Vegetarian for Our Earth – Eating Meat Contributes to Air and Water Pollution

Feces runoff from factory farms often pollute local groundwater.

Factory farms produce run-off that pollutes our streams and rivers, endangering not only the water supply for humans but also harming delicate eco-systems.

A U.S. Senate Agricultural Committee report concluded, "The threat of pollution from intensive livestock and poultry farms is a national problem." ^[1]

According to the EPA, over 200 manure discharges and spills from U.S. animal farms between 1990 and 1997 have killed more than a billion fish.^[2] Animal feedlots can contaminate nearby well water with high levels of nitrates, which have been linked to miscarriages in humans as well as "blue baby" syndrome in infants.^[3]

Manure lagoons and spray fields from animal agriculture also pollute the air by emitting ammonia, methane, and hydrogen sulfide.

According to a May 2003 article in the New York Times, "Around industrial hog farms across the country, people say their sickness rolls in with the wind. It brings headaches that do not go away and trips to the emergency room for children whose lungs suddenly close up. People young and old have become familiar with inhalers, nebulizers and oxygen tanks. They complain of diarrhea, nosebleeds, earaches and lung burns."

The article goes on to describe how air pollution from hog farms appears to have caused permanent brain damage in nearby residents.^[4]

Consider This
Amount of farmed animal manure produced in the United States: 
five tons of waste for every person

References

1. Animal Waste Pollution in America: An Emerging National Problem, Minority Staff of Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry, 104th Congress, Dec. 1997.
2. U.S. EPA. (2001, Jan.). EPA-821-B-01-001.
3. Center For Disease Control. (July 5, 1996). Abortions Possibly Related to Ingestion of Nitrate-Contaminated Well Water. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly, Report 26 , pp. 569-571.
4. N.Y. Times. (2003, May 11). Neighbors of vast hog farms say foul air endangers their health.

References for "Consider This" section:
Animal Waste Pollution in America: An Emerging National Problem, Minority Staff of Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry, 104th Congress, Dec. 1997.

Vegan for Our Earth – Eating Meat Contributes to Global Warming

Through the process of digestion, livestock emit 16% of the world's annual production of methane gas.^[6]

A groundbreaking 2006 United Nations report found that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined ^[1].

Luckily, we can help fix this problem by changing our diet.

According to a 2006 study done by researchers at the University of Chicago, most Americans can reduce more greenhouse gas emissions by becoming a vegan than they can by switching to a hybrid electric car.

They found that eating a vegan diet prevents the equivalent of 1.5 tons of CO2 emissions every year, more than the 1 ton of CO2 emissions prevented by switching from a typical large sedan to a Toyota Prius ^[2].

So why does meat cause so much global warming? There are a number of factors. Here are a few:

• Manure. The tens of billions of farmed animals of the world produce massive amounts of manure, which emit green house gases such as methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide.
• Cow Burps. Ruminant animals such as cows and sheep, also emit huge quantities of methane via burping and flatulence. Methane has 23 times the global warming potential of CO2, and the livestock industry alone is responsible for 37 percent of human-induced methane emissions.
• Deforestation. Forests are being destroyed to make room for cattle to graze or to grow crops to feed livestock. When the trees are cut down or burned, the CO2 they store escapes back into the air.
• Synthetic Fertilizer. Growing feed for farmed animals requires intense use of synthetic fertilizers manufactured with fossil fuels. This process emits a tremendous amount of CO2, and the fertilizer releases nitrous oxide^[3] — a greenhouse gas that is 296 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
• Burning Fossil Fuels. The burning of fossil fuels releases CO2, one of the primary gases responsible for global warming. In addition to fertilizer manufacturing, the meat industry uses fossil fuels to heat the buildings that house the animals, to produce of all the crops to feed to the animals, and to transport, process, and refrigerate all of the meat. Cornell ecologist David Pimentel estimates that animal protein demands about eight times as much fossil fuel than for a comparable amount of plant protein.

Why should we care? Global warming is a problem that could have devastating long term consequences. As the National Resource Defense Council notes, if we don't do something soon to prevent this, "Sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas. Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often. Disease-carrying mosquitos will expand their range. And species will be pushed to extinction." ^[5]

Many of these changes have already begun.

Consider This
One ton of methane has the global warming potential of 23 tons of carbon dioxide. A single dairy cow produces the equivalent to over 1.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide.^[7]

References

1. "Rearing Cattle Produces More Greenhouse Gases Than Driving Cars, UN Report Warns," UN News Centre, 29 Nov. 2006.
2. NewScientist.com, "It's Better to Green Your Diet Than Your Car," 17 Dec. 2005.
3. Scientific American. (2001, Feb.). p. 50
4. F.A.O., United Nations. (1996). Livestock & the Environment.
5. National Resource Defense Council. The Consequences of Global Warming. http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp
6. World Watch Institute. (2004, July/August). Meat: Now It's Not Personal. World Watch.
7. World Watch Institute. (2004, July/August). Meat: Now It's Not Personal. World Watch.

Eating Habits Must Change to Cut Emissions – WWF

BRITISH eating habits contribute far more to global warming than originally thought, a new study has warned.

A comprehensive investigation into UK food chain emissions, published by the WWF and Food Climate Research Network this week, found food consumption accounted for 20 per cent of total UK gas emissions.

But when land-use changes were taken into account, this figure rose to 30 per cent, it said.

The new report – How Low Can We Go – concluded that if the UK was to cut emissions by 70 per cent by 2050 the food chain would have to improve its productive efficiency and switch to non-carbon fuels. 
Controversially it also said Britons would have to substitute meat and dairy consumption with more cereals and vegetables.   

Mark Driscoll, head of WWF-UK’s One Planet Food programme said: “The full impact of our diets on climate change is astonishingly high – this report shows that.”

The report revealed a reduction in meat consumption would ease land pressures by substantially reducing the acreage needed to grow animal feed.

It also criticized livestock production abroad where an area of forest equivalent to half of England is cleared every year to make room for bigger ranches.

And in the UK it said livestock farming accounted for 57 per cent of agricultural emissions.

The report has heaped further pressure on Defra to back a reduction in livestock numbers after similar conclusions were reached in a Department of Health report last November.

The health report engendered wide-spread condemnation from farmers at the time and led to a fire-fighting exercise from Jim Fitzpatrick, Farm Minister, who backed British producers.

So far Defra has continued to back the industry. A spokesman for the Department agreed emissions associated with meat consumption should be reduced but said this could be done at a farmer level.

“We are working with farming organizations on a roadmap for reducing emissions from agriculture, which will be published this year.

“Many sectors, including the dairy, beef, lamb and pork sectors, are already working on plans to reduce their environmental impact,” said the spokesman, adding livestock played an important role in sustaining the British landscape.

Jim Begg, director general of Dairy UK, went one step further. He said the WWF was irresponsible to encourage livestock farmers to slash output when the world population was on the rise.

“Processors, retailers and dairy farmers are quietly making progress towards targets that will see a major reduction in emissions through more efficient handling of slurry, eliminating waste to landfill and using more recycled plastic in milk bottles.

“This is where the true greenhouse gas savings are being made,” he said.

Source : Farmers Guardian