Risks of Animal Agriculture with Respect to Sustainability - Essay Example

Integrated assessment of the risks of animal agriculture with respect to sustainability

Introduction

If one takes a look at the contemporary world, one will be able to see that it is significantly different from its counterpart from the past. A good example is the awareness of people of the impact that their actions have on nature. Indeed, there was a time when industrialization was the ultimate goal, but when it was achieved the public started looking for ways to align the industrial practices with the environment. Even though today many people are aware of the so-called greenhouse gasses, few are able to name sources of their emission other than burning fossil fuels. This paper will explore the impact that animal agriculture has on sustainability, particularly focusing on scientific and economic issues that are associated with this activity, examining the negative impact in the form of methane emission, and present societal decision that should be made to improve the situation.

Scientific issues

To begin with, it may be particularly important to consider the scientific issues that are involved in the discussion. Some might suggest that raising livestock is an activity that has been practiced throughout the history; therefore, it is not logical to draw any connection between environmental risks and this, one of the most fundamental human activities. However, what many may fail to realize is that the scope of animal agriculture today is many times bigger that even in history. What is even worse is that the methods have not changed much. Of course, animals are not kept healthier with the help of medicine, but the basic elements of raising livestock are similar to the ones used by our ancestors. Therefore, the only difference is the scope of the practice. So, it would be logical to assume that there is a lot of room for improvement.

All this is supported by scientific evidence. For example, Pimentel et al insist that the use of water by animal agriculture is disproportionate to the value of it (910). For example, it was found that this industry uses many time more water than fracturing. Moreover, the scholars also note that as much as one-third of all land on Earth is reserved for animal agriculture ("Livestock a Major Threat to Environment"). In other words, raising livestock seems to natural that many people accustomed to it and are not able to perceive the actual scope of this activity. However, the results of it may be horrible. Few people know that animal agriculture is responsible for the deforestation of Amazon: it accounts for 91% of instances (Margulis). Therefore, raising livestock may have consequences that have been largely overlooked.

Economic issues

There is a bundle of economic issues that should also be considered while examining the topic in question. First of all, one should point out that animal agriculture is an activity that serves a particular purpose: it produces food that is later consumed by people. In spite of the fact that the relationship between demographics and animal agriculture may not be evidence, it is particularly strong. When the population of the world experienced a sudden growth in the middle of the previous century, it was obvious that all they required food. As a result, those who produced it had to expand their farms to match the growing demand. Therefore, the steady population growth which has not stopped even today should be mentioned as one of the factors that lead to the growth of animal agriculture.

Some people might point out that the growth of the population does not have a strong correlation with animal agriculture since those nations that are most populous often prefer eating vegetables than meat. Nevertheless, many scholars, for example, Raphaely, insist that meat consumption in many countries all over the world has increased due to the fact that people are able to afford to buy meat (36). Consider one of the iconic symbols of the American culture – the hamburger. This meal involves meat and annually a tremendously big number of hamburgers is consumed. In other words, when production of meat became industrialized and when buying meat became simple, people started consuming it more, increasing the demand for it. In it, turn, the producer expanded the scope of the production to meet the demand and stimulate it even more. This vicious circle resulted in the situation when meat has become an irreplaceable part of the diet of many people.

Impact on sustainability

As it has been mentioned before, few people are able to see the correlation between sustainability and animal agriculture. However, the results prove that this correlation is strong. For example, Muthu reports that raising livestock accounts for 18 percent of greenhouse gasses that are produced by the humanity (62). Some might argue that there is nothing surprising about the fact that it is responsible for one-fifth of the emissions. However, if one compares it to the factor that is generally perceived as the major contributor to global warming, namely carbon dioxide emission by traffic, one will be able to see that it is 13 percent. Therefore, it may be rather surprising that animal agriculture has a bigger environmental footprint than exhaust from transportation. This alone makes the former as a significant threat to sustainability.

Moreover, one should also consider the nature of gasses that are emitted. Collman suggests that though animal agriculture does not produce carbon dioxide, it is responsible for the emission of methane and the latter is far more dangerous to the environment than the former (182). In other words, this industry not only produces more greenhouse gasses, but it also produces gasses that are more dangerous. It is quite surprising that the role that raising livestock plays in damaging the environment has not been addressed properly by the people. One would make no mistake pointing out that when it comes to sustainability carbon dioxide is the substance that is most widely known; therefore, it seems that the public has been misguided concerning the real source of the problem.

