Plant-based solutions to Combat Climate Change in Developed Nations

Matt Wallen

           

            Although the Earth’s ever-growing population needs to be fed, the risks of the developed world maintaining a meat-based diet contribute to climate change at a drastic rate. Consumers in the developed nations need to adapt plant-based alternatives to combat climate change. Plant-based solutions require the consumers’ initiative to be fully implemented. These solutions require more time to be realized. They are also expensive measures, and the consumers must be ready to support these solutions financially by incurring extra costs. Human activities and behavior have been contributing highly to climate change. This climate change has led to a rise in sea levels, a fall in food production, and some species extinction.

Climate Change

Although international conférences aimed to discuss the environment and energy efficiency plans of developed nations, the concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have risen steadily over the past few decades, causing Earth’s climate to change drastically. Since 1980, GHG emissions have almost doubled , and scientists project that this trend won’t slow down. Although the 2015 Paris agreement was successful and agreed on maintaining an average of 1.5 Celsius (C) degrees temperature rise, scientists have now given projections that show that the world is heading towards an increase of global average temperatures of at least 3 degrees Celsius (C) by 2100. Beyond 2100, projections indicate we might be heading towards a 4-5° degrees Celsius warming. Scientists have estimated that a 3Celcius increase in average global temperatures could bring destruction to mankind, creating a global water crisis and creating a failure in the entire global food production system. Although this estimate is still a hypothesis, scientist have also created a shocking estimated that if there were to be a warming of 4 Celsius increase it would create a reduction of the human population by 80-90%—action must be taken.

           

Photo Credit – Plantproof.com

Agriculture as a Solution to Climate Change

However, there is a solution that can help reduce the effect of global warming. Developed world economies can take action within the agriculture sector to avoid the worst global warming scenario from being experienced. Agriculture happens to be one of the main human activities that impact our climate and ecosystems. Humans beings created agriculture and, therefore, can control agricultural activities. Therefore countries, especially the developed nation, can use agriculture to control global warming. The cumulative emissions generated by agriculture, forestry, and other land use accounts for percent of global emissions, whilelivestockalone is directly responsible for 14.5 percent of global emissions each year. In a developed nation such as the U.S., agriculture accounts for 10 percent of GHG emissions. Livestock is responsible for 42 percent of GHG emissions. Both per calorie and gram of protein, animal foods are significantly more resource-intensive than plant-based foods as-well. Scientists have stated that the fastest and most cost-effective solution that can be taken at a global scale for developed nations to help aid in the climate change fight is a dietary transition. Citizens in developed nations must take action and make drastic transitions to more plant-based foods and minimizing meat-based foods in their diets. The fact remains the same; the meat-based industry is a high contributor to environmental problems.

            The scientific community and intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations (ICCP) have stated that a partial or full transitioning to a plant-based diet is the most environmentally friendly thing. Countless scientific, systematic reviews and detailed life-cycle analyses of meat vs. plant-based foods have concluded that higher consumption of meat-based foods is associated with the highest environmental impacts. In comparison, more consumption of plant-based foods leads to the lowest environmental Impact. The least sustainable plant food (tofu) has been more sustainable than the best eco-friendly animal food.

Scientific Report by Lancet,

 “many studies have assessed environmental effects of various diets, with most finding decreasing effects with increased replacement of animal source foods with plant-based foods. Vegan and vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions and land use, and vegetarian diets with the greatest reductions in water use.”

Deforestation/land use

            Human activities, especially land use and agriculture, has been the main reason the world is experiencing climate change.  Developed nations are raising livestock for human consumption. This is not an efficient or logical process to feed your people since it requires more land than needed, more water, energy, and land than creating plant-based foods. Ruminant animals such as goats, cattle, and even Buffalo emit methane, a greenhouse gas (GHG) that is twenty-eight times stronger than carbon dioxide (CO2). Beyond emissions, today, ruminant livestock is the largest occupier of land occupying around 30 percent of the Earth’s surface. The ever-needing demand for meat is the main cause of deforestation in developed nations worldwide, which severely damages the already fragile ecosystem, pushing some species of animals and plants to the brink of extinction. Regardless of the copious amounts of land needed to raise cattle and other ruminants, these animals are raised for meat-based products that produce only 1 gram of the 81 grams of protein consumed per-Person per-day.

