Defining global depletion as it relates to food (where global warming fits)
“Discontent is the first necessity of progress.”
—Thomas Edison
STOP. TAKE A STEP BACK AND ASK yourself, “Where did this food I am about to eat really come from? How much water, land, and other resources did it take to get it from point A to point B? Why am I eating it?” Have you ever asked yourself that? Of course you haven’t—and why would you? Where your food comes from has to be the most “out of sight, out of mind” process that exists in our culture today; it’s obscured by many layers of cultural, political, and educational untruths and misperceptions. This is particularly true as it relates to our use of animals in the meat, dairy, and fishing industries. And yet, that very same subject—the origin of your food—is the cause of billions of unnecessary dollars spent annually on certain aspects of health care and loss of productivity. Most important, it is the major contributing force in global depletion—the eventual loss of our drinking water, air quality, land, biodiversity, and other resources.
Is global warming an issue with you? Whether it is or is not, please note that our current food choices detrimentally affect climate change and global warming more so than do all the cars, planes, trucks, buses, and trains used worldwide.1 That might be shocking and difficult to accept, but it is important to know—and it is true. Also, while we certainly should be concerned about global warming, it is just one aspect of the much larger issue of global depletion. If you really want to reduce your negative impact on our earth, it is not so much a point of adding insulation to your house, for example, as it is what you elect to eat. While it is clear that we must be aware of global warming, it frankly does not matter how many light bulbs we switch out if we run out of water to drink. Nor does it matter what type of hybrid car we drive if we run out of clean air to breathe.
So while it seems that our collective attention has been on global warming, it is only a small fragment of the more complex picture of what we are doing to ourselves and to our planet, as it is one component of the bigger picture of global depletion.
What exactly is global depletion? It is the loss of our renewable and nonrenewable resources on earth. At this point, we may need to redefine “renewable” as it relates to our resources. For instance, water is generally viewed as “renewable” and yet some of the water that is used daily on our planet comes from sources that take thousands of years to create. Similarly, trees in the Amazon forest (and ecosystems dependent on those trees) that are destroyed, required hundreds of years to develop. How “renewable” are these? We should use the term “nonrenewable” for any of those resources that, if destroyed, would most likely not be seen again in our lifetime. This also should apply to animals, such as those found in rainforests and rangelands, whales, and all other marine life.
It is these life-sustaining resources that are being used or destroyed at a rate such that replacement or restoration is impossible for hundreds, if not thousands, of years—if ever. Water, land, air, and wildlife ecosystems are most affected, and while many industries are to blame, our food has had the largest single negative impact on our environment. Every day, individuals and various industries use our planet’s natural resources. Land is used for housing, transportation, waste management, and agriculture. Our clean water supply is used for drinking, waste removal and cleaning, and agriculture. Fossil fuels are also in demand for personal use, as well as by a number of businesses, including agriculture. While most uses of our resources can certainly be scrutinized, modified, and even reduced, it is startling to know that the sectors that use and deplete most of our resources are the meat, dairy, and fishing industries. The choices of food that we all make directly impact the use and subsequent depletion of our planet’s resources.
Because it is the current “buzz,” let’s begin with a brief overview of global warming, or “climate change.” Experts and organizations have filtered much of our understanding of this subject, but essentially, global warming is principally caused by an increase in greenhouse gases. This assumes, of course, that the earth’s relationship with the sun has not changed, and the energy derived from the sun remains constant. Because our attention has been primarily on the production of these greenhouse gases, it also assumes that there is nothing else on our planet that affects these gases in terms of absorption, which creates more or less of an effect on our climate. But there actually is something else—our forests. This is particularly true of our rainforests, which absorb vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, while producing and exchanging it for oxygen.
Although water vapor and ozone (O3) are considered greenhouse gases, it is widely understood that the increase by human activities in the other greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O)—have had the most influence of any factor on global warming. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by 35 percent from the preindustrial year 1750 to 2006, those of methane have risen 145 percent, primarily due to the rise of the livestock/meat/dairy industry.2
Much emphasis has been placed on reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and subsequent CO2 production and what we, as individuals, can do to help reduce this trend. Former vice president Al Gore’s book, An Inconvenient Truth, certainly has helped increase awareness about global warming and has provided a sense of authenticity to its existence—and this was a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore did not tell the real truth, which set forth a public misconception that global warming is the primary concern with regard to our effect on the planet, and that our excessive production of carbon dioxide is the principal factor in global warming. Overall, Mr. Gore told only that part of the global warming story that was the easiest for him to explain—essentially, that which was the most “convenient” for him. His story and proposed solution is the least controversial route and, despite the title of his book, actually is the easiest for all of us to accept and to act on. Ironically, he effectively chose the path of least resistance. He emphasized that the culprit of global warming is carbon dioxide. After all, it comprises 72 percent of emitted greenhouse gases, and we humans produce most of it by the electricity we use and the cars we drive—how easy to deal with it. Simply reduce electricity and drive less often.
