Jump to content

Environmental vegetarianism: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary
Started structuring
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:Clune2016 food lca.svg|thumb|All types of meat—but especially [[lamb]] and [[beef]]—generate several times more [[greenhouse gas]] emissions in their production than fruit or vegetables. Certain products derived from animals, including [[butter]] and [[cheese]] are also responsible for relatively high emissions.]]
[[File:Clune2016 food lca.svg|thumb|All types of meat—but especially [[Lamb and mutton|lamb]] and [[beef]]—generate several times more [[greenhouse gas]] emissions in their production than fruit or vegetables.<ref name="Cune2017">{{cite journal|last1=Stephen Clune, Enda Crossin, Karli Verghese|title=Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories|journal=Journal of Cleaner Production|date=1 January 2017|volume=140|issue=2|pages=766–783|doi=10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.082|url=http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/79432/4/1_s2.0_S0959652616303584_main.pdf|accessdate=28 July 2017}}</ref> Certain products derived from animals, including [[butter]] and [[cheese]] are also responsible for relatively high emissions.]]
[[File:Sources of dietary energy-consumtion (%) 2001-2003 (FAO).svg|thumb|400px|right|People in developed countries [[List of countries by meat consumption|consume a substantially larger proportion]] of meat than those in [[Developing country|developing countries]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://faostat.fao.org/Portals/_Faostat/documents/pdf/sources_of_dietary_energy_consumption.pdf|title=FAOSTAT|website=faostat.fao.org}}</ref>]]
'''Environmental vegetarianism''' is the practice of [[vegetarianism]] when motivated by the desire to not contribute to the [[Environmental impact of meat production|negative environmental impact of meat production]]. This is most common with reference to [[climate change]]<!--To check later (Sci-Hub down): <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fox |first1=Nick |last2=Ward |first2=Katie |title=Health, ethics and environment: A qualitative study of vegetarian motivations |journal=Appetite |date=March 2008 |volume=50 |issue=2-3 |pages=422–429 |doi=10.1016/j.appet.2007.09.007 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666307003686 |accessdate=30 April 2019}}</ref>--> as livestock as a whole is estimated to be responsible for around 15% of global [[greenhouse gas]] emissions.<ref>{{cite web |title=Key facts and findings |url=http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/ |publisher=[[Food and Agriculture Organisation]] |accessdate=29 April 2019 |language=en}}</ref> As a result, significant reduction in meat consumption has been advocated by, among others, the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] and as part of the 2017 [[World Scientists' Warning to Humanity]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Climate change food calculator: What's your diet's carbon footprint? |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46459714 |accessdate=30 April 2019 |date=13 December 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Galetti M, Alamgir M, Crist E, Mahmoud MI, Laurance WF|title=World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice|journal=[[BioScience]]|date=13 November 2017|volume= 67|issue=12|pages=1026–1028|doi=10.1093/biosci/bix125 |bibcode=1985BioSc..35..499W}}</ref>
'''Environmental vegetarianism''' is the practice of [[vegetarianism]] when motivated by the desire to not contribute to the [[Environmental impact of meat production|negative environmental impact of meat production]]. Livestock as a whole is estimated to be responsible for around 15% of global [[greenhouse gas]] emissions.<ref name=FAOStats>{{cite web |title=Key facts and findings |url=http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/ |publisher=[[Food and Agriculture Organisation]] |accessdate=29 April 2019 |language=en}}</ref>{{efn|This is in line with the FAO's earlier estimate of 18%, published in [[Livestock's Long Shadow]] in 2006. They caution that "the two figures cannot be accurately compared, as reference periods and sources differ."}} As a result, significant reduction in meat consumption has been advocated by, among others, the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] and as part of the 2017 [[World Scientists' Warning to Humanity]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Climate change food calculator: What's your diet's carbon footprint? |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46459714 |accessdate=30 April 2019 |date=13 December 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Galetti M, Alamgir M, Crist E, Mahmoud MI, Laurance WF|title=World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice|journal=[[BioScience]]|date=13 November 2017|volume= 67|issue=12|pages=1026–1028|doi=10.1093/biosci/bix125 |bibcode=1985BioSc..35..499W}}</ref>


Environmental concerns about the production of animal products may also relate to [[pollution]], [[deforestation]], [[unsustainability]] and the use of [[Water crisis|water]] and land.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html|title=Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler|first=Mark|last=Bittman|date=27 January 2008|access-date=8 November 2017|publisher=The New York Times|via=www.nytimes.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Carrington |first1=Damian |title=Huge reduction in meat-eating ‘essential’ to avoid climate breakdown |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-reduction-in-meat-eating-essential-to-avoid-climate-breakdown |accessdate=30 April 2019 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=10 October 2018}}</ref>
Other than [[climate change]], environmental concerns about the production of animal products may also relate to [[pollution]], [[deforestation]], [[unsustainability]] and the use of [[Water crisis|water]] and land.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html|title=Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler|first=Mark|last=Bittman|date=27 January 2008|access-date=8 November 2017|publisher=The New York Times|via=www.nytimes.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Carrington |first1=Damian |title=Huge reduction in meat-eating ‘essential’ to avoid climate breakdown |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-reduction-in-meat-eating-essential-to-avoid-climate-breakdown |accessdate=30 April 2019 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=10 October 2018}}</ref>


==Environmental impact of animal products==
==Environmental impact of animal products==
{{Main|Environmental impact of meat production}}
{{Main|Environmental impact of meat production}}[[File:Sources of dietary energy-consumtion (%) 2001-2003 (FAO).svg|thumb|400px|right|According to an [[FAO]] report, the predicted increase in [[animal product]] consumption by people living in [[Developing country|developing countries]] will bring new challenges to global [[agriculture]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://faostat.fao.org/Portals/_Faostat/documents/pdf/sources_of_dietary_energy_consumption.pdf|title=FAOSTAT|website=faostat.fao.org}}</ref> ]]
Four-fifths of agricultural emissions arise from the livestock sector.<ref name=PublicHealth>{{cite journal | doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61753-0 | pmid=19942280 | volume=374 | issue=9706 | title=Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: food and agriculture | journal=The Lancet | pages=2016–2025 | year=2009 | last1 = Friel | first1 = Sharon}}</ref>


According to the 2006 [[Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations]] (FAO) report ''[[Livestock's Long Shadow]]'', animal agriculture contributes on a "massive scale" to [[global warming]], air pollution, [[land degradation]], energy use, [[deforestation]], and [[biodiversity]] decline.<ref name=FAO>{{Citation |last= Steinfeld|first= Henning|last2= Gerber|first2= Pierre|last3= Wassenaar|first3= Tom|last4= Castel|first4= Vincent|last5= Rosales|first5= Mauricio|last6= de Haan|first6= Cees|year= 2006|title= Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options|publisher= FAO|location= Rome|page= |url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/climatechange/doc/FAO%20report%20executive%20summary.pdf |accessdate= }}</ref> The FAO report estimates that the [[livestock]] (including poultry) sector (which provides draft animal power, leather, wool, milk, eggs, fertilizer, pharmaceuticals, etc., in addition to meat) contributes about 18 percent of global GHG emissions expressed as 100-year [[Carbon dioxide|CO<sub>2</sub>]] equivalents.{{efn|This is in line with the FAO's more recent figure of 14.5 percent. They caution that "the two figures cannot be accurately compared, as reference periods and sources differ."<ref name=FAOStats/>}} This estimate was based on [[life-cycle analysis]], including feed production, land use changes, etc., and used GWP ([[global warming potential]]) of 23 for methane and 296 for nitrous oxide, to convert emissions of these gases to 100-year CO<sub>2</sub> equivalents. The FAO report concluded that "the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global".<ref name=FAO />
Four-fifths of agricultural emissions arise from the livestock sector.<ref>{{cite journal | doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61753-0 | pmid=19942280 | volume=374 | issue=9706 | title=Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: food and agriculture | journal=The Lancet | pages=2016–2025 | year=2009 | last1 = Friel | first1 = Sharon}}</ref>


Estimates on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions attributable to animal products range from 18% to 51% of total global emissions.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/study-claims-meat-creates-half-of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html|title=Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases|date=1 November 2009|publisher=}}</ref>
A 2009 study by the [[Worldwatch Institute]] argued that the FAO's report had underestimated impacts related to methane, land use and respiration, placing livestock at 51% of total global emissions.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/study-claims-meat-creates-half-of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html|title=Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases|date=1 November 2009|publisher=}}</ref>


