general public's trash.
There is actually more plastic trash now on Earth, not including the plastic being used or not yet thrown away) weighs more than all land and sea creatures in the world combined. And most of this coming from a relatively small percentage of the world's current population. Just imagine when the rest of the world catches up in terms of consumerism, and the population triples.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-made-stuff-now-outweighs-all-life-on-earth/
https://www.unep.org/interactive/beat-plastic-pollution/
So at some point the less and less exclusive class of privileged people who exorbitantly contribute to the pollution and destruction of the environment will have to find more sustainable ways to live their lives. It's already pretty insane in my opinion that we knowingly trash the world so badly already, and for the most part don't do anything to change it.
I've been making an effort to avoid plastic whenever possible. It blows my mind how hard it is though. It's hard to even shop for clothes that isn't made of plastic.
I eat meat. But I eat less of it than I used to.
Last edited: