Climate Change: How meat consumption plays a big role
A lot has been discussed about climate change over the past few years. Climate change may refer to a change in the earth’s average weather conditions, or in the time that the weather varies within the context of long-term conditions. Climate change poses one of the most serious threats to the global environment ever faced in human history. The temperature of the earth is rising at nearly twice the rate it was 50 years ago. However, global warming and climate change cannot be explained by natural cycles alone. The presumable way to explain climate change is the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans. Greenhouse gas is a gas in the atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation. In other words, greenhouse gases let sunlight pass through the atmosphere, but they prevent heat from leaving the atmosphere. The probable causes of high GHG emission is the high demand for meat. Many journalists and scholars believe that agriculture and animal-based food are causing climate change. They believe that a change in diet is necessary. That said, there are very good reasons for giving up meat consumption or at least lowering it. Perhaps the best reasons are because agriculture and animal-based food have an intense environmental impact and eating less meat can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Many articles and studies have shown that agriculture and animal-based food are playing a major role in greenhouse gas emissions. Aleksandrowicz, Green, Joy, Smith, and Haines (2016) assert that food production is the principal cause of GHG emissions. Agriculture is responsible for up to 30% of GHG emissions, about 70% of freshwater use, and occupies one-third of farmable land, with animal-based food being a leading contributor to environmental changes (Aleksandrowicz et al., 2016, p.1). This demonstrates that agriculture and animal-based food use a considerable amount of natural resources and are also responsible for a huge amount of GHG emissions. To support their argument, Aleksandrowicz et al. extracted the facts about GHG emissions, freshwater use, and land use from studies and literature reviews available about environmental indicators that quantified GHG emissions, land use, or water use, between average population-level dietary intake and suggested sustainable dietary patterns. Similarly, Harvey (2016) argues that in the past few decades, emissions related to agriculture and food production are probably to account for about half of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. To prove her idea, she connects her argument to another article that shows how meat-consumption and GHG emissions are related. In addition, Meyer and Closa (2017) explain that agriculture contributes largely to climate change, with animal-based foods playing a major role in greenhouse gas emissions. They also used available studies to prove their argument. These arguments are sufficient to prove that animal food production is responsible for the high GHG emissions and that it can have an important environmental impact.
Animal-based foods are commonly more resource-intensive and environmentally impactful to produce than plant based-foods. According to Meyer and Closa (2017) “Agriculture uses about one third of arable land, almost three fourths of global water resources, and one fifth of energy. Thus, agriculture is a major contributor to resource depletion” (p. 2). Meyer and Closa (2017) support their claim by explaining how using land for agriculture has a negative environmental impact and how many sources are needed to produce animal-based food. Furthering this idea, Aleksandrowicz et al. (2016) argue that agriculture causes biodiversity loss, soil degradation, and increasing freshwater shortage. Aleksandrowicz et al. (2016) also use the argument that land use for agriculture has an adverse environmental impact. However, it can be changed if people change their diet.
Scientists, organizations, and governments believe that one significant intervention that people can make towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions is by eating less meat and shifting to a more vegetarian diet. Aleksandrowicz et al. (2016) demonstrate that the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) “defines sustainable diets as those which are healthy, have a low environmental impact, are affordable, and culturally acceptable” (p.2). Alecksandrowicz et al. (2016) succeed by using the FAO argument that diets that are healthy have a low environmental impact, which is not the case with animal-based food production. In addition, Meyer and Closa (2016) present that eating less animal and more plant-based food is also in line with governmental dietary guidelines. Further, they state that “being vegetarian or vegan would be better, with over 30% and up to 70% reduction potential in GHG emissions and land use and 50% less water use” (p. 4). Meyer and Closa (2016) successfully use government guidelines to support their statement. Similarly, Harvey (2016) states that a scientist found that changing the eat-meat diet to a vegetarian diet would reduce greenhouse gas emissions (para. 5). As evidence, Harvey (2016) demonstrates research done by a scientist from Oxford Martin School.
Eating less meat is not going to solve all the world’s problems. However, it can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. As shown, animal food production is causing a tremendous environmental impact. So, a change in people’s diets could be helpful. However, it is understandable that it takes time to make people change their habits. If people start with small changes, such as eating less meat on Mondays, or exploring different alternatives, such as substituting meat with plant-based protein, it would make a significant difference in greenhouse gas emissions and help reduce climate change for future generations.

Ana Carol