According to a 2002 paper:
However, a PNAS model showed that even if animals were completely removed from U.S. agriculture and diets, U.S. GHG emissions would be decreased by 2.6% only (or 28% of agricultural GHG emissions). This conclusion is on the basis that, in the absence of animal manure from animal agriculture, synthetic fertilizers would have to be produced, in order to meet a plant based global food demand, which releases [[Greenhouse gas|GHG emissions]]. The study also contributes this to the disposal of byproducts, which would otherwise be used as domesticated animal feed, and emissions from growing crops on land previously used to rear agricultural animals. Moreover, it is suggested that a conversion of the global population to a [[Plant-based diet|plant based diet]] may increase rates of nutrient deficiencies, particularly in the US, because the types of crops suitable to be grown on US climate and soils may not be sufficient for a balanced diet.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture|date=November 13, 2017|volume=114|issue=48|doi=10.1073/pnas.1707322114|pmid=29133422|pmc=5715743|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|pages=E10301–E10308 | last1 = White | first1 = Robin R. | last2 = Beth Hall | first2 = Mary}}</ref>


<blockquote>The industrial agriculture system consumes fossil fuel, water, and topsoil at unsustainable rates. It contributes to numerous forms of environmental degradation, including air and water pollution, soil depletion, diminishing biodiversity, and fish die-offs. Meat production contributes disproportionately to these problems, in part because feeding grain to livestock to produce meat—instead of feeding it directly to humans—involves a large energy loss, making animal agriculture more resource intensive than other forms of food production. ... One personal act that can have a profound impact on these issues is reducing [[meat consumption]]. To produce 1 pound of feedlot beef requires about 2,400 gallons of water and 7 pounds of grain (42). Considering that the average American consumes 97 pounds of beef (and 273 pounds of meat in all) each year, even modest reductions in meat consumption in such a culture would substantially reduce the burden on our natural resources.<ref>{{cite journal |last= Horrigan|first= Leo|last2= Lawrence|first2= Robert S|last3= Walker|first3= Polly|date= May 2002|title= How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture|journal= [[Environmental Health Perspectives]]|volume= 110|issue= 5|pages= 445–456|doi= 10.1289/ehp.02110445|pmc=1240832 |pmid=12003747}}</ref></blockquote>
A 2017 study published in the journal ''[[Carbon Balance and Management]]'' found animal agriculture's global methane emissions are 11% higher than previous estimates, based on data from the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Wolf|first1=Julie|last2=Asrar |first2=Ghassem R. |last3= West|first3=Tristram O.|date=September 29, 2017 |title=Revised methane emissions factors and spatially distributed annual carbon fluxes for global livestock|journal=[[Carbon Balance and Management]]|volume=12 |issue=16 |pages= 16|doi=10.1186/s13021-017-0084-y|pmid=28959823|pmc=5620025}}</ref> According to a 2019 report in ''[[The Lancet]]'', global meat consumption needs to be reduced by 50 percent to mitigate for climate change.<ref>{{cite news |last=Gibbens |first=Sarah |date=January 16, 2019 |title=Eating meat has ‘dire’ consequences for the planet, says report|url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/|work=[[National Geographic]]|location= |access-date=January 21, 2019 }}</ref>


The environmental impacts of animal production vary with the method of production, although "[overall] impacts of the lowest-impact animal products typically exceed those of vegetable substitutes".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nemecek |first1=T. |last2=Poore |first2=J. |title=Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers |journal=Science |date=2018 |volume=360 |issue=6392 |doi=10.1126/science.aaq0216 |url=https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:b0b53649-5e93-4415-bf07-6b0b1227172f |language=en |issn=0036-8075}}</ref>
A study in ''Climate Change'' concluded "if ... average diets among UK adults conformed to WHO recommendations, their associated GHG emissions would be reduced by 17 %. Further GHG emission reductions of around 40% could be achieved by making realistic modifications to diets so that they contain fewer animal products and processed snacks and more fruit, vegetables and cereals."<ref>{{cite journal | doi=10.1007/s10584-015-1329-y | volume=129 |issue = 1–2| title=The potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the UK through healthy and realistic dietary change | journal=Climatic Change | pages=253–265 | year=2015 | last1 = Green | first1 = Rosemary}}</ref>


===Methane===
According to the 2006 [[Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations]] (FAO) report ''[[Livestock's Long Shadow]]'', animal agriculture contributes on a "massive scale" to [[global warming]], air pollution, [[land degradation]], energy use, [[deforestation]], and [[biodiversity]] decline.<ref name=FAO>{{Citation |last= Steinfeld|first= Henning|last2= Gerber|first2= Pierre|last3= Wassenaar|first3= Tom|last4= Castel|first4= Vincent|last5= Rosales|first5= Mauricio|last6= de Haan|first6= Cees|year= 2006|title= Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options|publisher= FAO|location= Rome|page= |url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/climatechange/doc/FAO%20report%20executive%20summary.pdf |accessdate= }}</ref> The FAO report estimates that the [[livestock]] (including poultry) sector (which provides draft animal power, leather, wool, milk, eggs, fertilizer, pharmaceuticals, etc., in addition to meat) contributes about 18 percent of global GHG emissions expressed as 100-year [[Carbon dioxide|CO<sub>2</sub>]] equivalents. This estimate was based on [[life-cycle analysis]], including feed production, land use changes, etc., and used GWP ([[global warming potential]]) of 23 for methane and 296 for nitrous oxide, to convert emissions of these gases to 100-year CO<sub>2</sub> equivalents. The FAO report concluded that "the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global".<ref name=FAO />
A 2017 study published in the journal ''[[Carbon Balance and Management]]'' found animal agriculture's global methane emissions are 11% higher than previous estimates, based on data from the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Wolf|first1=Julie|last2=Asrar |first2=Ghassem R. |last3= West|first3=Tristram O.|date=September 29, 2017 |title=Revised methane emissions factors and spatially distributed annual carbon fluxes for global livestock|journal=[[Carbon Balance and Management]]|volume=12 |issue=16 |pages= 16|doi=10.1186/s13021-017-0084-y|pmid=28959823|pmc=5620025}}</ref>


===Land use===
Some sources{{Citation needed|reason=Which sources?|date=May 2016}} disagree with some of the figures used in arriving at the FAO estimate of 18 percent. For example, the FAO report estimates that 37 percent of global anthropogenic [[methane emissions]] are attributable to the livestock sector, and a [[NASA]] summary indicates about 30 percent.<ref>{{cite web|author1=Augenbraun, H.|author2=E. Mathews|author3=D. Sarma|year=1997|title=The global methane cycle|url=http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/education/methane/intro/cycle.html}}</ref> Because of the GWP multiplier used, such a difference between estimates will have a large effect on an estimate of GHG CO<sub>2</sub> equivalents contributed by the livestock sector. Livestock sources (including enteric fermentation and manure) account for about 3.1 percent of US anthropogenic GHG emissions expressed as CO<sub>2</sub> equivalents. This estimate is based on methodologies agreed to by the Conference of Parties of the [[United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]].<ref>EPA. 2011. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2009. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 430-R-11-005. 459 pp.</ref> <!-- INCORRECT NUMBER, DATA IS ON PP 22-23. CALCULATION NEEDED: (SUM OF MEAT PRODUCTS ACROSS PRODUCTION STAGE) (SUM OF ALL PRODUCTS ACROSS PRODUCTION STAGE). IDEALLY 2NDARY SOURCE TO PERFORM CALCULATION. Data of a [[United States Department of Agriculture]] (USDA) study indicate that about 0.97 percent of energy use in the United States is accounted for by raising food-producing livestock and poultry. In this context, energy use includes energy from fossil, nuclear, hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, technological solar, and wind sources. The estimated energy use in agricultural production includes embodied energy in purchased inputs.<ref>Canning, P., A. Charles, S. Huang, K. R. Polenske, and A Water [http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/136418/err94_1_.pdf Energy use in the U. S. foo system]. USDA Economic Research Service, ERR-94. 33 pp.</ref> -->
A 2003 paper published in the [[American Journal of Clinical Nutrition]], after calculating effects on energy, land, and water use, concluded that meat-based diets require more resources and are less sustainable than [[lacto-ovo vegetarian]] diets.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S|title=Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment|first1=David|last1=Pimentel|first2=Marcia|last2=Pimentel|date=1 September 2003|journal=The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition|volume=78|issue=3|pages=660S–663S|via=ajcn.nutrition.org|pmid=12936963|doi=10.1093/ajcn/78.3.660s}}</ref> "The water required for a meat-eating diet is twice as much needed for a 2,000-litre-a-day vegetarian diet".<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.watereducation.org/aquafornia-news/solution-worlds-water-woes-rising-populations-and-growing-demand-making-world|title=Solution for the world's water woes: Rising populations and growing demand is making the world a thirsty planet; the solution lies in people reducing the size of their "water footprints" - Water Education Foundation|website=www.watereducation.org|language=en|access-date=2017-04-03}}</ref>


