Cattle eat as a feed truck pours food into their trough on a feedlot near Airdrie, Alta., on Wednesday, Jan. 12, 2005. Photo: THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh If a $60 steak sounds pricey to you, that’s nothing compared to the environmental cost of producing the meat many Canadians happily shove into their mouths.
Compared to poultry, pork, eggs or dairy, raising cows for consumption puts the largest strain on the environment, according to a new study. Researchers compared animal-based protein sources and found that beef, on a calorie-for-calorie basis, produces five times more greenhouse gases, puts out six times as much water-polluting nitrogen, requires 11 times more irrigated water for feed and uses 28 times the land.
It takes a lot of food, time and space to raise a cow for slaughter compared to a chicken or pig, meaning more water and nitrogen fertilizer is needed to grow feed. Cows are also a gassy animal and their digestive system produces considerably more methane than other livestock.
How’s that burger look now?
The study, published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Resources, found that poultry, pork, eggs and dairy created statistically comparable environmental footprints. Researchers only looked at meat production in the U.S. and precise environmental impact would vary for other regions based on factors like access to water, available land and production methods. The study did not look at seafood, lamb or other meat sources.
It’s well-known by now that meat and dairy production isn’t Earth-friendly, but the study has quantified just how harmful various animal products are.
Lead author of the study Gidon Eshel, an environmental physics professor at Bard College, told the Associated Press that the average American who switches from beef to pork would reduce the equivalent of 544 kilograms of carbon dioxide per year. That’s about the same as the emissions from 230 litres of gas.
Most of the headlines about this study suggested the same thing: eat less beef and trade it in for poultry, pork, eggs or dairy. But what if we just gave up meat altogether? Eshel himself told the Associated Press he doesn’t eat meat, dairy or eggs despite having once raised cattle on an Israeli kibbutz.
Mmm, kale. (AP Photo/Matthew Mead)
The study did conduct a “preliminary analysis” of plants that are staples in the American diet found they had a two-to-sixfold lower impact on the environment than poultry, pork, dairy or eggs, save for water needs which were comparable.
A study recently published in the journal Climate Change looked at the greenhouse gas emissions of various diets in the U.K. and found the greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters was twice as high as those of vegans.
Here are the results broken down by diet, looking at greenhouse gas emissions in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents per day:
- Heavy meat-eaters: 7.19
- Medium meat-eaters 5.63
- Low meat-eaters 4.67
- Pescatians (no meat other than fish): 3.91
- Vegetarians: 3.81
- Vegans: 2.89
Although the U.S. is among the world’s leaders in meat consumption, Canada still ranks high as other first-world nations tend to do. According to data obtained by The Guardian, Americans consumed 120.2 kilograms of meat per capita in 2009, while Canada sat at 94.3. For comparison, Italians consumed 90.7 kilograms of meat per capita while those in Indonesia consumed just 11.6.
Whether due to socio-economic status or region (there’s not a lot of kale in the Arctic), a completely plant-based diet would be unduly difficult for some people. However, for those whose only excuse is a love of bacon, it’s time to face facts that unbridled carnivorous tendencies aren’t doing the planet any favours.
With a file from the Associated Press
No comments:
Post a Comment