Australia is a developed nation with an agricultural sector that dominates 51 percent of the Australian landscape. Eighty-seven percent of that landscape is occupied by ruminants such as cattle, and 7.8 percent is being occupied by crops that will be used for animal and human consumption (this is a 2 percent increase from 2015). A report analyses indicate that over 1.7 m H.A. (hectares) of land with a diverse array of endangered species was completely cleared out in Queensland from 2013 to 2018. Studies discovered that 63% of the clearing was all to make space for the meat-based food industries’ continued growth and expansion of grazing ruminants, beef specifically.  The Beef industry in developed nations such as Australia is the number one driver of deforestation and land clearing in Australia, which has devastating effects on its plant diversity (biodiversity), emissions, and the quality of soil throughout the continent. Raising animals for meat-based products is not sustainable for any developed nation’s environment. Regardless of the techniques used, it will continue to use more water and land while at the same time producing more GHG (greenhouse gas) than the production of plant-based foods. Developed nations need to take action and discuss how our planet is bound by a finite (not infinite) number of resources and land, and raising animals for mass consumption is an extremely wasteful use of our limited land and resources.

Photo Credit – Plantproof.com

With plant-based foods, there is much lower environmental impact, using less land, which lessens the impact of deforestation from the consumers than the animal agriculture industry, which produces meat-based products. Scientific studies have stated that a plant-based diet creates half of the GHG emissions than meat-based foods over the years. Regarding land use, a recent study displayed that 100 grams of plant-based tofu require seventy-four times less land use compared to 100 grams of beef. Although some plant foods such as avocados are often described as grossly unsustainable due to their substantial water usage, the overall impact in terms of greenhouse gases GHG and land use is still much lower than the large majority of meat-based items that are created through animal agriculture system. The bottom line is that nearly all foods that follow a plant-based diet have continued to have been praised by the scientific community as the most environmentally sustainable diet. Ensuring the plant-based Food is local, not wasted, minimally processed, and in season will further reduce its environmental burden.

            Questions have been posed, such as— “Do developed nations need to remove ALL meat-based products from consumers’ diets to attain these environmental benefits?” In a perfect world, it’s a yes, but developed nations transitioning to these diets that allow occasional meat-based meals can create environmental benefits. A scientific study was taken that if Americans were to transition from meat-based foods (in this case beef) to beans, this change could make developed nations like the United States meet its necessary climate change goal with simply that one dietary change.  Studies like this show that it’s not about the entire world transitioning to a plant-based diet. Still, rather developed worlds make significant changes in meat-based consumption and the number of people within the developed nations.

            Meat-based food consumption is particularly high in developed nations such as Australia. Globally on average, a person can consume 43 kg of meat-based products in a year. However, in developed nations such as Australia, each person can consume 116 kg per year. This is important in a developed nation such as Australia, where you find that per capita meat-based food consumption is the highest in the world. Across the globe, on average, the meat-based consumer will consume an average of 43 K.G. of these products a year. However, in a developed nation like Australia, you find your average consumer eating 116 KG a year, having recently surpassed the United States in their meat consumption rates.

            Currently, developed nation’s meat-based food consumption is volatile and extremely unsustainable for our environment. This topic isn’t about plant-based diets; exposing environmental truths in the food industry will be a key factor that developed nations and consumers need to eat less meat-based products. The call to action is clear. With expansive population growth on our planet, we will need to produce more Food. Still, developed nations will need to come together and create solutions to produce Food with minimal emissions. Developed nations and consumers within the developed nations need to understand that Earth has a finite number of resources. With the growing rate of population and high meat consumption, it cannot be maintained sustainably. However, meat will continue to play an important role in undeveloped nations that lack access to enough plant-based foods to maintain the consumer’s nutrition and provide meat-based jobs to sustain their nation’s economy.