According to [[Cornell University]] scientists: "The heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable".<ref name=PimentelPimentel2003/> However, they also write: "The meat-based food system requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet."<ref name=PimentelPimentel2003>{{cite journal |last= Pimentel|first= David|last2= Pimentel|first2= Marcia|date= September 2003|title= Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment|url= http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/660S|journal= [[American Journal of Clinical Nutrition]]|volume= 78|issue= 3|pages= 660S–663S|doi= 10.1093/ajcn/78.3.660S|pmid= 12936963|access-date=17 July 2015}}</ref> One of these Cornell scientists has advised that the US could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat. He "depicted grain-fed livestock farming as a costly and nonsustainable way to produce animal protein", but "distinguished grain-fed meat production from pasture-raised livestock, calling cattle-grazing a more reasonable use of marginal land".<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date= August 7, 1997|title= U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists|url= http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat|newspaper= [[Cornell Chronicle]]|location= |access-date= 19 July 2015}}</ref>
A 2010 report from the [[United Nations Environment Programme]]'s (UNEP) International Panel of Sustainable Resource Management stated:


===Land degradation===
<blockquote>Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth and increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.<ref name=UNEP>{{Citation |last= |first= |year= 2010|title= Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production: Priority Products and Materials|publisher= UNEP|location= |page= 82|url=http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Portals/24102/PDFs/PriorityProductsAndMaterials_Report.pdf |accessdate= 17 July 2015}}</ref><ref name="guardian-un"/></blockquote>
Another agricultural effect is on land degradation. Cattle are a known cause for [[soil erosion]] through trampling of the ground and [[overgrazing]].<ref>C.Michael Hogan. 2009. [http://www.eoearth.org/article/Overgrazing Overgrazing]. Encyclopedia of Earth. Sidney Draggan, topic ed.; Cutler J. Cleveland, ed., National council for Science and the Environment, Washington DC</ref> Much of the world's crops are used to feed animals.<ref name="guardian-un">{{cite news|title=UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet|last=Carus|first=Felicity|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|date=2010-06-02|accessdate=2011-10-26|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet}}</ref> With 30 percent of the earth's land devoted to raising livestock,<ref>{{cite web|title=Livestock Grazing- Combats or Spreads Desertification?|url=http://www.kkl.org.il/kkl/english/main_subject/curb%20global%20warming/livestock%20grazing-combats%20or%20spreads%20desertification.x|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070701174720/http://www.kkl.org.il/kkl/english/main_subject/curb%20global%20warming/livestock%20grazing-combats%20or%20spreads%20desertification.x|archivedate=2007-07-01}}</ref> a major cutback is needed to keep up with growing population. Demand for meat is expected to double by 2050;<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5443|title=Meat production continues to rise|last=|first=|date=October 18, 2018|website=Worldwatch Institute|access-date=October 18, 2018}}</ref> in China, for example, where vegetable-based diets were once the norm, demand for meat will continue to be great in absolute terms, even though demand growth will slow.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rabobank.com/en/press/search/2017/rabobank-chinas-animal-protein-outlook-to-2020-growth-in-demand-supply-and-trade.html|title=Rabobank: China's Animal Protein Outlook to 2020: Growth in Demand, Supply and Trade|last=|first=|date=March 2, 2017|website=Rabobank|access-date=October 18, 2018}}</ref> As countries are developing, incomes are increasing, and consumption of animal products is associated with prosperity. This growing demand is unsustainable.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/sustainability-and-livestock/en/|title=Sustainability Pathways: Sustainability and livestock|website=www.fao.org|language=en|access-date=2017-04-03}}</ref>


A grazing-based production can limit soil erosion and also allow farmers to control pests with less pesticides by rotating crops with grass. However, in arid areas, this may catalyze a [[desertification]] process. The ability of soil to absorb water by infiltration is important for minimizing runoff and soil erosion. Researchers in Iowa reported that a soil under perennial pasture grasses grazed by livestock was able to absorb far more water than the same kind of soil under two annual crops: corn and soybeans.<ref>Bharati et al. 2002. Agroforestry Systems 56: 249-257</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.fao.org/land-water/databases-and-software/crop-information/soybean/en/|title=Tobacco {{!}} Land & Water {{!}} Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations {{!}} Land & Water {{!}} Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations|website=www.fao.org|access-date=2019-01-31}}</ref>
According to [[Cornell University]] scientists: "The heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable".<ref name=PimentelPimentel2003/> However, they also write: "The meat-based food system requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet."<ref name=PimentelPimentel2003>{{cite journal |last= Pimentel|first= David|last2= Pimentel|first2= Marcia|date= September 2003|title= Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment|url= http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/660S|journal= [[American Journal of Clinical Nutrition]]|volume= 78|issue= 3|pages= 660S–663S|doi= 10.1093/ajcn/78.3.660S|pmid= 12936963|access-date=17 July 2015}}</ref> One of these Cornell scientists has advised that the US could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat. He "depicted grain-fed livestock farming as a costly and nonsustainable way to produce animal protein", but "distinguished grain-fed meat production from pasture-raised livestock, calling cattle-grazing a more reasonable use of marginal land".<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date= August 7, 1997|title= U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists|url= http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat|newspaper= [[Cornell Chronicle]]|location= |access-date= 19 July 2015}}</ref>


===Water===
According to a 2002 paper:
Animal production has a large impact on water pollution and usage. According to the Water Education Foundation, it takes 2,464 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef in California, whereas it takes only 25 gallons of water to produce one pound of wheat. Raising a large amount of livestock creatives a massive amount of manure and urine, which can pollute natural resources by changing the pH of water, contaminates the air, and emits a major amount of gas that directly affects global warming. As most livestock are raised in small confined spaces to cut down on cost, this increases the problem of concentrated waste. Livestock in the United States produces 2.7 trillion pounds of manure each year, which is ten times more than what is produced by the entire U.S. population. There are issues with how animal waste is disposed, as some is used as fertilizer while some farmers create manure lagoons which store millions of gallons of animal waste which is extremely unsafe and detrimental to the environment.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.vegetariantimes.com/article/the-environmental-impact-of-a-meat-based-diet|title=The Environmental Impact of a Meat-Based Diet|last=admin|date=2007-04-04|work=Vegetarian Times|access-date=2017-04-03|language=en}}</ref>
<!--===U.S.===
A 2011 [[EPA]] report found that livestock made up around 6% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.<sub>2</sub> equivalents.<ref>EPA. 2011. [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2011-complete_report.pdf Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2009.] United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 430-R-11-005. p. 84</ref>{{secondary source needed|date=April 2019}} Data of a [[United States Department of Agriculture]] (USDA) study indicate that about 0.97 percent of energy use in the United States is accounted for by raising food-producing livestock and poultry. In this context, energy use includes energy from fossil, nuclear, hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, technological solar, and wind sources. The estimated energy use in agricultural production includes embodied energy in purchased inputs.<ref>Canning, P., A. Charles, S. Huang, K. R. Polenske, and A Water [https://web.archive.org/web/20140611091653/https://www.ers.usda.gov/media/136418/err94_1_.pdf Energy use in the U. S. food system]. USDA Economic Research Service, ERR-94. 33 pp.</ref> -->
==Relation to other arguments==
{{Quote box
|quote = Massive reductions in meat consumption in [[industrial nation]]s will ease the health care burden while improving public health; declining livestock herds will take pressure off rangelands and grainlands, allowing the agricultural resource base to rejuvenate. As populations grow, lowering meat consumption worldwide will allow more efficient use of declining per capita land and water resources, while at the same time making grain more affordable to the world's chronically hungry.<ref>[https://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/1998/07/02 United States Leads World Meat Stampede | Worldwatch Institute<!-- Bot generated title -->] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080517050751/https://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/1998/07/02 |date=May 17, 2008 }}</ref>
|source = [[Worldwatch Institute]], an independent environmental research institute
|width = 25%
}}


