A Case Against Animal Agriculture

I. Preliminary Statement

A. Statement of Issue: I will discuss and prove the extensive harms of animal agriculture on the environment. I will go about doing this from a variety of angles, namely ecological: citing methane gas emissions, water usage, land utilization, habitat destruction, and other such effects. To further bolster my argument, I will cite other consequences of animal agriculture pertaining to not only the environment but the economy, human health, and animal ethics.

B. Statement of Your Argument: Along with other sources, I will pull from scholarly sources that display substantive points that provide credibility and science to my argument that animal agriculture is one of the most detrimental industries to the environment. By the end of this argument case study, I hope to illustrate the importance of reducing human’s reliance on animal products not only for animals’ sakes, but for our planet’s as well. There are many steps we can take to combat the harmful effects of animal agriculture, namely adopting meatless lifestyles (even better, ones with substantially less dairy as well), the outlaw of large factory farms, and improvements in educating society on the effects of meat not only on the environment, but on humans too. I will also attempt to dismantle the cognitive dissonance much of society is living under in regards to raising animals for dairy products and slaughter.

II. Statement of Facts

Many people believe that “self-righteous vegans” and “tree-hugging environmentalists” come to the conclusion that the use of animal products is wrong simply based on personal ethics, opinions, or preferences. There is a common misconception that the vegan/vegetarian movement and the broader environmental movement are solely based on feelings and whims that some people feel while others do not. It is held that it is just a matter of personal preference that some can lean into if they so choose with no consequences to others. This is incredibly far from the truth. Yes, there are some moral gray areas in regards to animal ethics, but the cold, hard science of this large industry does not lie. The facts simply all point to a conclusive answer: animal agriculture isn’t just not good for the environment. It actively damages it at an alarming rate. Many people try to combat environmental degradation by avoiding plastic bags, recycling everything they use, and even taking public transportation. However, the effect that these things have on the environment doesn’t even come close to those of animal agriculture’s. While there are countless reasons illustrating this objective truth, I will focus on the main stressors of climate change and water and land use to substantiate this argument.

One of the biggest focuses of the environmental movement today is the problem of global warming or climate change. The importance of this issue is unequivocal: the climate is changing and humans are contributing to this change. This paper isn’t about whether or not climate change is real, though; I am approaching this from the viewpoint that it is. Upon acknowledging this, the important point to address now is to what extent animal agriculture is aggravating this problem.

The answer is simple: a lot. More than people would think. This relationship can be traced back to the most simplest of terms. Not only do animals produce high levels of CO2 and methane which contributes to high levels of pollution, but also the methods in which we transport them. Live animals are loaded into trucks and driven hundreds of miles to farms where they are slaughtered. Their body parts are packed up and shipped in trucks and freights to many different locations, multiplying the use of transportation. An incredibly large amount of “fossil fuels are used in the production and transport of processed and refrigerated animal products”, more than has been used in the course of history (Gill et. al 2010). It is next to impossible for any rational person to intelligently deny the negative ecological effects of industrial farming. The numbers say it all: three quarters of the US’s nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more polluting than carbon dioxide, comes from meat agriculture; pigs and cattle excrete almost three times as much waste nitrogen than humans globally; and toxic chemicals and animal runoff from factory farms have poisoned almost 173,000 miles of rivers and streams. Also, ecosystems like the rainforest act as carbon sinks which are vital in regulating the temperature of the earth (Gill et. al 2010). According to a report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock industry generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transportation (Matthews 2006).

