Environmentalists’ Dilemma

Why we can’t be kind to animals and combat global warming at the same time?

Grass-grazing cows emit considerably more methane than grain-fed cows. Pastured organic chickens have a 20 percent greater impact on global warming. It requires 2 to 20 acres to raise a cow on grass. If we raised all the cows in the United States on grass (all 100 million of them), cattle would require (using the figure of 10 acres per cow) almost half the country’s land (and this figure excludes space needed for pastured chicken and pigs). A tract of land just larger than France has been carved out of the Brazilian rain forest and turned over to grazing cattle. Nothing about this is sustainable.

More on this issue by James McWilliams in the NYT.

5 thoughts on “Environmentalists’ Dilemma”

  1. 10 acres a cow? really? That’s assuming some crappy pasture. Try 2. If you augmented their diet with grain without resorting to CAFO-style feedlot operations, that can be shrunk further.

    Then there’s this paragraph:

    Finally, there is no avoiding the fact that the nutrient cycle is interrupted every time a farmer steps in and slaughters a perfectly healthy manure-generating animal, something that is done before animals live a quarter of their natural lives. When consumers break the nutrient cycle to eat animals, nutrients leave the system of rotationally grazed plots of land (though of course this happens with plant-based systems as well). They land in sewer systems and septic tanks (in the form of human waste) and in landfills and rendering plants (in the form of animal carcasses).

    Aren’t we doing the exact same thing with plants? Isn’t this an argument for the eradication of humans because we interrupt the nutrient cycle period no matter what we eat? Unless we start fertilizing with human feces and dead bodies, this is the case no matter what you eat. He even acknowledges the stupidity of the paragraph within the paragraph?

    This guy doesn’t know crap about farming. He’s absorbed some pro-CAFO statistics (10 acres, really?) and turned them into a poorly-researched and absurd argument against humans eating meat.

Comments are closed.