Meat and the Environment

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 new

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 audacious and

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 her title

or her findings- though many of us have been drawn to our lifestyle for reasons of

compassion rather then for environmental concerns- though we certain welcome them.

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, too."

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 every day

that because of Peaches my dog I became vegetarian in 1976 and vegan in 1983. But

the observation that meat is a disaster for the environment I totally agree with. Anyone

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 third of

that comes from livestock- members of a United Nations panel recently urged its

environmental assembly to consider recommending a tax on meat producers and sellers.

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 food products.

As a member of the U.N.'s International Resource Panel comprising 34 top scientists and

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 governments must

soon move to to limit major carbon producers and food companies will have to be a part

of that.

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 amount of

water needed for the animals is another reason for trying to reduce meat consumption.

Agriculture consumes 80 percent of water in the United States but plant products require

considerably less water than animals which produce red meat.

In her post- Premack has positioned numerous graphs to make her points. One graph

shows that phasing out meat by simply eating less would bring down agricultural carbon

dioxide emissions considerably --especially in the developed, meat-loving countries of

China, the United States, Britain, and Brazil.

She also noted that the Czech Republic and Poland have greatly reduced their agricultural

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 greater numbers.

Anyone interested in this topic will find much more information and many graphs which

solidify her findings on the harmful effects on the environment caused by the raising

of animals for their meat. Vegetarians and vegans take note -- your carbon footprint is

much smaller that a meat eaters. I hope this fact makes you feel good. It does me.