Another large factor affected by animal agriculture is its substantial use of land and water. Water and valuable land for farming are two resources many humans in the world are without. These are invaluable assets that, with proper care, could benefit much of the human race, especially the poor and underprivileged. Land used for livestock grazing accounts for “more than 25% of the global land surface, and about 70% of global agricultural land” (Stehfest 2009). This is an incredibly high percentage, leading to a high impact on the carbon cycle, deforestation, and land degradation. Furthermore, not only does animal agriculture need large areas of grazing land, it also requires the production of feed crops which cover 34% of global cropland. To be even more specific, 2-5 acres of land are used per cow (McBride et. al 2011). To put all of this into context, “land the size of seven football fields (often precious forested areas) is razed every minute to create room for farmed animals”, long before they are even close to slaughter time (Masson 2009). Animal agriculture water consumption ranges from 34-76 trillion gallons annually (Pimentel 2004). It’s simply inarguable that the use of water in the meat industry is insanely high, diminishing human’s sustainability substantially. In fact, just “5% of water consumed in the US is by private homes. 55% of water consumed in the US is for animal agriculture” (Jacobson 2006).

There are many other notable causes for concern surrounding our global reliance on animal agriculture such as waste production and pollution. What is usually thought of as a happening behind closed slaughterhouse doors for human enjoyment is proving to affect our lives in more negative ways than positive ones, a fact that society needs to open their minds to.

III. Argumentation

After looking at the scientific facts, it is only logical to conclude that what humans are doing right now in regards to animal agriculture and its effects on the environment is not enough. In the recent years there has been a resurgence of environmental awareness and advocacy, but based on these numbers, it’s clear that it’s not enough. There’s an old adage that goes along the lines of “If you always do what you’ve always done, you always get what you’ve always gotten”. There is no other instance where this saying doesn’t ring truer. It’s true that many people around the world are becoming advocates for environmental sustainability and conservation. Most common people would say that they care about what happens to the environment and that they’re willing to take steps to try to mitigate their own footprints. However, the steps that these people believe they should make are a fraction of the size they should be taking. There’s an elephant in the room that no one seems to want to talk about. It’s an elephant the size of gigantic clouds of pollution billowing into the sky, the size of land becoming desertified, the size of starving people all around the globe. It all comes back to animal agriculture.

This is a common denominator that, if accepted by society, can and will help humanity get back on its feet in the quest of protecting the planet we live on. Now, to accept this fact is to put thoughts into actions. The proposed course of action is simple: as many as people as possible should become vegetarians (ideally, eventually vegans). This would eradicate the demand for mass-produced meat, and significantly reduce the demand for dairy and other animal products. This would prompt large factories and monopolies over the meat market to either go out of business or drastically change their marketing and production strategies. Instead of focusing on how best to efficiently slaughter a cow, technology would then be focused on investing in sustainable meat and dairy alternatives.

In an effort to provide actual empirical evidence to the beneficial nature of this transition off of meat products, in 2009 researchers from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency published a study using an integrated assessment model to demonstrate what exactly would happen in this changed society. Their research projected that universal vegetarianism would provide impressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and that universal veganism would “reduce agriculture-related carbon emissions by 17 percent, methane emissions by 24 percent, and nitrous oxide emissions by 21 percent by 2050” (Anderson 2014). Though it’s understandably hard to accurately predict the outcomes of such actions, it’s clear that there would be a notable change in emissions-- notable enough to merit some action to reach them.

The way that these changes would come to be stems from the very simplest of workings. The amount of water meat products utilize is staggering: 2,500 gallons of water are needed to produce 1 pound of beef (Beckett 1993). 477 gallons of water are required to produce 1lb. of eggs. Almost 900 gallons of water are needed for 1lb. of cheese. 1,000 gallons of water are required to produce 1 gallon of milk (Environmental Working Group 2011). If humans could at least cut down the animal products they consume, our carbon footprints would drastically become lighter. All of these gallons of water could then be partitioned to other uses like providing clean water to impoverished nations and watering crops used to directly feed humans.

