A good question to ask any self-proclaimed environmentalist is, “Do you eat meat?” If the answer is yes, be ready to have a nice long discussion with that well-meaning individual about how veganism is environmentalism.
Eating a vegan diet is truly the easiest way to work toward a greener future. Because the amount of energy and land used for the factory farming of animals for food is an unsustainable way to feed the planet, eating a diet full of nutritious plant foods will reduce your carbon footprint, and it will also help to create a greener future for generations to come.
Animal agriculture—the raising of animals such as cows, chickens, pigs, and even fish—has a tremendous impact on our environment. Let’s talk about each type in turn.
Did you know it takes the equivalent of 55 calories of energy to raise just 1 calorie of energy from beef? Livestock farming has a devastating effect on the environment. Here’s why.
Destroying the rainforest: Worldwide, factory farming is taking a toll on the environment. Each year Central America imports more than 200 million pounds (90 million kg) of beef to the United States. In 2013, Japan imports of US beef increased by 52 percent. England imports much of its beef from Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. Worldwide meat production has tripled over the last four decades and increased 20 percent in just the past 10 years. Approximately 56 billion land animals are reared and slaughtered for human consumption annually, and livestock inventories are expected to double by 2050, with most increases occurring in the developing world, according to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.
Let’s put fuel costs and pollution aside. Where does all of this beef come from? The grazing land needed to raise these cattle is often found by clear-cutting dense rainforest land. Studies estimate that the necessity for more grazing land means that for every minute of every day, a land area equivalent to seven football fields is destroyed in the Amazon basin. For each hamburger that originates from animals raised on rainforest land, approximately 55 square feet (16.76 sq m) of rainforest had to be destroyed. According to a 1997 study, farm animals and animal production facilities cover one-third of the planet’s land surface, using more than two-thirds of all available agricultural land including the land needed to grow crops for animal feed. It’s not just the rainforest. More than 260 million acres of national forests have already been clear-cut for animal agriculture. With increased per capita meat consumption, and an ever-growing population, we can only expect to see more deforestation in the future.
Harming native wildlife: Clear-cutting of forests is only one aspect of the devastating ecological effects livestock grazing has to the native wilderness. For example, in the United States, it is still legal within the national park system. It is actually subsidized by taxpayer dollars, at an alarming rate of more than $100 million per year, to have privately owned cattle graze on publicly owned lands. Native species, such as the desert tortoise, the pronghorn antelope, and many species of birds suffer. Livestock grazing currently has a negative effect on 22 percent of the species on the threatened and endangered species list.
Wasting water: In addition to needing land for raising meat, animal agriculture also requires water. The amount of water needed for animal consumption is almost equivalent to all other uses of water, combined. To grow 1 pound (455 g) of beef requires about 2,500 gallons (9.5 kl) of water. Compare that to 1 pound (455 g) of soy, which only requires 250 gallons (946 L), or 1 pound of wheat, only 25 gallons (95 L). It is inefficient use of resources, because it takes years to grow that single pound of beef. The amount of water needed to produce just one hamburger is enough to take a nice long, hot shower every day for 2 1/2 weeks. With numbers like these, eating vegan is surely the green way to go.
Manure pollution: Beyond the waste, there is water pollution. Agricultural pesticides and manure seep into the groundwater, eventually finding their way to the rivers and oceans. Specifically on farms, the manure contains high levels of oxygen-demanding substances. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “When discharged to surface water, the biodegradable material (manure) is decomposed by aquatic bacteria and other microorganisms. During this process, dissolved oxygen is consumed, reducing the amount available for aquatic animals. Severe depressions in dissolved oxygen levels can result in fish kills.” There are numerous examples of fish kills resulting from manure discharges and runoff from various types of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).
Fecal waste may be deposited directly into surface waters by grazing animals. Manually collected manure may also be introduced into surface waters. This is typically via storage structure failure, overflow, or operator error.
Manure can also enter surface waters via runoff if it is over applied or misapplied to land. For example, manure application to saturated or frozen soils may result in a discharge to surface waters. Factors that promote runoff to surface waters are steep land slope, high rainfall, low soil porosity, and proximity to surface water.
Air polluting: Air pollution is another negative environmental impact. On hot, humid days, the odor of waste lagoons is detectable up to 1/2 mile (.8 km) away. In the state of Iowa, officials tested air quality in six different neighborhoods adjacent to hog farms. Data collected showed hydrogen sulfide and ammonia levels frequently exceeded the state’s recommended air quality levels. It is believed that these elevated levels have led to numerous adverse health effects, including headaches, asthma, flu-like symptoms, and diarrhea.
