Is it true that the abandonment of meat benefits ecology?

There is an opinion that meat -eaters cause more damage to the environment than vegetarians, since livestock is more polluting the planet. We decided to check if this thought is true.

The fact that the consumption of animal meat into food causes enormous harm to ecology, write sitesdedicated to vegetarianism and environmental protection. The same statement is found in press And social networks. The trend for environmental friendliness is followed even by fast food chains: KFC promises Soon, introduce the naga-biblets printed on a 3D bioprinter to the menu, and TGI Friday's menu has already represented Burgers with plant meat created on the basis of pea protein.

The main parameters that determine environmental harm are considered carbon and water traces. The carbon trace includes four gas (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone), accompanying the production of goods or services. The total share of their content in the atmosphere is less than 1%, while they Provide A huge impact on the climate, as they do not interfere with the passage of solar short -wave radiation, but delay the outgoing long -wave. Water trace - The volume of fresh water used in the course of the production of goods or services.

Along with the appeal to ethics, vegetarians and vegans use the environmental argument to convince meat -eaters to change their diet. Often they refer to the UN data, which indicate that animal husbandry Provides 14.5% of all anthropogenic (associated with human activity) greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. At the same time, other studies demonstrate more frightening statistics: the non -profit organization Worldwatch Institute claimsthat animal husbandry is responsible for 51% of all greenhouse gases. This figure is more than the total number of emissions into the atmosphere from the entire transport industry: ground, water and air transport. 

It should be noted that although growing plants requires huge volumes of water for irrigation, the water trace of livestock is still more, after all, it includes not only the fluid that is required for the production of meat, milk and cheese, but also water for growing livestock feed. At the same time, food for the livestock industry It is Almost 40% of all cereals grown in the world. Thus, on the water trail, livestock breeding and, therefore, meat -eating will always be more costly for the planet than the cultivation and consumption of plant foods.

It would seem that the numbers clearly indicate that meat -eating is the same blow to the ecology as the release of unoriented garbage and the pollution of the oceans. However, not everything is so simple. Vegetarianism is by no means a panacea. For example, for agriculture, new lands are constantly needed, which leads to cutting forests and reducing the number of trees - natural carbon dioxide processors. Rice fields are a source of huge methane emissions - according to various estimates, their contribution to the production of this greenhouse gas It is from 7% to 17%. In addition to damage to the planet itself, agriculture is negative influences For many species of animals: they are deprived of a natural habitat, the equipment kills a huge number of rodents, snakes and lizards, and in the fields and warehouses they actively poison mice and insects. Such intervention in nature also negatively affects ecology.

At the same time, the rejection of meat food in favor of vegetarianism itself may not have a healing effect for the ecology. For example, replacing the chicken in the menu cheese, we only Increase The concomitant carbon trace, since poultry farming causes less damage to the surrounding nature than breeding cows or sheep. Choice Sandytarian Diets (rejection of warm -blooded meat in favor of fish, mollusks and crustaceans) also does not solve the problem completely. Since for production, for example, a kilogram of salmon Required Almost as many resources as for the production of meat. And the cultivation of nuts (one of the key products in a plant diet) Leaves The same water trace as the production of almost all types of meat.

However, among all livestock products, there is a “record holder” for the damage of the environment - up to 65% of the carbon monitoring from livestock farming Related with intestinal fermentation (belching and gases) of cows, sheep and goats. The share of the same gases in pig and poultry farming at the same time It is Only 10%. The remaining 25% of the carbon trace are distributed between the production of food, maintaining pastures and energy costs. Vegetable meat, again, according to manufacturers, reduces Water trace is 99%, and carbon - 90%.

No less important from the point of view of the ecology and where the products that find themselves on our table are produced. Local meat in this case can be compared along the carbon and water track with vegetables and fruits brought from another continent, because when calculating the trace, not only production, but also processing and transportation of the product is taken into account.

It should be noted the fact that to turn all pastures into fields impossible For climatic reasons. For example, 60% of the lands of subsahar Africa are so dry that their only possible use is livestock breeding.

The views of scientists on the problem vary. Some - for example, Ben Holton, a scientist from the University of California, - Offer To make your diet of nuts, beans and fish, reducing the consumption of animal protein to chicken once a week and red meat once a month, and promise a decrease in greenhouse gases in a volume comparable to a billion cars. Others are focused on the preservation of red meat in the menu, subject to the reduction of a carbon mark from its production. So, scientists from the University of Australian James Cook tested dozens of different additives to cows and Made The conclusion is that the Asparagopsis Taxiformis seaweed by 99% reduce the release of methane.

Thus, although the production of red meat is indeed associated with the release of a large amount of greenhouse gases and the use of a larger volume of fresh water, a total rejection of animal foods and the transition to vegetarianism is a panacea for ecology, since the production of agricultural crops also causes significant harm.

This is not for sure

What do our verdicts mean?

Read on the topic:

1. BBC: Why will the abandonment of meat not save the planet and why do parrots teach us
2. BBC: What will happen if all people suddenly become vegetarians
3. Ecologist: Universal Vegetarianism will not save the planet from global warming