The same goes for land use. Livestock or livestock feed occupies 1/3 of the earth’s ice-free land, and covers 45% of the earth’s total land (Matthews 2006). In just the contiguous US alone, nearly half of the land is devoted to animal agriculture (Glaser et. al 2015). So much of this land is prime farmland for human consumption and development that is currently being “degraded through overgrazing, compaction and erosion” (Steinfeld 2006). Along with substantial reductions of carbon dioxide and methane, “the shift to low-meat diets induces a reduction in agricultural area, and subsequently leads to land availability for other purposes such as energy crops or nature reserves” while “the regrowth of vegetation on these abandoned areas leads to a substantial, though transient, uptake of CO2” (Stehfest 2009). Furthermore, not only would global vegetarianism/veganism help humans achieve sustainable gains, they would help us reach them at much lower costs than focusing purely on energy and water conservation as well as alternative energy investments and carbon taxes (Anderson 2014).

Though going completely vegan is the ideal step, if small parts of society adopt small changes to their diets and lifestyles such as “meatless Mondays” or “Vegan-until-dinner” rules, it is possible that more than half of the current “environmental costs per unit of livestock production” could drastically be cut down “just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level” (Steinfeld 2006). If small changes are gradually made in people’s lifestyles, the world would experience enormous rewards.

IV. Counter-Arguments

There are many possible counter-arguments against veganism/vegetarianism and how vital they are to our Earth’s wellbeing, the main one being the economic costs and risks posed with such a large change. More specifically, the pushback comes from how meat independence would affect the economy, the lifestyles of farmers, and the existence of poor, underprivileged people who make their living in the meat industry.

Livestock accounts for 1.4 percent of the world’s total GDP, according to a notable UN report published in 2006. Opponents cite that “the production and sale of animal products account for 1.3 billion people’s jobs, and 987 million of those people are poor” (Anderson 2014). It’s true that the disappearance of the meat industry would affect these people. Though there would be a small percentage of these people who would be able to adapt to producing plant-based products, many parts of society would be left behind. However, to refer back to the truism about receiving the same results by doing the same actions, the point still stands. There is incredible potential in reducing the amount of meat humans consume. By completely negating the idea, the door to reasonable compromises closes. It is still possible for as many people as possible to reduce the amount of meat in our diets, allowing the market time to adjust and more alternatives to be sought after. By even reducing meat consumption to once a day, especially meat from methane-producing species like cattle, sheep, and goats, the overpowering meat industry will receive a message. Demand is key. It’s next to impossible that there will be a worldwide vegan movement, but it is possible to significantly reduce the demand for meat, therefore affecting the supply. The people have the power, so the argument “I don’t matter” when it comes to eating meat just collapses in on itself. It’s just like with elections; every voice and every decision matters. It’s how change is affected.

As for other viewpoints to address, there really are no other effective arguments that have strong stances as to the global disadvantages of going vegan. All other counter-arguments are based on emotions, logical fallacies, and are unrelated to the ecological implications at hand.

V. Conclusion

The gameplan is this: people, in every way that they can, should edge away from the use of animal products, ideally eradicating their use. This will work by refusing to give money to large factory farms that cause the most damage to our planet. They will shut down, and the small, locally owned farms will remain. The land that we used to use for livestock would be used for growing more crops to fill gaps in the food supply, because, according to the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) 1999 Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply Report, it takes about 2 pounds of grain to produce one pound of chicken meat and about 4 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of pork. This does not take into account the additional fuels and other resources required to keep, transport, and slaughter the animals. These numbers are just ballpark estimates, only hinting at the amount of extraneous energy humans are expending on meat that they could be using to feel more people.

It is also misguided to act as if this is some sort of luxury choice humans have. Not only can we make this change, we must. Our population is increasing exponentially and adequate land and water is vital to the survival of the human race. It is simply unsustainable to continue living like this. Though undeveloped countries would experience some economic downturn without the demand for meat, the benefits developed countries would experience along with the improved condition of our environment would eventually offset these problems. Change can happen slowly, and with the right amount of cooperation, it is entirely possible to create a society significantly less dependent on meat and animal products, thereby creating a healthier planet and society for everyone.