Although motivations frequently overlap, environmental vegetarians and vegans can be contrasted with those who are primarily motivated by concerns about [[animal welfare]] (one kind of [[ethical vegetarianism]]), health, or who avoid meat to save money or out of necessity ([[economic vegetarianism]]).<ref>{{cite web |last1=Nuwer |first1=Rachel |title=What would happen if the world suddenly went vegetarian? |url=http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160926-what-would-happen-if-the-world-suddenly-went-vegetarian |website=www.bbc.com |publisher=[[BBC]] |accessdate=30 April 2019 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Eat Better and Improve Your Health For Less Money">{{cite web|title=Eat Better and Improve Your Health For Less Money|url=http://www.savvyvegetarian.com/blog/health/economic-advantages-vegetarian-diet|accessdate=10 February 2013|author=Katherine Manning|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20121114192717/http://www.savvyvegetarian.com/blog/health/economic-advantages-vegetarian-diet|archivedate=14 November 2012}}</ref> Some also believe vegetarianism will improve global food security, or curb [[starvation]].
<blockquote>The industrial agriculture system consumes fossil fuel, water, and topsoil at unsustainable rates. It contributes to numerous forms of environmental degradation, including air and water pollution, soil depletion, diminishing biodiversity, and fish die-offs. Meat production contributes disproportionately to these problems, in part because feeding grain to livestock to produce meat—instead of feeding it directly to humans—involves a large energy loss, making animal agriculture more resource intensive than other forms of food production. ... One personal act that can have a profound impact on these issues is reducing [[meat consumption]]. To produce 1 pound of feedlot beef requires about 2,400 gallons of water and 7 pounds of grain (42). Considering that the average American consumes 97 pounds of beef (and 273 pounds of meat in all) each year, even modest reductions in meat consumption in such a culture would substantially reduce the burden on our natural resources.<ref>{{cite journal |last= Horrigan|first= Leo|last2= Lawrence|first2= Robert S|last3= Walker|first3= Polly|date= May 2002|title= How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture|journal= [[Environmental Health Perspectives]]|volume= 110|issue= 5|pages= 445–456|doi= 10.1289/ehp.02110445|pmc=1240832 |pmid=12003747}}</ref></blockquote>


===Health===
A 2003 paper published in the [[American Journal of Clinical Nutrition]], after calculating effects on energy, land, and water use, concluded that meat-based diets require more resources and are less sustainable than [[lacto-ovo vegetarian]] diets.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S|title=Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment|first1=David|last1=Pimentel|first2=Marcia|last2=Pimentel|date=1 September 2003|journal=The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition|volume=78|issue=3|pages=660S–663S|via=ajcn.nutrition.org|pmid=12936963|doi=10.1093/ajcn/78.3.660s}}</ref> "The water required for a meat-eating diet is twice as much needed for a 2,000-litre-a-day vegetarian diet".<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.watereducation.org/aquafornia-news/solution-worlds-water-woes-rising-populations-and-growing-demand-making-world|title=Solution for the world's water woes: Rising populations and growing demand is making the world a thirsty planet; the solution lies in people reducing the size of their "water footprints" - Water Education Foundation|website=www.watereducation.org|language=en|access-date=2017-04-03}}</ref>
A study in ''Climate Change'' concluded "if ... average diets among UK adults conformed to [[World Health Organisation|WHO]] recommendations, their associated GHG emissions would be reduced by 17%. Further GHG emission reductions of around 40% could be achieved by making realistic modifications to diets so that they contain fewer animal products and processed snacks and more fruit, vegetables and cereals."<ref>{{cite journal | doi=10.1007/s10584-015-1329-y | volume=129 |issue = 1–2| title=The potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the UK through healthy and realistic dietary change | journal=Climatic Change | pages=253–265 | year=2015 | last1 = Green | first1 = Rosemary}}</ref> A study in ''The Lancet'' estimated that the "30% reduction in livestock production" by 2030 required to meet the UK Committee on Climate Change's agricultural would also result in a roughly 15% decrease in [[ischaemic heart disease]].<ref name=PublicHealth/>

Environmental vegetarians call for a reduction of first world consumption of meat, especially in the US. According to the [[United Nations Population Fund]], "Each U.S. citizen consumes an average of 260 lbs. of meat per year, the world's highest rate. That is about 1.5 times the industrial world average, three times the East Asian average, and 40 times the average in Bangladesh."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.unfpa.org/6billion/ccmc/u.s.scorecard.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030428144241/http://www.unfpa.org/6billion/ccmc/u.s.scorecard.html|dead-url=yes|archive-date=2003-04-28|title=UNFPA - United Nations Population Fund|website=www.unfpa.org}}</ref> In addition, "the [[ecological footprint]] of an average person in a high-income country is about six times bigger than that of someone in a low-income country, and many more times bigger than in the least-developed countries".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2004/english/ch3/|title=State of World Population 2004 - UNFPA - United Nations Population Fund|website=www.unfpa.org}}</ref>


The [[World Health Organization]] calls [[malnutrition]] "the silent emergency", and says that it is a factor in at least half of the 10.4 million child deaths which occur every year.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3559542.stm | work=BBC News | title=Hungry world 'must eat less meat' | date=August 16, 2004 | accessdate=May 2, 2010}}</ref><ref name="trade-48538">http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=48538 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050405194659/http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=48538 |date=April 5, 2005 }}</ref>
Some{{who|date=October 2011}} argue that the adoption of an [[ovo-lacto vegetarian]] or entirely plant-based vegan diet is best, but may not be totally necessary, because even modest reductions in meat consumption in industrialized societies would substantially reduce the burden on natural resources. For developed countries, a CAST report estimates an average of 2.6 pounds of grain feed per pound of beef carcass meat produced. For developing countries, the estimate is 0.3 pounds per pound. (Some very dissimilar figures are sometimes seen; the CAST report discusses common sources of error and discrepancies among such figures.)<ref>Bradford, E. et al. 1999. Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply. Council on Agricultural Science and Technology. 92 pp.</ref> In 2007, US per capita beef consumption was 62.2 pounds per year, and US per capita meat (red meat plus fish plus poultry) consumption totaled 200.7 pounds (boneless trimmed weight basis).<ref>USDA. 2010. Agricultural Statistics 2010, Table 13-7</ref>

==Support==
{{Pie chart
{{Pie chart
| caption = '''[[Biomass (ecology)|Biomass]] of [[mammal]]s on [[Earth]]'''<ref>Damian Carrington, [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study "Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals – study"], [[The Guardian]], 21 May 2018 (page visited on 19 August 2018).</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1126/science.aau1397 |pmid=30213888 |title=Space for nature |journal=Science |volume=361 |issue=6407 |pages=1051 |year=2018 |last1=Baillie |first1=Jonathan |last2=Zhang |first2=Ya-Ping |bibcode=2018Sci...361.1051B }}</ref>
| caption = '''[[Biomass (ecology)|Biomass]] of [[mammal]]s on [[Earth]]'''<ref>Damian Carrington, [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study "Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals – study"], [[The Guardian]], 21 May 2018 (page visited on 19 August 2018).</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1126/science.aau1397 |pmid=30213888 |title=Space for nature |journal=Science |volume=361 |issue=6407 |pages=1051 |year=2018 |last1=Baillie |first1=Jonathan |last2=Zhang |first2=Ya-Ping |bibcode=2018Sci...361.1051B }}</ref>
Line 42: Line 63:
| value3 = 4 | color3 = green
| value3 = 4 | color3 = green
}}
}}
A 2018 report in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' found that a significant reduction in meat consumption is necessary to mitigate climate change, especially as the population rises to a projected 10 billion in the coming decades.<ref>{{cite news |last= Achenbach|first=Joel|date=October 10, 2018 |title=Earth’s population is skyrocketing. How do you feed 10 billion people sustainably?|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2018/10/10/how-will-or-billion-people-eat-without-destroying-environment/|work=[[The Washington Post]] |location= |access-date=October 16, 2017}}</ref> According to a 2019 report in ''[[The Lancet]]'', global meat consumption needs to be reduced by 50 percent to mitigate for climate change.<ref>{{cite news |last=Gibbens |first=Sarah |date=January 16, 2019 |title=Eating meat has ‘dire’ consequences for the planet, says report|url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/|work=[[National Geographic]]|location= |access-date=January 21, 2019 }}</ref>

