People decide to go vegan for various reasons. These reasons can range from the preservation of animals to personal dietary restrictions. One such reason for going vegan is the preservation of the environment. One would assume that if more people were to practice veganism then that would drastically reduce the negative impact that we have on the earth. The video that I found argues for the opposite. The point that this video presents is that when more demand for vegetarian alternatives increases, then it would lead to mass deforestation. One example that they brought up is the fact that quinoa is grown where llamas graze. Because there was such a demand for quinoa, llamas were taken away from their homes to make more room for quinoa as the soil at the previous locations was losing its fertility. A situation like this also happened with demand for soy beans and half of the Amazon being cut down to make room for it. Vegan alternatives use up the vast majority of farm lands. In short, being vegan is not as environmentally friendly as one might assume.
Questions
1. Is being vegan friendly or deadly to the environment?
2. Is there an easy solution to this problem?
3. What solution would you propose instead of veganism?
I still think being vegan is more environmentally friendly than detrimental. The BBC science correspondent even said so in her segment. The conversion of land for livestock is one of the primary contributors to global GHG. There is so many resources invested in the production of meat (land, water, feed, fuel for transportation) that there is just no way having a plant-based diet can be worse for the environment.
ReplyDeleteI am not vegan nor a vegetarian, but I eat very limited amounts of meat, and I generally prefer vegetables over meat. If everyone (particularly US and other wealthy people throughout the world–increased wealth leads to increased meat consumption) were to just reduce the amount of meat and dairy products they consumed, that would go a long way towards reducing the demand of cattle (primary meat source and most costly) and the associated greenhouse gases.
I don't see how one could possibly argue that being a vegan is more detrimental to the planet than being an omnivore. The lady in this video argues that veganism is possibly not the best because llama's were "sold" because the land was needed for quinoa...when animals are being genetically altered, confined in tight spaces, abused, and slaughtered left and right to feed people who aren't vegan... so I think the llamas can survive if they live on a different part of land. She also pointed out that the increase in soybean consumption resulted in some of the Amazon's deforestation, but the amount of land that is used for factory farms and to raise live stock versus the amount of land used for crops is not even comparable. Live stock also consume so much more water and even crops, as "grains fed to US livestock is sufficient to feed about 840 million people who follow a plant-based diet" (Oxford Academic. 2003). One burger requires about 600-800 gallons of water to produce on its own, not even to mention the amount of Co2 emissions that live stock contributes to. If one wishes to help save the planet but does not wish to pursue the veganism route, I suggest they try to produce as little waste as possible (especially plastic) and consume as little meat / dairy as possible.
ReplyDeleteThis video is very important to discuss, since going vegan has become very popular. The video mentions that there has been a 600% increase in the number of vegans in the United States over the past three years. Even though there is some concern over the impact of going vegan on the environment, I believe it is definitely more harmful than helpful. Cutting out red meat can reduce one’s carbon footprint and not eating meat could help reduce the amount of deforestation used to provide farmland. Eating local is often overlooked and is very helpful to the environment, as there is not nearly as much processing and transportation of food that also contributes to pollution.
ReplyDeleteAs with all things, I think a balance should be struck. I understand that people have many, many reasons for choosing a vegan diet (personal aversion, ethics, etc.), and I respect those that make the decision. However, I believe a balanced omnivorous diet is a better choice in the long term. Nutritionally, those that primarily eat carnivorous or vegan diets have deficiencies that have to be very carefully guarded against (e.g. low iron absorption leading to anemia in vegans). The average American diet has too much meat, but I believe a healthy (and humane) compromise could be feasible. With a diet that is more balanced (small amounts of meat and moderate amounts of vegetables, fruits, and grains), neither option would overpower the other and a more environmentally sustainable balance could be struck.
ReplyDeleteBeing vegan has become a hit sensation in the United States. The video states that there has been a 600% increase in the number of vegans in the past few years, which is quite outstanding. I don’t think being a vegan could be detrimental to the environment; however, there could be some potential long-term effects on the environment such as the increase in deforestation. I don’t think there is an easy solution to this problem because it is a complex issue. Eating locally produced products and reducing our consumption of processed meats could be a possible solution instead of veganism.
ReplyDeleteI agree here that it seems like moderation, or perhaps more oversight of land use is key. New studies have just emerged that reducing our consumption of meat could have the largest impact on lowering carbon emissions (https://phys.org/news/2018-10-world-slash-meat-consumption-climate.html), but what Dillon's video points out is that even with agriculture and production of high-protein vegetable and legume crops, there are are important environmental and ecological issues to be considered. Seems a little like what we discussed in relation to the Puerto Rico story, and better adapted, sustainable farming techniques are key here. And taking care in our diets to be mindful of food sources and their environmental impact.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason why the meat industry (and not sustainable meat-inclusive diets like most that existed before industrialization) is so detrimental is because of how inefficient it is. The amount of grains, wheat, etc. that is used to feed the animals that are eventually killed for meat would actually feed more people than the dead animal does itself. A common stereotype is that vegans change to veganism purely for the sake of decreasing the animal abuses that run rampant in the meat industry, and although there is truth to this, the true negative environmental impact comes from wasting resources, like water and land, on beefing up animals.
ReplyDeleteAlthough quinoa and soy are part of popular vegan culture, it is completely possible to be vegan with local options rather than with those two specific foods. With government regulation and grassroots efforts (pun intended), quinoa and soy beans can be grown in specifically designated spots away from endangered biomes.
Now, not everybody can be vegan whether it's for health or monetary concerns, but there is no way that veganism is worse for the planet than an omnivorous diet. It just has different (and honestly fewer) challenges.
This actually makes a real case for a joke comic I saw a couple years back. The comic basically said that since cattle and chickens and turkey and things bred for slaughter couldn't survive in the wild, if everyone went vegan those species would die out. I always thought there was something to that argument despite the fact that it was a joke, but I never considered it a real opinion of mine. This lends credence to that idea, but in an opposite way. Instead of the loss of animals, it's the loss of important environments that would have to go to meet the sudden spike in demand for certain products. In the future, I may unironically argue that veganism is worse for the environment than a normal diet. I don't know if that's a good thing, but it'll be really interesting.
ReplyDelete