            As a consumer, when you transition to plant-based foods, you will in-turn offset the environmental burden created by other consumers who either refused/chose not to reduce their consumption of meat-based products or those who live in underdeveloped nations and require meat-based products to meet their nutritional requirement? Suppose your teacher, family, or friends are not 100 percent ready to transition to a plant-based diet. In that case, you can always let them know that even a small reduction in the quantity/frequency of the meat-based foods you consume will significantly impact them.  So, what “ideally” do the consumers of the developed world need to do? Instead of millions in the developed world transitioning to a plant-based diet seven days a week, the goal would be billions transitioning to a poor plant-based diet with minor meat consumption.

Photo Credit- Plantproof.com

How to start my plant-based diet?

Now you are probably wondering to yourself; a plant-based diet sounds like the right choice for me. I want to help the environment, although I don’t know where to possibly begin. Well, here are some helpful tips and information that you can use to begin taking action to take steps towards a plant-based diet to reduce your carbon footprint today.

WHAT IS A PLANT-BASED DIET?

A plant-based diet follows these rules:

• Plant-based food cannot contain any animal products ingredients—that includes honey and milk.

Below we can review all the major food groups that you’ll still be able to enjoy while still reducing your carbon footprint on a plant-based diet:

• Fruits: any type of fruit
• Vegetables: any type of vegetable
• Tubers: root vegetables such as delicious potatoes
• Whole grains: grains, cereals, and other starches in their whole form
• Legumes: beans of any kind

You are not limited there! You can also enjoy plant-based cheese/milk, nuts, bread and tofu!

Check out my Plant Based Product Review page to check out all kinds of delicious plant-based meats, milk, cheese and more!

PLANT-BASED SNACKS THAT ARE EASY TO MAKE!

Fast, easy, delicious snacks for kids and big kids.

15 PLANT-BASED RECIPES

these tasty recipes are very delicious!

PLANT-BASED BURGER RECIPES

Filling and satisfying chickpea burgers! Yum!

PLANT-BASED BAKING RECIPES

Baked and stuffed recipes that taste even better as plant-based! The difference is amazing!

MAKE YOUR PLANT-BASED DIET LIFE-STYLE EASIER!

Take your dietary call to action to the next level! Learn to become a plant-based master chef and check out these online cooking course!

Plant-based meal shopping couldn’t be easier with Meal Planner, prep your plant based meals so that your call to action to help the environment is heard 7 days a week!

DON’T RUSH! SLOWLY TRANSITION TO YOUR PLANT BASED DIET!

Doing a complete 180 on your diet isn’t easy and not for everyone. Doctor Kraig McDougall offers some advice on how using a plant-based diet to curb your urge to eat meat-based products.

“Add around 1,000 calories of legumes, whole grains, and starchy vegetables to your everyday routine. These starchy foods keep you full and satisfied, so you will naturally eat less of the animal products and processed foods that are making you sick.” Dr. McDougall has plenty of other great advice to share.

CALL TO ACTION! Organizations to Fight deforestation and how you can take action and help!

1- Coalition for Rainforest Nations

It does: The Coalition for Rainforest Nations is an organization of over 30 nations worldwide. It was created after Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister Michael Somare gave a speech in 2005; it’s been partnering directly with governments and communities to protect their rainforests.

Why you should consider donating: The group also played a big role in securing an agreement on forestry in the Paris agreement. A donation of just 12 cents will avert approximately a metric ton of CO2 (or the equivalent in other greenhouse gases). This means that if you donate $100, you can avert around 857 metric tons of CO2.

If you like the sound of this, you can donate here.

2- Rainforest Foundation US

What it does: Rainforest Foundation US works to protect the rainforests of Latin America by partnering directly with indigenous people in Peru, Guyana, and throughout Brazil who are inspired and feel the urgency to protect their lands as they are under attack. The Rainforest Foundation provides supporters with anything necessary to continue the fight against deforestation, whether legal support or training with high-end technology to monitor illegal loggers in their rainforest, allowing them more time to take action.

Why you should consider donating: Rainforest Foundation has invited Columbia University researchers to conduct a randomized controlled trial in Loreto, Peru. Starting in early 2018, researchers collected survey data and satellite imagery from 36 communities partnered with the foundation and 40 control communities. The preliminary results are promising.

“We see tentative findings that along the deforestation frontier — where deforestation was most likely to occur — there are reductions in the rate of deforestation,” said Tara Slough, the Columbia University researcher leading the study

With the surge of fires and deforestation seen throughout the Amazon rainforest, a major ecosystem that can shift the battle on climate change, it is key that Brazil’s indigenous people who are fighting to keep this sacred land alive are being directly supported. You can donate here.