Another agricultural effect is on land degradation. Cattle are a known cause for [[soil erosion]] through trampling of the ground and [[overgrazing]].<ref>C.Michael Hogan. 2009. [http://www.eoearth.org/article/Overgrazing Overgrazing]. Encyclopedia of Earth. Sidney Draggan, topic ed.; Cutler J. Cleveland, ed., National council for Science and the Environment, Washington DC</ref> Much of the world's crops are used to feed animals.<ref name="guardian-un">{{cite news|title=UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet|last=Carus|first=Felicity|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|date=2010-06-02|accessdate=2011-10-26|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet}}</ref> With 30 percent of the earth's land devoted to raising livestock,<ref>{{cite web|title=Livestock Grazing- Combats or Spreads Desertification?|url=http://www.kkl.org.il/kkl/english/main_subject/curb%20global%20warming/livestock%20grazing-combats%20or%20spreads%20desertification.x|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070701174720/http://www.kkl.org.il/kkl/english/main_subject/curb%20global%20warming/livestock%20grazing-combats%20or%20spreads%20desertification.x|archivedate=2007-07-01}}</ref> a major cutback is needed to keep up with growing population. Demand for meat is expected to double by 2050;<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5443|title=Meat production continues to rise|last=|first=|date=October 18, 2018|website=Worldwatch Institute|access-date=October 18, 2018}}</ref> in China, for example, where vegetable-based diets were once the norm, demand for meat will continue to be great in absolute terms, even though demand growth will slow.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rabobank.com/en/press/search/2017/rabobank-chinas-animal-protein-outlook-to-2020-growth-in-demand-supply-and-trade.html|title=Rabobank: China's Animal Protein Outlook to 2020: Growth in Demand, Supply and Trade|last=|first=|date=March 2, 2017|website=Rabobank|access-date=October 18, 2018}}</ref> As countries are developing, incomes are increasing, and consumption of animal products is associated with prosperity. This growing demand is unsustainable.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/sustainability-and-livestock/en/|title=Sustainability Pathways: Sustainability and livestock|website=www.fao.org|language=en|access-date=2017-04-03}}</ref>

The environmental impacts of animal production vary with the method of production. A grazing-based production can limit soil erosion and also allow farmers to control pests with less pesticides by rotating crops with grass. However, in arid areas, this may catalyze a [[desertification]] process. The ability of soil to absorb water by infiltration is important for minimizing runoff and soil erosion. Researchers in Iowa reported that a soil under perennial pasture grasses grazed by livestock was able to absorb far more water than the same kind of soil under two annual crops: corn and soybeans.<ref>Bharati et al. 2002. Agroforestry Systems 56: 249-257</ref> Corn and soybean crops commonly provide food for human consumption, biofuels, livestock feed, or some combination of these<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.fao.org/land-water/databases-and-software/crop-information/soybean/en/|title=Tobacco {{!}} Land & Water {{!}} Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations {{!}} Land & Water {{!}} Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations|website=www.fao.org|access-date=2019-01-31}}</ref>.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.fao.org/land-water/databases-and-software/crop-information/maize/en/|title=Tobacco {{!}} Land & Water {{!}} Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations {{!}} Land & Water {{!}} Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations|website=www.fao.org|access-date=2019-01-31}}</ref>

Animal production has a large impact on water pollution and usage. According to the Water Education Foundation, it takes 2,464 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef in California, whereas it takes only 25 gallons of water to produce one pound of wheat. Raising a large amount of livestock creatives a massive amount of manure and urine, which can pollute natural resources by changing the pH of water, contaminates the air, and emits a major amount of gas that directly affects global warming. As most livestock are raised in small confined spaces to cut down on cost, this increases the problem of concentrated waste. Livestock in the United States produces 2.7 trillion pounds of manure each year, which is ten times more than what is produced by the entire U.S. population. There are issues with how animal waste is disposed, as some is used as fertilizer while some farmers create manure lagoons which store millions of gallons of animal waste which is extremely unsafe and detrimental to the environment.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.vegetariantimes.com/article/the-environmental-impact-of-a-meat-based-diet|title=The Environmental Impact of a Meat-Based Diet|last=admin|date=2007-04-04|work=Vegetarian Times|access-date=2017-04-03|language=en}}</ref>


In November 2017, 15,364 world scientists signed a [[World Scientists' Warning to Humanity|Warning to Humanity]] calling for, among other things, drastically diminishing our per capita consumption of meat.<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Galetti M, Alamgir M, Crist E, Mahmoud MI, Laurance WF|title=World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice|journal=[[BioScience]]|date=13 November 2017|volume=67|issue=12|pages=1026–1028|doi=10.1093/biosci/bix125}}</ref> A May 2018 study stated that while wildlife has been decimated since the dawn of human civilization, with wild mammals plummeting by 83%, [[livestock]] populations reared by humans for consumption have increased.<ref name="biomass">{{cite journal|doi=10.1073/pnas.1711842115|pmid=29784790|pmc=6016768|title=The biomass distribution on Earth|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|volume=115|issue=25|pages=6506–6511|year=2018|last1=Bar-On|first1=Yinon M|last2=Phillips|first2=Rob|last3=Milo|first3=Ron}}</ref> Livestock make up 60% of the biomass of all mammals on earth, followed by humans (36%) and wild mammals (4%).<ref name=biomass/> As for birds, 70% are domesticated, such as poultry, whereas only 30% are wild.<ref name=biomass/><ref>{{cite news |last= Carrington|first=Damian |date=May 21, 2018 |title=Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals – study|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study|work=[[The Guardian]] |location= |access-date=May 23, 2018 }}</ref>
In November 2017, 15,364 world scientists signed a [[World Scientists' Warning to Humanity|Warning to Humanity]] calling for, among other things, drastically diminishing our per capita consumption of meat.<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Galetti M, Alamgir M, Crist E, Mahmoud MI, Laurance WF|title=World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice|journal=[[BioScience]]|date=13 November 2017|volume=67|issue=12|pages=1026–1028|doi=10.1093/biosci/bix125}}</ref> A May 2018 study stated that while wildlife has been decimated since the dawn of human civilization, with wild mammals plummeting by 83%, [[livestock]] populations reared by humans for consumption have increased.<ref name="biomass">{{cite journal|doi=10.1073/pnas.1711842115|pmid=29784790|pmc=6016768|title=The biomass distribution on Earth|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|volume=115|issue=25|pages=6506–6511|year=2018|last1=Bar-On|first1=Yinon M|last2=Phillips|first2=Rob|last3=Milo|first3=Ron}}</ref> Livestock make up 60% of the biomass of all mammals on earth, followed by humans (36%) and wild mammals (4%).<ref name=biomass/> As for birds, 70% are domesticated, such as poultry, whereas only 30% are wild.<ref name=biomass/><ref>{{cite news |last= Carrington|first=Damian |date=May 21, 2018 |title=Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals – study|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study|work=[[The Guardian]] |location= |access-date=May 23, 2018 }}</ref>


A 2010 report from the [[United Nations Environment Programme]]'s (UNEP) International Panel of Sustainable Resource Management stated:
According to a 2018 study published in ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', global meat consumption is set to increase as the result of [[human population growth]] and rising affluence, which will increase carbon emissions and further reduce [[biodiversity]].<ref>{{cite news |last= Devlin|first=Hannah |date=July 19, 2018 |title=Rising global meat consumption 'will devastate environment'|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/19/rising-global-meat-consumption-will-devastate-environment|work=The Guardian |location= |access-date=July 21, 2018 }}</ref> A 2018 report in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' found that a significant reduction in meat consumption is necessary to mitigate climate change, especially as the population rises to a projected 10 billion in the coming decades.<ref>{{cite news |last= Achenbach|first=Joel|date=October 10, 2018 |title=Earth’s population is skyrocketing. How do you feed 10 billion people sustainably?|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2018/10/10/how-will-or-billion-people-eat-without-destroying-environment/|work=[[The Washington Post]] |location= |access-date=October 16, 2017}}</ref>


<blockquote>Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth and increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.<ref name=UNEP>{{Citation |last= |first= |year= 2010|title= Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production: Priority Products and Materials|publisher= UNEP|location= |page= 82|url=http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Portals/24102/PDFs/PriorityProductsAndMaterials_Report.pdf |accessdate= 17 July 2015}}</ref><ref name="guardian-un"/></blockquote>
==Related economic and social considerations==
{{Quote box
|quote = Massive reductions in meat consumption in [[industrial nation]]s will ease the health care burden while improving public health; declining livestock herds will take pressure off rangelands and grainlands, allowing the agricultural resource base to rejuvenate. As populations grow, lowering meat consumption worldwide will allow more efficient use of declining per capita land and water resources, while at the same time making grain more affordable to the world's chronically hungry.<ref>[https://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/1998/07/02 United States Leads World Meat Stampede | Worldwatch Institute<!-- Bot generated title -->] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080517050751/https://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/1998/07/02 |date=May 17, 2008 }}</ref>
|source = [[Worldwatch Institute]], an independent environmental research institute
|width = 25%
}}