“The coincidence of people showing a pattern of impairment and being exposed to hydrogen sulfide arising from lagoons where hog manure is stored and then sprayed on fields or sprayed into the air demonstrates a link that is practically undeniable,” says Kaye Kilburn, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California.
According to the FAO, animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. Annually, animals raised for food account for 9 percent of carbon dioxide, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide.
Depleting fossil fuels: In addition to water, soil, and air pollution, the effect of animal agriculture has on fossil fuels is tremendous. Each animal grown and slaughtered for food must be fed. The feed ranges from grain to soy products. This feed requires energy to grow and transport. During 2012, China imported around 60 percent of the world’s total soybean produced, primarily to feed pigs. Just imagine the amount of people that could be fed if we focused our agriculture on wheat, corn, soy, and other grains grown for human consumption rather than for livestock.
A Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) is a factory farm that houses hundreds, even thousands, of animals in a small concentrated area. The effect CAFOs have on the environment is stifling. Because these large commercial operations are still considered farms, they are exempt from the emission standards for other types of industrial operations. Factory farms do not have to follow the same rules when it comes to disposing of waste and emitting harmful greenhouse gasses and other highly toxic pollutants that other types of factories do. Because of this loophole, CAFOs contribute about 80 percent of the ammonia emissions.
The fecal waste from these large operations is more than 100 times that of all of the U.S. human population combined. Yes, you read that right. The fecal waste from CAFOs is more than 100 times the waste of more than 313 million people! Human waste, however, is treated in sewer systems. Not so with agricultural animal waste. This waste finds its way into the groundwater and eventually into our rivers and oceans. The EPA found that waste from factory farms has already contaminated the groundwater in 17 states and polluted more than 35,000 miles (56,000 km) of rivers in 22 states.
The waste from these CAFOs polluting the waterways with, well, let’s be blunt, pee and poop. That pee and poop is also filled with the antibiotics and hormones that are fed to these animals. Tests have shown that these secreted drugs affect our food supply. Vegetables grown on farms adjacent to CAFOs have been shown to contain low doses of hormones and antibiotics. Fish that swim in polluted waterways have also tested positive for these harmful drugs.
Our oceans are very fragile, and as humans’ appetite for seafood grows, the havoc it is wreaking on the oceans grows. In fact, it is already driving many species to extinction. If overfishing trends continue, the FAO estimates that all wild fish may be gone by the year 2048.
For every pound (455 g) of shrimp that makes it to the plate, up to 20 pounds (9 kg) of other marine life is caught, killed or maimed, and discarded. Each year, hundreds of thousands of what the industry calls “by-catch,” are caught or tangled up in nets and then thrown back into the ocean. The victims include dolphins, turtles, and other marine animals.
Farmed fish (aquaculture) isn’t any better. Many fisheries use wild fish as feed for farmed fish, sometimes using up to 5 pounds (2.25 kg) of wild caught fish to grow just 1 pound (455 g) of farm raised fish.
Out of greed, and to make maximum profits, commercial fish farms overcrowd their fish. This overcrowding breeds disease and causes stress for the fish. Studies have shown that too dense a stocking rate induces stress problems and increases susceptibility to diseases. Overcrowding also leads to poor water quality due to decreased oxygen levels, high accumulation of metabolic products and excrement, and rapid growth and transmission of noxious parasites, microorganisms, and pathogens.
A report in New Scientist estimated that driving a hybrid car rather than an average vehicle conserves a little over 1 ton (907 kg) of carbon dioxide per year. And a report from Shrink that Footprint, which compares the carbon footprints of five different diets, shows that a vegan diet, consumes about 1 1/2 tons (1360 kg) less than the Sickness and Disease-promoting diet. Adopting a plant-based diet actually does more to reduce emissions than driving a hybrid car!
Many scientists and environmentalists agree that adopting a plant-based diet is surely a step in the right direction to ensuring a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a reduction in the overall waste of energy in food production.
Years ago, as big business began operating CAFOs and other large-scale factory farms, it was with the promise that food would be cheaper and healthier. They promised it would make it possible to reduce hunger throughout the world. Unfortunately, we now know this couldn’t be farther from the truth. Instead, the larger the farm, the bigger its negative impact is on the environment. And because so much of the farmland is being used to grow livestock feed, instead of food for human consumption, the problem of world hunger has only increased.
We urge you to stop supporting animal agriculture with your consumer dollar. Whenever possible, purchase local, seasonal, and organically grown produce. This will ensure that you are reducing your food’s carbon footprint even further.