Feb 27 2009
Meat-eating environmentalists: yes, it’s a contradiction in terms
Earthfirst is one of the few green websites I know that tends to take a more clear-cut approach to the thorny, almost taboo issue of environmentalism and meat-eating. For some reason, many greens avoid the issue altogether, which is strange considering the well-know impact that animal farming has on the planet, being responsible for more greenhouse emissions than transportation. But back to Earthfirst, the website published earlier this week an article analysing whether being a meat-eating environmentalist is a contradiction in terms and it pretty much said, yes, it is, so kudos to Earthfirst for that.
Eating meat isn’t inherently un-green or unnatural. Yes, humans have been eating meat for centuries, yadda yadda yadda. But it’s been a long time since we raised and slaughtered our own food animals on our own land, which had a far smaller carbon footprint. People in industrialized countries (especially the U.S.) eat way more meat than they used to, as well. Demand is growing, so the number of factory farms is growing, too. Does mean that free-range, grass-fed, organic meat is necessarily the answer to all of these pressing problems? Not exactly. Part of the problem with ‘free-range’ meat is that these animals require even more land than conventionally raised livestock.
Whichever way you choose to look at animal farming, there are problems - and we haven’t yet mentioned the ethical problems of confining, inflicting pain, transporting and killing the animals that will end up on the table for the pleasure of a person who gives no thought to the process behind a piece of flesh. So, no, an environmentally-aware person cannot eat meat unless they choose to ignore the big problem that meat as well as eggs and dairy represent. Those who wish to be green at the table should go vegan.