Environmental vegetarianism can be compared with [[economic vegetarianism]]. An economic vegetarian is someone who practices vegetarianism either out of necessity or because of a conscious [[simple living]] strategy. Such a person may base this belief on a philosophical viewpoint, such as the belief that the consumption of meat is economically unsound or that vegetarianism will help improve public health, lead to global food security, and curb [[starvation]].<ref name="The Startling Effects of Going Vegetarian for Just One Day">{{cite web|title=The Startling Effects of Going Vegetarian for Just One Day|url=http://www.alternet.org/story/134650/the_startling_effects_of_going_vegetarian_for_just_one_day|accessdate=10 February 2013|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20121007180810/http://www.alternet.org/story/134650/the_startling_effects_of_going_vegetarian_for_just_one_day|archivedate=7 October 2012|date=2009-04-02}}</ref><ref name="Eat Better and Improve Your Health For Less Money">{{cite web|title=Eat Better and Improve Your Health For Less Money|url=http://www.savvyvegetarian.com/blog/health/economic-advantages-vegetarian-diet|accessdate=10 February 2013|author=Katherine Manning|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20121114192717/http://www.savvyvegetarian.com/blog/health/economic-advantages-vegetarian-diet|archivedate=14 November 2012}}</ref>

Environmental vegetarians call for a reduction of first world consumption of meat, especially in the US. According to the [[United Nations Population Fund]], "Each U.S. citizen consumes an average of 260 lbs. of meat per year, the world's highest rate. That is about 1.5 times the industrial world average, three times the East Asian average, and 40 times the average in Bangladesh."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.unfpa.org/6billion/ccmc/u.s.scorecard.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030428144241/http://www.unfpa.org/6billion/ccmc/u.s.scorecard.html|dead-url=yes|archive-date=2003-04-28|title=UNFPA - United Nations Population Fund|website=www.unfpa.org}}</ref> In addition, "the [[ecological footprint]] of an average person in a high-income country is about six times bigger than that of someone in a low-income country, and many more times bigger than in the least-developed countries".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2004/english/ch3/|title=State of World Population 2004 - UNFPA - United Nations Population Fund|website=www.unfpa.org}}</ref>

The [[World Health Organization]] calls [[malnutrition]] "the silent emergency", and says that it is a factor in at least half of the 10.4 million child deaths which occur every year.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3559542.stm | work=BBC News | title=Hungry world 'must eat less meat' | date=August 16, 2004 | accessdate=May 2, 2010}}</ref><ref name="trade-48538">http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=48538 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050405194659/http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=48538 |date=April 5, 2005 }}</ref>
Some{{who|date=October 2011}} argue that the adoption of an [[ovo-lacto vegetarian]] or entirely plant-based vegan diet is best, but may not be totally necessary, because even modest reductions in meat consumption in industrialized societies would substantially reduce the burden on natural resources. For developed countries, a CAST report estimates an average of 2.6 pounds of grain feed per pound of beef carcass meat produced. For developing countries, the estimate is 0.3 pounds per pound. (Some very dissimilar figures are sometimes seen; the CAST report discusses common sources of error and discrepancies among such figures.)<ref>Bradford, E. et al. 1999. Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply. Council on Agricultural Science and Technology. 92 pp.</ref> In 2007, US per capita beef consumption was 62.2 pounds per year, and US per capita meat (red meat plus fish plus poultry) consumption totaled 200.7 pounds (boneless trimmed weight basis).<ref>USDA. 2010. Agricultural Statistics 2010, Table 13-7</ref>


==Criticisms==
==Criticism==
{{expand section|date=March 2019}}
[[Bill Mollison]] has argued in his Permaculture Design Course that vegetarianism exacerbates soil erosion. This is because removing a plant from a field removes all the nutrients it obtained from the soil, while removing an animal leaves the field intact. On US farmland, much less soil erosion is associated with pastureland used for livestock grazing than with land used for production of crops.<ref>NRCS. 2009. Summary report 2007 national resources inventory. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 123 pp.</ref> [[Robert Hart (horticulturist)|Robert Hart]] has also developed [[forest gardening]], which has since been adopted as a common permaculture design element, as a sustainable plant-based food production system.<ref>{{cite book|title=Forest Gardening|author=Robert Hart|year=1996|page=45|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=N01940btQAQC&lpg=PA97&dq=forest%20gardening%20robert%20hart%20simple%20living&pg=PA45#v=onepage&q&f=false|isbn=9781603580502}}</ref>
[[Bill Mollison]] has argued in his Permaculture Design Course that vegetarianism exacerbates soil erosion. This is because removing a plant from a field removes all the nutrients it obtained from the soil, while removing an animal leaves the field intact. On US farmland, much less soil erosion is associated with pastureland used for livestock grazing than with land used for production of crops.<ref>NRCS. 2009. Summary report 2007 national resources inventory. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 123 pp.</ref> [[Robert Hart (horticulturist)|Robert Hart]] has also developed [[forest gardening]], which has since been adopted as a common permaculture design element, as a sustainable plant-based food production system.<ref>{{cite book|title=Forest Gardening|author=Robert Hart|year=1996|page=45|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=N01940btQAQC&lpg=PA97&dq=forest%20gardening%20robert%20hart%20simple%20living&pg=PA45#v=onepage&q&f=false|isbn=9781603580502}}</ref>


Some environmental activists claim that adopting a vegetarian diet may be a way of focusing on personal actions and righteous gestures rather than systemic change. [[Environmentalist]] Dave Riley states that "being meatless and guiltless seems seductively simple while environmental destruction rages around us", and notes that Mollison "insists that vegetarianism drives animals from the edible landscape so that their contribution to the food chain is lost".<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/5814|title= Does meat make the meal?|date= 2016-09-05}}</ref>
Some environmental activists claim that adopting a vegetarian diet may be a way of focusing on personal actions and righteous gestures rather than systemic change. [[Environmentalist]] Dave Riley states that "being meatless and guiltless seems seductively simple while environmental destruction rages around us", and notes that Mollison "insists that vegetarianism drives animals from the edible landscape so that their contribution to the food chain is lost".<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/5814|title= Does meat make the meal?|date= 2016-09-05}}</ref>

A PNAS model showed that if animals were completely removed from U.S. agriculture and diets, U.S. GHG emissions would only be decreased by 2.6% (or 28% of agricultural GHG emissions). This conclusion is on the basis that, in the absence of animal manure from animal agriculture, synthetic fertilizers would have to be produced, in order to meet a plant based global food demand, which releases [[Greenhouse gas|GHG emissions]]. The study also contributes this to the disposal of byproducts, which would otherwise be used as domesticated animal feed, and emissions from growing crops on land previously used to rear agricultural animals. Moreover, it is suggested that a conversion of the global population to a [[Plant-based diet|plant based diet]] may increase rates of nutrient deficiencies, particularly in the US, because the types of crops suitable to be grown on US climate and soils may not be sufficient for a balanced diet.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture|date=November 13, 2017|volume=114|issue=48|doi=10.1073/pnas.1707322114|pmid=29133422|pmc=5715743|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|pages=E10301–E10308 | last1 = White | first1 = Robin R. | last2 = Beth Hall | first2 = Mary}}</ref>


==See also==
==See also==
Line 86: Line 91:
*[[Vegan organic gardening]]
*[[Vegan organic gardening]]
{{div col end}}
{{div col end}}

==Notes==
{{notelist}}


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 17:01, 30 April 2019

All types of meat—but especially lamb and beef—generate several times more greenhouse gas emissions in their production than fruit or vegetables.[1] Certain products derived from animals, including butter and cheese are also responsible for relatively high emissions.
People in developed countries consume a substantially larger proportion of meat than those in developing countries.[2]

Environmental vegetarianism is the practice of vegetarianism when motivated by the desire to not contribute to the negative environmental impact of meat production. Livestock as a whole is estimated to be responsible for around 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions.[3][a] As a result, significant reduction in meat consumption has been advocated by, among others, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and as part of the 2017 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity.[4][5]

Other than climate change, environmental concerns about the production of animal products may also relate to pollution, deforestation, unsustainability and the use of water and land.[6][7]

Environmental impact of animal products

Four-fifths of agricultural emissions arise from the livestock sector.[8]

