To Meat or Not to Meat?

At least since the publication of Frances Moore Lappé’s best selling book Diet for a Small Planet, the environmentally inclined have worried about the consequences of meat eating.

The question of whether you can be “good environmentalist” and still eat meat has been the, um, fodder for countless (and endless) dinner debates. Our instincts on the issue pull in different directions. The head might argue for tofu, well aware of the environmental burdens of meat consumption. The gut, though, lunges for the bacon plate.

As Lappé explained in her 1971 book— and as scores of reports, films and other books have since confirmed — meat production is extremely resource-intensive. It’s a huge suck on water; a pound of wheat requires about 7 gallons of water, whereas a pound of meat requires anywhere from 300 to 700 gallons of water to produce. Per calorie, meat production also demands much more land than grain and vegetable production. And then there’s the poop problem — where and how to deal with all the effluent created in factory farms. According to the U.S. EPA, animal waste pollutes American waterways more than all other industrial sources combined.

For most people, however, those statistics don’t match the forces of desire and tradition. Meat eating is one of the main ways we have sustained ourselves for millennia. It’s embedded in our cultures and our rituals, and perhaps even in our DNA, as our front incisors and the carnivorous behavior of our chimpanzee cousins would suggest. Fat and salt and protein simply taste good.

In recent years, this longstanding debate has taken on fresh urgency thanks to — you guessed it — climate change.  According to a 2006 report by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization, livestock account for about 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Much of this comes in the form of methane, a gas that’s about 20 times more heat trapping than C02. Ruminants such as cows emit methane as part of their digestive belches, but they belch even more when fed corn at industrial feedlots. Essentially, our meat-based diets (especially when they rely on large agribusiness) are a significant contributor to climate change.

In an effort to flesh out the meat discussion, the newest edition of Earth Island Journal (the magazine I edit) features a debate on the issue between rancher-author Nicolette Hahn Niman and PETA campaigner Lindsay Rajt. It’s a thought-provoking face-off.

In her essay, Rajt writes: “One of the world’s leading authorities on climate change – Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and himself a vegetarian – believes that everyone in the developed world should consume a vegetarian diet for environmental reasons. According to Pachauri, ‘In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity.’ The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency has reported that climate change mitigation costs could be reduced by 80 percent if everyone around the globe went vegan.”

Hahn Niman responds: “The U.N. report blames 18 percent of global warming on livestock. But very little of that has any connection to well-managed traditional, grass-based animal farming. For starters, 48 percent of it is from land-use changes, mostly clearing of forests (for grazing and growing feed crops) in Brazil, India, Indonesia, and other developing countries. The United States, however, is not expanding croplands. In U.S. farming, most C02 releases come from fuel burned for vehicles, equipment, and machinery. Smaller, traditional American farms have low C02 emissions because they keep their animals outdoors on pasture and use little machinery.”

Where do I stand? I’ve weighed the evidence carefully. I have taken the time to look closely at the research on all sides. I was, for one brief year about a decade ago, a vegetarian for environmental reasons. And my answer is this: Pass the pasture-raised pork chops, please.

PETA, along with the Humane Society of the U.S. and other animal rights groups, has used the UN’s global warming study to say that meat eating is worse for the climate than driving an SUV. This is a specious comparison — and it demands to be countered

Automobiles are an entirely human creation. The way in which they have ruptured time (via speed) and space (via sprawl) and community (via each of those) represents perhaps the apotheosis of our disconnection from nature. The human-animal relationship, in contrast, goes back thousands of years. That relationship — when truly appreciated— represents a vital link to other species and, therefore, to the whole of nature. Of course, it’s a relationship based on death — but in order help provide life to ourselves. I can’t think of a better illustration of the basics of ecology.

I think it goes without saying that any meat eating should be done conscientiously, with an eye toward frugality. Every animal that we consume should be honored: We must ensure that its life was well lived in accordance with its instincts, that its killing was as quick as possible, and that in death is full body is used, from the snout to the tail and all the bones in between. To eat another being should be done with intention, not the senselessness of the drive-thru.

I guess that’s an obvious conclusion from a bike-riding omnivore. The Prius-driving vegans no doubt have a different take. Which only proves that our beliefs dictate our judgments — and that this discussion is far from over.

Photo credit: Click Flash Photos