REFERENCES

1. Programme UNE, United Nations Environment Programme. The Emissions Gap Report 2012. The Emissions Gap Report. Epub ahead of print 2012. DOI: 10.18356/40b90b01-en.

2. Meyer R. Are We Living Through Climate Change’s Worst-Case Scenario? The Atlantic, 2019, https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/rcp-85-the-climate-change-disaster-scenario/579700/ .

3.. Dunlop I, Spratt D. What Lies Beneath: THE UNDERSTATEMENT OF EXISTENTIAL CLIMATE RISK. https://climateextremes.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/What-Lies-Beneath-V3-LR-Blank5b15d.pdf, 2018.

4. Vanwalleghem T, Gómez JA, Infante Amate J, et al. Impact of historical land use and soil management change on soil erosion and agricultural sustainability during the Anthropocene. Anthropocene 2017; 17: 13–29.

6. https://www.c2es.org/content/u-s-emissions/

5. Epa US, OAR. Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

7. Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, et al. Tackling climate change through livestock: a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2013.

8. Sakadevan K, Nguyen M-L. Chapter Four – Livestock Production and Its Impact on Nutrient Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In: Sparks DL (ed) Advances in Agronomy. Academic Press, 2017, pp. 147–184.

9. Davis KF, Yu K, Herrero M, et al. Historical trade-offs of livestock’s environmental impacts. Environmentalist, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/125013/pdf (2015).

11. Poore J, Nemecek T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 2018; 360: 987–992.

12. Raphaely T, Marinova D. Flexitarianism: Decarbonising through flexible vegetarianism. Renewable Energy 2014; 67: 90–96.

13. Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019; 393: 447–492.

14. Ron AMD, De Ron AM, Sparvoli F, et al. Editorial: Protein Crops: Food and Feed for the Future. Frontiers in Plant Science; 8. Epub ahead of print 2017. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00105.

15. Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, et al. World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice. Bioscience 2017; 67: 1026–1028.

16. Godfray HCJ, Aveyard P, Garnett T, et al. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science; 361. Epub ahead of print 20 July 2018. DOI: 10.1126/science.aam5324.

17. Heller MC, Keoleian GA. Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates of U.S. Dietary Choices and Food Loss: GHG Emissions of U.S. Dietary Choices and Food Loss. J Ind Ecol 2015; 19: 391–401.

18. de Vries M, de Boer IJM. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments. Livest Sci 2010; 128: 1–11.

19. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

20. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar TD, et al. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Food & Agriculture Org., 2006.

21. http://www.fao.org/3/a-a0701e.pdf

22. Garnett T, Godde C, Muller A, et al. Grazed and confused? Food Climate Research Network.

23. Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics. Main Features – Land use. 46270 / 2016-17 / Land Management and Farming in Australia / Land use / Summary, https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/4627.0 

24. Cox L. Beef industry linked to 94% of land clearing in Great Barrier Reef catchments. The Guardian, 7 August 2019, http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/08/beef-industry-linked-to-94-of-land-clearing-in-great-barrier-reef-catchments

25. Raphaely T, Marinova D. Flexitarianism: A more moral dietary option. International Journal of Sustainable Society 2014; 6: 189–211.

26. Norja HR, Kurppa S, Helenius J. Dietary choices and greenhouse gas emissions – assessment of impact of vegetarian and organic options at national scale. Progress in Industrial Ecology, An International Journal 2009; 6: 340.

27. Scarborough P, Appleby PN, Mizdrak A, et al. Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Clim Change 2014; 125: 179–192.

28. Harwatt H, Sabaté J, Eshel G, et al. Substituting beans for beef as a contribution toward US climate change targets. Clim Change 2017; 143: 261–270.