According to the 2006 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) report Livestock's Long Shadow, animal agriculture contributes on a "massive scale" to global warming, air pollution, land degradation, energy use, deforestation, and biodiversity decline.[9] The FAO report estimates that the livestock (including poultry) sector (which provides draft animal power, leather, wool, milk, eggs, fertilizer, pharmaceuticals, etc., in addition to meat) contributes about 18 percent of global GHG emissions expressed as 100-year CO2 equivalents.[b] This estimate was based on life-cycle analysis, including feed production, land use changes, etc., and used GWP (global warming potential) of 23 for methane and 296 for nitrous oxide, to convert emissions of these gases to 100-year CO2 equivalents. The FAO report concluded that "the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global".[9]

A 2009 study by the Worldwatch Institute argued that the FAO's report had underestimated impacts related to methane, land use and respiration, placing livestock at 51% of total global emissions.[10]

According to a 2002 paper:

The industrial agriculture system consumes fossil fuel, water, and topsoil at unsustainable rates. It contributes to numerous forms of environmental degradation, including air and water pollution, soil depletion, diminishing biodiversity, and fish die-offs. Meat production contributes disproportionately to these problems, in part because feeding grain to livestock to produce meat—instead of feeding it directly to humans—involves a large energy loss, making animal agriculture more resource intensive than other forms of food production. ... One personal act that can have a profound impact on these issues is reducing meat consumption. To produce 1 pound of feedlot beef requires about 2,400 gallons of water and 7 pounds of grain (42). Considering that the average American consumes 97 pounds of beef (and 273 pounds of meat in all) each year, even modest reductions in meat consumption in such a culture would substantially reduce the burden on our natural resources.[11]

The environmental impacts of animal production vary with the method of production, although "[overall] impacts of the lowest-impact animal products typically exceed those of vegetable substitutes".[12]

Methane

A 2017 study published in the journal Carbon Balance and Management found animal agriculture's global methane emissions are 11% higher than previous estimates, based on data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[13]

Land use

A 2003 paper published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, after calculating effects on energy, land, and water use, concluded that meat-based diets require more resources and are less sustainable than lacto-ovo vegetarian diets.[14] "The water required for a meat-eating diet is twice as much needed for a 2,000-litre-a-day vegetarian diet".[15]

According to Cornell University scientists: "The heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable".[16] However, they also write: "The meat-based food system requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet."[16] One of these Cornell scientists has advised that the US could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat. He "depicted grain-fed livestock farming as a costly and nonsustainable way to produce animal protein", but "distinguished grain-fed meat production from pasture-raised livestock, calling cattle-grazing a more reasonable use of marginal land".[17]

Land degradation

Another agricultural effect is on land degradation. Cattle are a known cause for soil erosion through trampling of the ground and overgrazing.[18] Much of the world's crops are used to feed animals.[19] With 30 percent of the earth's land devoted to raising livestock,[20] a major cutback is needed to keep up with growing population. Demand for meat is expected to double by 2050;[21] in China, for example, where vegetable-based diets were once the norm, demand for meat will continue to be great in absolute terms, even though demand growth will slow.[22] As countries are developing, incomes are increasing, and consumption of animal products is associated with prosperity. This growing demand is unsustainable.[23]

A grazing-based production can limit soil erosion and also allow farmers to control pests with less pesticides by rotating crops with grass. However, in arid areas, this may catalyze a desertification process. The ability of soil to absorb water by infiltration is important for minimizing runoff and soil erosion. Researchers in Iowa reported that a soil under perennial pasture grasses grazed by livestock was able to absorb far more water than the same kind of soil under two annual crops: corn and soybeans.[24][25]

Water

Animal production has a large impact on water pollution and usage. According to the Water Education Foundation, it takes 2,464 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef in California, whereas it takes only 25 gallons of water to produce one pound of wheat. Raising a large amount of livestock creatives a massive amount of manure and urine, which can pollute natural resources by changing the pH of water, contaminates the air, and emits a major amount of gas that directly affects global warming. As most livestock are raised in small confined spaces to cut down on cost, this increases the problem of concentrated waste. Livestock in the United States produces 2.7 trillion pounds of manure each year, which is ten times more than what is produced by the entire U.S. population. There are issues with how animal waste is disposed, as some is used as fertilizer while some farmers create manure lagoons which store millions of gallons of animal waste which is extremely unsafe and detrimental to the environment.[26]

Relation to other arguments

Massive reductions in meat consumption in industrial nations will ease the health care burden while improving public health; declining livestock herds will take pressure off rangelands and grainlands, allowing the agricultural resource base to rejuvenate. As populations grow, lowering meat consumption worldwide will allow more efficient use of declining per capita land and water resources, while at the same time making grain more affordable to the world's chronically hungry.[27]

Worldwatch Institute, an independent environmental research institute

Although motivations frequently overlap, environmental vegetarians and vegans can be contrasted with those who are primarily motivated by concerns about animal welfare (one kind of ethical vegetarianism), health, or who avoid meat to save money or out of necessity (economic vegetarianism).[28][29] Some also believe vegetarianism will improve global food security, or curb starvation.

Health

A study in Climate Change concluded "if ... average diets among UK adults conformed to WHO recommendations, their associated GHG emissions would be reduced by 17%. Further GHG emission reductions of around 40% could be achieved by making realistic modifications to diets so that they contain fewer animal products and processed snacks and more fruit, vegetables and cereals."[30] A study in The Lancet estimated that the "30% reduction in livestock production" by 2030 required to meet the UK Committee on Climate Change's agricultural would also result in a roughly 15% decrease in ischaemic heart disease.[8]

Environmental vegetarians call for a reduction of first world consumption of meat, especially in the US. According to the United Nations Population Fund, "Each U.S. citizen consumes an average of 260 lbs. of meat per year, the world's highest rate. That is about 1.5 times the industrial world average, three times the East Asian average, and 40 times the average in Bangladesh."[31] In addition, "the ecological footprint of an average person in a high-income country is about six times bigger than that of someone in a low-income country, and many more times bigger than in the least-developed countries".[32]

The World Health Organization calls malnutrition "the silent emergency", and says that it is a factor in at least half of the 10.4 million child deaths which occur every year.[33][34] Some[who?] argue that the adoption of an ovo-lacto vegetarian or entirely plant-based vegan diet is best, but may not be totally necessary, because even modest reductions in meat consumption in industrialized societies would substantially reduce the burden on natural resources. For developed countries, a CAST report estimates an average of 2.6 pounds of grain feed per pound of beef carcass meat produced. For developing countries, the estimate is 0.3 pounds per pound. (Some very dissimilar figures are sometimes seen; the CAST report discusses common sources of error and discrepancies among such figures.)[35] In 2007, US per capita beef consumption was 62.2 pounds per year, and US per capita meat (red meat plus fish plus poultry) consumption totaled 200.7 pounds (boneless trimmed weight basis).[36]

Support

Biomass of mammals on Earth[37][38]

  Livestock, mostly cattle and pigs (60%)
  Humans (36%)
  Wild animals (4%)

A 2018 report in Nature found that a significant reduction in meat consumption is necessary to mitigate climate change, especially as the population rises to a projected 10 billion in the coming decades.[39] According to a 2019 report in The Lancet, global meat consumption needs to be reduced by 50 percent to mitigate for climate change.[40]

In November 2017, 15,364 world scientists signed a Warning to Humanity calling for, among other things, drastically diminishing our per capita consumption of meat.[41] A May 2018 study stated that while wildlife has been decimated since the dawn of human civilization, with wild mammals plummeting by 83%, livestock populations reared by humans for consumption have increased.[42] Livestock make up 60% of the biomass of all mammals on earth, followed by humans (36%) and wild mammals (4%).[42] As for birds, 70% are domesticated, such as poultry, whereas only 30% are wild.[42][43]

A 2010 report from the United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) International Panel of Sustainable Resource Management stated:

Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth and increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.[44][19]

Criticism

Bill Mollison has argued in his Permaculture Design Course that vegetarianism exacerbates soil erosion. This is because removing a plant from a field removes all the nutrients it obtained from the soil, while removing an animal leaves the field intact. On US farmland, much less soil erosion is associated with pastureland used for livestock grazing than with land used for production of crops.[45] Robert Hart has also developed forest gardening, which has since been adopted as a common permaculture design element, as a sustainable plant-based food production system.[46]

Some environmental activists claim that adopting a vegetarian diet may be a way of focusing on personal actions and righteous gestures rather than systemic change. Environmentalist Dave Riley states that "being meatless and guiltless seems seductively simple while environmental destruction rages around us", and notes that Mollison "insists that vegetarianism drives animals from the edible landscape so that their contribution to the food chain is lost".[47]