So what exactly did Al Gore fail to mention about global warming? That carbon dioxide is not the cause of global warming. It is, however, one component, and the most convenient to talk about, and the easiest topic for which to draw up a list to help solve it. While it’s important to be aware of and to minimize CO2 emissions from cars and industry, the single most devastating factor that affects global warming and our environment is caused by what you eat.
Another profound example of failure to adequately mention or address the effects of food choice and climate change can be seen with the management of the Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997 by numerous countries. Although the intent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to be applauded, proper attention was not given to the effects of food choice, specifically from the meat, dairy, and fishing industries. The Kyoto Protocol developed from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was initially an international treaty joined by a number of countries to begin considerations regarding global warming—or at least to mitigate the human influencing factors. The Protocol ensued and was approved by many nations and now has legally binding and stronger measures. This Protocol sets forth targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, and plans for “emissions trading” and “joint implementation” as incentives for participating countries. In its Methods and Science section, the Protocol does address deforestation and land use issues but never directly mentions that the largest contributing force for combined deforestation and land use concerns are the meat, dairy, and fishing industries, which are driven by our collective choice of foods to eat. This obviously is shocking when you think about their blatant omission of any suggested action to combat one of the largest causes of global warming. While a global community of governments and scientists have begun a more concerted effort to reduce our impact on climate change through treaties such as Kyoto, it is clear that much more of their focus should be toward solving our problem of food choices and production methods. Otherwise, any effort to make a positive impact on climate change will be futile.
Both methane and nitrous oxide are much more powerful than carbon dioxide as greenhouse gases. Methane has twenty-three times the global warming effect potential as carbon dioxide. Approximately 40 percent of all methane produced by human activities is from livestock and their flatulence and manure, to the point where atmospheric concentrations have risen 145 percent in just the last fifteen years. Nitrous oxide is 310 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Our livestock industry generates 65 percent of all human-related nitrous oxide.3
These statistics should provide insight into a more complete picture of greenhouse gases and global warming, but it is not what we should most be concerned with. First, we must be healthy, and our planet needs to be healthy in order for us to survive. For our planet to be healthy, we need to be concerned about our water, land, air, and living ecosystems. Greenhouse gases and their effect on global warming is only one aspect of the complete picture, and CO2 is only one greenhouse gas. It is what we eat and the choices we make in our diet, not the car we drive, that affects our supply of water, land, and air and will affect our success or failure on our planet.
Why is this the first time you have heard any of this? Many times we hear only what others want us to hear. This is particularly true when facts have been discovered regarding a sensitive topic that is being sheltered for one reason or another by large business or our government. For instance, there are a number of documented instances where, during the Vietnam War, our government and the media only allowed certain stories and images to make their way to the public. This was in order to minimize an already unfavorable public opinion toward the war. To a lesser extent but similarly, this has been the case with the war in Iraq. Occasionally, there will be an aviation report surfacing from NASA or the FAA that begins to divulge the reality of how congested our airways really are, providing numbers per day of near collisions. These reports quickly disappear from the headlines, as it is decided that they are most likely too much information for a newly concerned public. However, the most profound example of withholding or obscuring the truth is with the food we eat—the truth of what it really is, the reality of where it comes from, and what it does to us and to our environment.
You may be aware of global warming and consider yourself part of the “green” or “sustainable” movement. Those terms, however, are now almost overused and, at times, misused. For many, it is becoming the “cool” or socially or even politically correct thing to do—and in one sense, that is a good thing. However, it not so cool to think of yourself as “green” or sustainable because you recycle or you change to energy-efficient light bulbs when you still eat animal products that have a much more profoundly negative impact on our environment than all the bulbs you just switched out. Consider going one step further and actually becoming environmentally conscious. Instead of just saying you are “sustainable,” do the right thing for yourself and for the planet and eat only plant-based foods. Then you really will be sustainable.