29. Ritchie H, Roser M. Meat and Seafood Production & Consumption. Our World in Data, https://ourworldindata.org/meat-and-seafood-production-consumption 

30. https://fcrn.org.uk/fcrn-blogs/expert-commentary-prof-johan-rockstr%C3%B6m 

31. Ornish D. What’s Good for You Is Good for Our Planet. Time, https://time.com/3579106/eating-meat-vegetarian-global-warming/

Costco Stake in the meat industry – How it impacts the environment

Terminology

GHG – greenhouse gas;example:methane

Ug/m3 – GHG or greenhouse gas;example:methane note:also scientific measurement to measure output of GHG

CAFO- Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, a.k.a. factory farm

To understand the environmental and social effects from beef production, we must look into the complex supply chain that makes the beef industry so volatile to the environment. Each chain link in the beef industry contributes to a different effect in the environment, whether it’s air pollution or the ever increasing warming caused CAFOs. These effects to the environment are happening because big stakeholders in the beef and retail industry refuse to look towards plant based alternative solutions. If stakeholders in the beef industry continue to impact the environment and not transition to plant-based alternatives we will see increased detrimental health effects and effects to our environment.

Costco, with locations on four continents and nearly 100 million Costco customer members, is the world’s second largest wholesale store and one of the United States’ largest beef retailers stated by N. Gabler in this Fortune Magazine article. Let’s not forget, Costco became a subsidiary of Central Valley Meat Company (Harris Ranch) in 2019 to create the country’s 7th largest beef producer—truly a bull in the beef industry. Harris Ranch operates the largest ranch in the Western United States, and it sells 70,000 tons of beef annually (Castellon, 2019), making it California’s largest producer, and a powerful industry force in the state. Costco is a huge stakeholder in the beef industry in California, how is Costco’s actions impacting the environment?

The San Joaquin Valley has been known for having the worst air quality in the entire United States. The San Joaquin Valley also happens to be the home of the main supplier of Costco’s beef—Harris Ranch Beef. Harris ranch feed lots account for 1/3 of GHG emissions across the Central Valley. These feed lots are located in Latinex and poor areas. The increased pollution from Harris Ranch feedlots is causing increased rates of lung related illnesses such as asthma and even heart disease (Raaschou-Nielsen et al., 2013). This is one of the many impacts of Costco’s stake in the beef industry, it is damaging the environment and California residents are also seeing immediate health effects from the damage from the environment.

Effects to people v poverty rate.
Source

Jonathan Safran Foer author of Eating Animals defines CAFOS as “Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, a.k.a. factory farm. Tellingly, this formal designation was created not by the meat industry but by the Environmental”. Feedlots account for 95% of total GHG emissions from beef production (Asem-Hiablie et al., 2019) . San Joaquin Valley contains more than 500 large CAFOs, 67.5% of total emissions from beef production. These emissions are impacting the San Joaquin Valley expelling GHG into the atmosphere. The EPA set a 12 ug/m3 (GHG) limit to emissions feedlots can expel daily, seen below is a plotted graph showing the estimated average GHG expelled measured as ug/m3 and the proximity of those feedlots. We see that closer the proximity the higher risk of feedlots expelling too much GHG, 12 ug/m3 which is the limit set by the EPA. Californians near a feedlot have higher negative health outcomes. Asthma rates are 23% higher, cardiovascular disease rates are 29% higher and rates of low-birth weights are 8% higher within 1 km of a feedlot.

The EPA set a 12 ug/m3 (GHG) limit to emissions feedlots can expel – source science direct.com

To pinpoint hotspots across the entire supply chain, we examine all six stages of the beef supply chain: breeding, backgrounding on pasture, finishing on feedlots, slaughtering, distributing and retailing. See below we find the direct links from the calf breeding to Costco, each step creates its own significant footprint on the environment. Costco sources its beef from dozens of suppliers but their main beef supplier is Harris Ranch. Costco is sourcing beef directly from the highest pollution hotspots in California’s San Joaquin Valley. Costco sourcing beef from these areas are directly coinciding with higher poverty and negative health outcomes near feedlots in this part of California. As we see below Harris Ranch takes part in five out of the six steps of the supply chain, truly in control of production. Harris Ranch also distributes to other giants such as Raley’s and In-N-Out Burger, I interviewed family members and friends who were all aware of what Harris Ranch Beef was and asked if “they knew were Harris Ranch beef was came from?”. My father, Tom stated “on the farms in the Central Valley” my friend Russell stated “on pastures in Northern California…but I’m not one hundred percent sure bro” and then I asked my Wife Barbara who answered “somewhere in the middle of the United States”. Finally I asked my mother who said “it comes from my butcher at Lunardis….it’s California meat”. When I described how Harris Ranch Beef produces meat using CAFOS a look of shock overcame my mother’s face, she had an understanding that Harris Ranch Beef was free range and not from a feedlot.