A PNAS model showed that if animals were completely removed from U.S. agriculture and diets, U.S. GHG emissions would only be decreased by 2.6% (or 28% of agricultural GHG emissions). This conclusion is on the basis that, in the absence of animal manure from animal agriculture, synthetic fertilizers would have to be produced, in order to meet a plant based global food demand, which releases GHG emissions. The study also contributes this to the disposal of byproducts, which would otherwise be used as domesticated animal feed, and emissions from growing crops on land previously used to rear agricultural animals. Moreover, it is suggested that a conversion of the global population to a plant based diet may increase rates of nutrient deficiencies, particularly in the US, because the types of crops suitable to be grown on US climate and soils may not be sufficient for a balanced diet.[48]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ This is in line with the FAO's earlier estimate of 18%, published in Livestock's Long Shadow in 2006. They caution that "the two figures cannot be accurately compared, as reference periods and sources differ."
  2. ^ This is in line with the FAO's more recent figure of 14.5 percent. They caution that "the two figures cannot be accurately compared, as reference periods and sources differ."[3]

References

  1. ^ Stephen Clune, Enda Crossin, Karli Verghese (1 January 2017). "Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories" (PDF). Journal of Cleaner Production. 140 (2): 766–783. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.082. Retrieved 28 July 2017.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ "FAOSTAT" (PDF). faostat.fao.org.
  3. ^ a b "Key facts and findings". Food and Agriculture Organisation. Retrieved 29 April 2019.
  4. ^ "Climate change food calculator: What's your diet's carbon footprint?". 13 December 2018. Retrieved 30 April 2019.
  5. ^ Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Galetti M, Alamgir M, Crist E, Mahmoud MI, Laurance WF (13 November 2017). "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice". BioScience. 67 (12): 1026–1028. Bibcode:1985BioSc..35..499W. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix125.
  6. ^ Bittman, Mark (27 January 2008). "Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 November 2017 – via www.nytimes.com.
  7. ^ Carrington, Damian (10 October 2018). "Huge reduction in meat-eating 'essential' to avoid climate breakdown". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 April 2019.
  8. ^ a b Friel, Sharon (2009). "Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: food and agriculture". The Lancet. 374 (9706): 2016–2025. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61753-0. PMID 19942280.
  9. ^ a b Steinfeld, Henning; Gerber, Pierre; Wassenaar, Tom; Castel, Vincent; Rosales, Mauricio; de Haan, Cees (2006), Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (PDF), Rome: FAO
  10. ^ "Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases". 1 November 2009.
  11. ^ Horrigan, Leo; Lawrence, Robert S; Walker, Polly (May 2002). "How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture". Environmental Health Perspectives. 110 (5): 445–456. doi:10.1289/ehp.02110445. PMC 1240832. PMID 12003747.
  12. ^ Nemecek, T.; Poore, J. (2018). "Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers". Science. 360 (6392). doi:10.1126/science.aaq0216. ISSN 0036-8075.
  13. ^ Wolf, Julie; Asrar, Ghassem R.; West, Tristram O. (September 29, 2017). "Revised methane emissions factors and spatially distributed annual carbon fluxes for global livestock". Carbon Balance and Management. 12 (16): 16. doi:10.1186/s13021-017-0084-y. PMC 5620025. PMID 28959823.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  14. ^ Pimentel, David; Pimentel, Marcia (1 September 2003). "Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment". The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 78 (3): 660S–663S. doi:10.1093/ajcn/78.3.660s. PMID 12936963 – via ajcn.nutrition.org.
  15. ^ "Solution for the world's water woes: Rising populations and growing demand is making the world a thirsty planet; the solution lies in people reducing the size of their "water footprints" - Water Education Foundation". www.watereducation.org. Retrieved 2017-04-03.
  16. ^ a b Pimentel, David; Pimentel, Marcia (September 2003). "Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment". American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 78 (3): 660S–663S. doi:10.1093/ajcn/78.3.660S. PMID 12936963. Retrieved 17 July 2015.
  17. ^ "U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists". Cornell Chronicle. August 7, 1997. Retrieved 19 July 2015.
  18. ^ C.Michael Hogan. 2009. Overgrazing. Encyclopedia of Earth. Sidney Draggan, topic ed.; Cutler J. Cleveland, ed., National council for Science and the Environment, Washington DC
  19. ^ a b Carus, Felicity (2010-06-02). "UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet". The Guardian. Retrieved 2011-10-26.
  20. ^ "Livestock Grazing- Combats or Spreads Desertification?". Archived from the original on 2007-07-01.
  21. ^ "Meat production continues to rise". Worldwatch Institute. October 18, 2018. Retrieved October 18, 2018.
  22. ^ "Rabobank: China's Animal Protein Outlook to 2020: Growth in Demand, Supply and Trade". Rabobank. March 2, 2017. Retrieved October 18, 2018.
  23. ^ "Sustainability Pathways: Sustainability and livestock". www.fao.org. Retrieved 2017-04-03.
  24. ^ Bharati et al. 2002. Agroforestry Systems 56: 249-257
  25. ^ "Tobacco | Land & Water | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations | Land & Water | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations". www.fao.org. Retrieved 2019-01-31. {{cite web}}: no-break space character in |title= at position 8 (help)
  26. ^ admin (2007-04-04). "The Environmental Impact of a Meat-Based Diet". Vegetarian Times. Retrieved 2017-04-03.
  27. ^ United States Leads World Meat Stampede | Worldwatch Institute Archived May 17, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
  28. ^ Nuwer, Rachel. "What would happen if the world suddenly went vegetarian?". www.bbc.com. BBC. Retrieved 30 April 2019.
  29. ^ Katherine Manning. "Eat Better and Improve Your Health For Less Money". Archived from the original on 14 November 2012. Retrieved 10 February 2013.
  30. ^ Green, Rosemary (2015). "The potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the UK through healthy and realistic dietary change". Climatic Change. 129 (1–2): 253–265. doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1329-y.
  31. ^ "UNFPA - United Nations Population Fund". www.unfpa.org. Archived from the original on 2003-04-28. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  32. ^ "State of World Population 2004 - UNFPA - United Nations Population Fund". www.unfpa.org.
  33. ^ "Hungry world 'must eat less meat'". BBC News. August 16, 2004. Retrieved May 2, 2010.
  34. ^ http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=48538 Archived April 5, 2005, at the Wayback Machine
  35. ^ Bradford, E. et al. 1999. Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply. Council on Agricultural Science and Technology. 92 pp.
  36. ^ USDA. 2010. Agricultural Statistics 2010, Table 13-7
  37. ^ Damian Carrington, "Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals – study", The Guardian, 21 May 2018 (page visited on 19 August 2018).
  38. ^ Baillie, Jonathan; Zhang, Ya-Ping (2018). "Space for nature". Science. 361 (6407): 1051. Bibcode:2018Sci...361.1051B. doi:10.1126/science.aau1397. PMID 30213888.
  39. ^ Achenbach, Joel (October 10, 2018). "Earth's population is skyrocketing. How do you feed 10 billion people sustainably?". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 16, 2017.
  40. ^ Gibbens, Sarah (January 16, 2019). "Eating meat has 'dire' consequences for the planet, says report". National Geographic. Retrieved January 21, 2019.
  41. ^ Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Galetti M, Alamgir M, Crist E, Mahmoud MI, Laurance WF (13 November 2017). "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice". BioScience. 67 (12): 1026–1028. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix125.
  42. ^ a b c Bar-On, Yinon M; Phillips, Rob; Milo, Ron (2018). "The biomass distribution on Earth". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115 (25): 6506–6511. doi:10.1073/pnas.1711842115. PMC 6016768. PMID 29784790.
  43. ^ Carrington, Damian (May 21, 2018). "Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals – study". The Guardian. Retrieved May 23, 2018.
  44. ^ Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production: Priority Products and Materials (PDF), UNEP, 2010, p. 82, retrieved 17 July 2015
  45. ^ NRCS. 2009. Summary report 2007 national resources inventory. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 123 pp.
  46. ^ Robert Hart (1996). Forest Gardening. p. 45. ISBN 9781603580502.
  47. ^ "Does meat make the meal?". 2016-09-05.
  48. ^ White, Robin R.; Beth Hall, Mary (November 13, 2017). "Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114 (48): E10301–E10308. doi:10.1073/pnas.1707322114. PMC 5715743. PMID 29133422.

External links