You might also be thinking that there is really nothing new here. However,
I believe that
the article in the Washington Post written by Rachel Premack does make some
points, but most importantly, reminds us that this is not a ho hum topic if
we truly care
about the environment and our planet.
I think her title MEAT IS HORRIBLE is more than eye-catching. It is
brave, and I commend her for saying it. I probably wouldn't have her
courage and if
her article is read with an open mind --one will not be able to find fault
with its main
tenant and premise. For those of us who are vegan --we are not surprised by
or her findings- though many of us have been drawn to our lifestyle for
compassion rather then for environmental concerns- though we certain
In her beginning sentence, she pretty well sums up what she thinks of
meat: "It may
be delicious, but the evidence is accumulating that meat, particularly red
meat, is just
a disaster for the environment--and not so great for human beings,
I smiled when I read that she wrote about meat being delicious. Well,
since I haven't
had any since 1976, that observation doesn't hold true for me. I thank God
that because of Peaches my dog I became vegetarian in 1976 and vegan in
the observation that meat is a disaster for the environment I totally agree
who says they are an environmentalist and eats meat should read her post.
Because one-third of harmful carbon dioxide comes from agriculture and one
that comes from livestock- members of a United Nations panel recently urged
environmental assembly to consider recommending a tax on meat producers and
Maarten Hajer, professor at the Netherland's Utrecht University noted that
"All of the
harmful effects on the environment and on health needs to be priced into
As a member of the U.N.'s International Resource Panel comprising 34 top
30 governments, he said "I think it is extremely urgent."
But he also realizes that food is very political and in countries where
meat is a cultural
mainstay it could be a difficult argument. But despite this, he says that
soon move to to limit major carbon producers and food companies will have
to be a part
The idea of a meat tax is not new and is an idea which developed over the
past 25 years
as knowledge of the environmental toll of meat emerged.
And not only concern re harmful carbon emissions to the air, but the huge
water needed for the animals is another reason for trying to reduce meat
Agriculture consumes 80 percent of water in the United States but plant products
considerably less water than animals which produce red meat.
In her post- Premack has positioned numerous graphs to make her points.
shows that phasing out meat by simply eating less would bring down
dioxide emissions considerably --especially in the developed, meat-loving
China, the United States, Britain, and Brazil.
She also noted that the Czech Republic and Poland have greatly reduced
carbon output by as much as a half because of their environmental
concerns. But sadly,
in countries of meat-lovers, the carbon emissions continue to increase in
Anyone interested in this topic will find much more information and many
solidify her findings on the harmful effects on the environment caused by
of animals for their meat. Vegetarians and vegans take note -- your carbon
much smaller that a meat eaters. I hope this fact makes you feel good. It