Source- sciencedirect.com

Beef cattle are sent to one of Harris Ranch’s CAFO (feedlot). The Harris Ranch feedlots are particularly large, with one containing as many as 250,000 cattle at a given time. Both are located in the San Joaquin Valley the worst air pollution in California and highest heat. We then use this knowledge to locate hotspots of air pollution in the California beef production landscape. The image below displays a daily average of pollution across California. The San Joaquin Valley in the heart of California is the heart and lungs of the pollution. This is the impact of Costco’s stake in the beef industry in California, what is stopping this from growing near you and pollution from increasing? Looking closer at the area in which these CAFOs are located we see extreme spikes in heat of over 110 degrees Fahrenheit (CBS Weather 2020) . According to NASA heatwaves are becoming longer, hotter and more frequent in specifically in-land California. With more CAFOs and beef production we will see more methane production thus increasing the rate of global warming. Costco’s stake in the beef industry is not just effecting the air quality for humans and animals but the global temperature, creating fires and destroying dozens of communities.

Source – NASA.gov

We now look at the emissions from beef production by each singular part of the supply chain. We need to focus on calf production, feedlots and processing. The picture below shows the emissions in the California based on cow-calf production, feedlot and processing. We can clearly see how Costco is implanting feedlots in the San Joaquin Valley, unable to diversify. Being unable to diversify locations has created CAFOS massed in the Central Valley far exceeding the standard EPA annual level of 12 ug/m3. This annual limit set by the EPA is significant as the environment around feedlots is significantly effected, with 40 days unhealthy air and 1300 premature deaths occurring each year linked to noxious air according to the American Lung Association .

Costco has stated that it’s made a commitment to distance itself from outsourcing beef and reducing its environment impact. Although, Costco has been linked to buying beef from Brazil, Costco has not addressed environmental issues from its beef production. To To attempt to show the industry that Costco is an industry that try,y cares about the environment, Costco became a member of the US Roundtable on Sustainable Beef. This multi-stakeholder committee is attempting to spread knowledge across the beef industry regarding sustainability. Although, environmental sustainability is defined as sustainability of water, land and employee safety and mental health. The truth is Costco one of many beef lobbyist and has blocked the regulation of CAFOs (Wilson). Costco’s decision to not regulate CAFOs has caused a severe impact on our environment.

In conclusion, Costco is a huge stakeholder in beef and doesn’t shown signs of changing anytime soon. Looking at Costco’s website where consumers can have food delivered to their house or picked up directly from grocery store. Searching the website I found that Costco only has 7 plant-based products costing no more than 20 dollars, while Costco was able to offer me over 40 beef products some costing hundreds of dollars—so where does the money really lay? This paper also address the issues of beef supply chains such as Costco implanting large cattle operations (CAFO) into Latinx and low-income areas. Costco and Harris Ranch have created these environmental hotspots. Costco and the Harris Ranch Beef Industry has not confirmed or denied any allegations relating to CAFO operations in the San Joaquin Valley and the effects they have on the environment.

Source – Costco.com

“Dispelling the Myths of Beef… Taking the Bull by the Horns!” –

Matthew Wallen

Both consumers and distributors have had continued doubts about what really is the cause of green house gas production and how it effects our ozone. Writer at Electric City Butcher asks the reader in this article “What if beef, and more specifically 100% grass-fed beef, might not only be pardoned for its apocalyptic potential, but be considered part of the solution to reversing global climate change”. Although the writer states he wants to be apart of the fight against global warming, beef will unfortunately continue to be forever part of the problem and the writer doesn’t only negate science but place the blame of global warming onto others.