Speaking of the aspect of animal agriculture that should be recognized as the one which has the biggest impact on sustainability one should mention its wastefulness. Indeed, as it has been mentioned before, raising livestock requires a considerable amount of water that exceeds the amount that is used by fracturing. While it may be rather difficult to compare the two activities, but it is obvious that the amount of the water used is disproportionate to the benefits gained. In other words, fracturing allows people to produce energy that can be later utilized for other purposes, but animal agriculture mainly produces food. There are many people who do not eat mean and are able to live without products of animal agriculture. However, the majority of the people needs energy for living. That is why raising livestock should be recognized as an industry that is extremely wasteful and is incompatible with sustainability.

It must be noted that the relationship between two concepts is extremely complex and should be approached from the different point of view. On the one hand, animal agriculture is not sustainable because it requires more resources than it produces. In other words, the development of it is largely conditioned by the available space on the planet, but when there will be no place for this industry to expand, it will experience a major crisis. That is why, theoretically speaking, it is not sustainable per se. On the other hand, animal agriculture greatly contributes to other negative environmental effects such as greenhouse effect and may be indirectly responsible for irreversible damage that is done to the planet. Indeed, if the impact of raising livestock had been limited to wasting the resources, it would not have been so devastating; however, as it was pointed out before, this activity is also responsible for the emission of methane which is far more dangerous greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Societal decisions

One would make no mistake suggesting that the situation in question required implementation of a decision that should be made by the entire society. There are several which can be mentioned. First of all, it is important that meat consumption should be discouraged. It is quite obvious that over the years consuming meals that involve meat has become a tradition for many people around the world. Therefore, this might be perceived as a major lifestyle change and the majority of the people will oppose it (Roeser 691). However, one should keep in mind that if people reduce consumption of meat even by a little bit, the producers of it will have to reduce their activities as well because of the falling demand.

The second decision that should be made by the society focuses on improvement of the effectiveness of the current practices used in animal agriculture. It is rather obvious that all people in the world will not stop consuming meat once and for a lot. That is why it would be logical to address the other end of the problem. The major issue with raising livestock is its wastefulness. So, if there is a way to produce meat while using fewer resources than it will have a positive impact on the situation in question. For example, the problem of deforestation can be solved if farms would not expand, but will be able to raise livestock on the territories that they have. It would be ideal if the size of farms is reduced and the remaining space is used to plant trees. It is obvious that this calls for a major scientific breakthrough, but it is possible to achieve it.

Values involved

If one takes a look at the decisions that were mentioned in the previous section, one will be able to see that many people are likely to resist them. That is why it is essential to explain the values that should guide the public and encourage them to pursue this course of action. The first value that should be mentioned is environmental awareness and activism. Indeed, today many people claim that they are trying to make their contribution to saving the planet, but the actual difference that they make is insignificant. Therefore, reduction of meat consumption should be promoted as an effective way that will have a tremendously big impact on the environment. Therefore, those people who are willing to help will be able to see that they can help by just reducing the number of meat consumed.

The second value that should be mentioned focuses on healthy lifestyle. Indeed, the majority of the people acknowledge the importance of proper diet and claim that they would like to pursue a healthy lifestyle. Therefore, reduction of meat consumption as well as changing eating behavior so that it included more vegetables should be presented as a great way to start living a healthier life. Indeed, this should be regarded as a way to help the planet while helping one's organism as well. In other words, the passion for fitness should be translated into an effective environmental initiative. Even though at first people will not be able to see how the reduction of meat consumption helps the humanity achieve sustainability, when the first results show up, this connection will be evident.

Distributive justice

Finally, one should also pay attention to the concept of distributive justice when it comes to the topic in question. To begin with, it is important that every citizen of the society should be entitled to equal access to different kinds of food other than meat. In other words, it is quite possible that the wealthier part of the population is able to afford to make a change in their diet, but the rest of the population cannot. In other words, the reduction of meat consumption should be paralleled with the provision of access to fruits and vegetable as well as products that can satisfy people and prevent them from returning to meat. While food as such should not be distributed among the people, money and opportunity to buy it should be distributed equally.

Moreover, one should consider the burden that the public takes and make sure that it is also distributed equally (Barry 45). For example, if the entire nation, but a certain group of people, stops eating meat, then the consumption of meat will be significantly reduced, but it will be achieved at the expense of the majority. In other words, it is essential that all parts of the population make their fair contribution and none is required to give up more than others. Therefore, the responsibility to achieve sustainability should be distributed evenly among the citizens. This is particularly important because it calls for the unification of the social environment and making sure that everyone participated. Indeed, the latter is essential since if there is a passive part of the public that refrains from adhering to the societal decisions, then the latter are doomed to failure.

Conclusion

Having examined all the points which were mentioned in the paragraphs above, one is able to come to the following conclusion: there is a direct relationship between animal agriculture and sustainability; the former should be recognized as a significant risk for the latter. On the other hand, there are scientific issues that are involved such as the effectiveness of raising livestock. On the other hand, some economic issues such as population growth as well as patterns of mean consumption should also be considered.