Proof of Link Between Livestock and Global Warming, Part Deux
On December 8th, I discussed a report called "Livestock’s Long Shadow," by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The report is yet another that demonstrates the connection between livestock production and global warming (livestock production is responsible for the generation of 18% of global warming, which is more than the contribution of cars, according to the FAO).
- The hidden message is that the most significant action we can take as individuals to curb the current pace of global warming, is not to buy and drive a hybrid, but to switch from a meat-based diet to a plant-based diet. (If you still haven’t read the University of Chicago study, here it is again.)
- However, the FAO makes no such connection. Its recommendations are all about how to tweak the current system of factory farming rather than the way-more-obvious, far-less-expensive solution: eat less meat. But since the report was commissioned by the FAO, there would be no benefit to mentioning the obvious. It’s simply not an option for them.
- Less forgivable is that the New York Times has finally gotten around to mentioning the report on its editorial page today in "Meat and the Planet." I’m insulted by the woefully inadequate way this important topic is being addressed. It’s on the editorial page, so the editorial staff (unlike the FAO) can have at it and say what needs to be said. But they don’t. Instead, they write:
There are no easy trade-offs when it comes to global warming–such as cutting back on cattle to make room for cars. The human passion for meat is certainly not about to end anytime soon.
That, my friends, is nonsense. The easiest trade-off is: eat less meat. Now. Done. "The human passion for meat" is just that. It is in no way necessary for us to continue to consume meat. The current and future health of our planet is at risk, and we’re going to let our "passion" for slaughter and blood get in the way? How short-sighted and immature is that?
What continues to astound me, is that we here in the US of A are all for any cause that makes the world a better place, as long as we don’t have to change what we do or make any sacrifices.
Believe it or not, I enjoy the taste of a charred, medium rare medallion of cow. I kid you not. And I’d be happy to taste a slice of Greyhound or human if you told me it tasted like my charred filet mignon. After all, if I’m going to eat a cow, I might as well eat a dog or a person; it’s all dead flesh.
But the moment I make the connection between what’s on my plate and where it came from, what occurred to make it, how all of that has affected the environment, and how it will affect my insides, the decision is quite simple. No thanks.
Helping the environment and the animals and your health is really that simple: Just say No to meat.