The writer for Electric City Butcher continuously states “our shop” throughout his article, giving the notion that the writer either owns or works at the Electric City Butchery in Santa Ana, California. Upon analyzing this, the reader can instantly assume the writer has a bias towards the meat-based industry; specifically beef which would explain his tone when describing climate change. For example, the writer feels that “environmentalism is attacking the beef industry” and goes on to describe how “environmentalists who start plugging it into fancy equations and we start to quantitatively paint a huge target on cows as the culprit for climate change”. As someone working in the beef industry, the reader should assume that the writer has a personal vendetta for the opposing idea, that beef is bad for the environment.

The writer begins his article stating that the “old school of thought will turn everything on its head” giving credit that science isn’t the solution. This is a common theme throughout the article, the writer seems devoid of acknowledging science, which explains the lack of statistics with cited sources. Scientific measurements are seen as impossible to the writer, as he explains “how do you weigh gas.” But I digress”….. The writer inserts a sly tone into his piece to make a rebuttal against scientific measurements when you can simply google the scientific measurement needed to weigh gas and already have simple conversions, you’ll find on climatekids.nasa.gov showing a gallon of gas = 20 pounds of co2. The writers credibility is taken into factor here when asking questions instead of providing answers, the writer is hoping to bring out any hope of skepticism in the reader whether it’s questioning science or even joking about it.

The reader will often see the writer use a comedic tone to downplay the severity of the issue being discussed, for example the writer refers to green house gasses (methane specifically) as “cow farts”. The writer begins the article with a list of “5 common myths of beef” and coming in at number 1 “#1 Cow Farts are killing the ozone layer and causing climate change”. A very bold statement as he explains that methane from “cow farts” only “warms” the ozone, changing his tone to make the reader paint a picture of cow farts being a warm blanket for the ozone when in reality the livestock sector, specifically beef requires a very high amount of resources and is responsible for 14.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions (7.1 Gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents for the year 2005; source .

Photo credit: here

Beef being the main contributor to GHG as writer states otherwise…

There is a common theme throughout the article, it’s placing blame on other animals or plants for producing more methane whether it be rice or a chicken. The writer removes a level of authenticity to his article as he takes an aggressive tone stating “factory-farmed pork and chicken create more methane than cows ever could, check!” Not even giving the reader any statistics just exclamation marks. As you can see from the chart above, beef is clearly the highest producer of GHG. But why would the writer attack other animals in the meat-based industry? Looking closer at domain Electric City butcher you come to find that it’s strictly a beef butchery, no chicken not even pork. The opinion of the writer must be taken very lightly, considering the fact he is not just a butcher, but specifically a beef butcher.

The writer begins to target the produce industry, again giving facts with no links to his statistics which is further invalidating his credibility even further. He writes “fruits and vegetables are responsible for something like 70% of man-made methane production. Rice production alone is responsible for 29 percent of all human generated methane”. The statistic given is grossly inaccurate, according to the EPA and a article by Hannah Ritchie, 2018 Methane emissions from beef alone are at 51%, the writer is targeting meat/barbecue enthusiasts and other butchers who are looking for an answer that they want to hear—“beef is not the problem, it’s the solution”. Looking into the writers articles the reader can discover the use of the pronoun “we” throughout and infers that the reader is also American, this is significant as he places the entire blame of deforestation in Brazil onto other countries when in fact the United States is still a contributor to the problem as seen below from this Washington Post article stating that the United States alone buys almost 300 million dollars in beef annually in 2017.

Photo Credit – Washington Post

Electric City Butcher writer fails to discuss his main argument throughout his article “What if beef. and more specifically 100% grass-fed beef, might not only be pardoned for its apocalyptic potential, but be considered part of the solution to reversing global climate change”. Instead the writer uses his time creating made-up statistics or even facts such as “there are far fewer ruminants in the 21st Century than there were before World War I. How is that possible? Thank Henry Ford.” This is yet another interesting piece of information provided to the reader which was given no source, although easy enough you can find that human numbers are rising at roughly 1.2% a year, while livestock numbers are rising at around 2.4% a year, thus dispelling the writers “fact” about beef. Continuously the writer will switch between roles, either victim, hero, or superior scientist—beef cannot be a hero and save the environment or a victim because it’s the villain, it’s what’s destroying our environment and The Electric City Butcher writer isn’t a super scientist, he’s a mad scientist lacking logic and recourses.

Although, I find The Electric City Butcher to be a great source of information if you want to have a meat-based diet and blindfold yourself to what you’re diet is doing to the environment. Change is inevitable, it’s important as a progressive society to make correct choices to create a better future, if that means changing the beef industry then so be it—the writer at electric city butcher proposed a solution that beef could be apart of, but never discusses it—was it just to hook the reader?. According to The Guardian writer Oliver Milman “Americans were also more likely than any other western country polled to say they did not know whether the climate was changing or people were responsible – a total of 13% said this”. Whether the writer at The Electric City Butcher isn’t giving the reader anything factual because this is a roux to promote the meat-based industry (his/her/they business) or is simply just a climate change denier and the science just doesn’t seem logical to them for some reason. Again, looking the graph below we must consider the entire population of the earth that denies climate change, then consider if people reading The Electric City Butcher in 2020 is a good thing for Earth? We know that the article denies science and doesn’t provide evidence to statements made, this is only going to cause people to laugh or question global warming when we are already teetering on the edge of complete destruction of our planet. According to the IPBES report showed that up to one million species could be lost in coming decades, we need to be promoting smart science not dumb science if we want to make sure humans don’t go extinct.

Photo Credit- The Guardian

Photo credit – IUCN

Works cited

Lewis, Tanya. ‘’The top 10 foods with the biggest environmental footprint” Business Insider. 19 Sep 2015.

Morgenstern, Mike. “Dispelling the Myths of Beef… Taking the Bull by the Horns!” Electric City Butcher, Electric City Butcher, 3 May 2019

“Overview of Greenhouse Gases.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases.

NASA, NASA, climatekids.nasa.gov/review/carbon/gasoline.html.

Ritchie, Hannah. ‘’The carbon footprint of foods: are differences explained by the impacts of methane?”. Our World in Data. 10 March 2020

The Impact of Food – Plant vs Meat Based Diet

While climate change continues to make itself one of the most controversial issues of the century food in particular has become responsible for “26% of the global green house gas emission contributed towards the global warming effect” according to scientific article by Hannah Ritchie. What we eat is becoming the single largest enemy to planet Earth, our only hope is for the farmer and the consumer to come together and acknowledge the facts and start making real changes in what we eat and how we make it. But is the plant or meat-based food industry the leading cause of GHG emissions and how can consumers and the food industry create a better future?

What are Green House Gasses?

Scientific terms to measure and label what exactly is happening .

Artist – Hagen, Ralph

Keep A Massive Takeover! Meat-based Industry eating up land!

There is a saying “health is wealth”, you eat healthy and you’ll be successful and be a wealthy—but what if you odds are against you? Companies that offer healthy food are not opening in your neighborhood—why would someone deprive the consumer of a healthy wealthy life?

Artist – Greenberg, Steve

A Massive Take-over! Mutant Corn!

Meat is not the only contributing factor to deforestation, extinction of species of animals, but the factory farms creating produce such as corn.

Plant-based eco-friendly food for everyone!

There is a saying “health is wealth”, you eat healthy and you’ll be successful and be a wealthy—but what if you odds are against you? Companies that offer healthy food are not opening in your neighborhood—why would someone deprive the consumer of a healthy wealthy life?

Artist – Shafer, Jessie

Works Cited

Buterbaugh, Kevin. “Trade and the Environment.” Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict, edited by Lester R. Kurtz, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2nd edition, 2008. Credo Reference.

Capritto, Amanda. “ Impossible Burger vs. beef: Which is better for the environment?”CNET Health and Wellness. 28 October 2019

Carlsson-Kanyama, Annika. “Diet, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Encyclopedia of Energy, Cutler J. Cleveland, Elsevier Science & Technology, 1st edition, 2004. Credo Reference.

Newman, Jess and Patrick McGroarty. “Farms, More Productive Than Ever, Are Poisoning Drinking Water in Rural America’’ The Wall Street Journal. 18 January 2019.

Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York: Penguin Group, 2006.

Tugend, Alina. “Is the New Meat Any Better Than the Old Meat?” The New York Time. 24 September 2019

“Vegetarianism.”ProCon, edited by ProCon.org, 2018. Credo Reference.

https://foodispower.org/access-health/food-deserts/

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2228rank.html