The topic of eating meat versus not eating meat is something that I have always been interested in. I think this presents a new perspective on vegetarianism that gives more reason to be a vegatarian than just animal rights. The act of raising animals for food puts serious stress on the environment. Personally, I would love to say that I am a vegetarian, and I have tried it, but it is difficult when many people do not support that lifestyle. My family actually has a farm and raises animals for our family to eat, so I would consider myself having more of a relationship with this topic over others who have not had my experiences. I also do not agree with the way humans believe that they are entitled to eat animals and kill them for food. It is possible to live a healthy life eating solely plant based foods. I have personal experience regarding this topic, because I have been to dairy farms and seen the animals in person and learned about the repercussions the farms have on the environment. Much research has been performed and I have thought hard about this topic, which qualifies me to write about how meat consumption affects the Earth.

Several sources regarding this topic are: The first is titled Why "Loving" Animals is Not Enough: A Response to Kathy Rudy, Locavorism, and the Marketing of "Humane" Meat from the Journal of American Culture, by Vasile Stanescu. The central idea in this article is that if one is going to eat meat, the more ethical choice would actually be factory farmed meat over grass-fed or free-range meat. This is due the fact that grass-fed and free-range animals are alive longer, thus their emissions harm the Earth more than factory animals.  The author plays with the idea of "locavorism," which in this article is defined as someone who tries to eat only grass-fed and free-range meat products. Stanescu provides reasons that explain why locavorism is indeed an inhumane practice, and not terribly different from factory farms. He gives examples of the greenhouse gas emissions from both factory farms and free-range or grass-fed farms, as well as how the two contribute to deforestation. These are the facts I will be focusing on for my research paper. Stanescu also compares the two farms in how they treat their animals. For instance, at the free-range farms tail docking without anesthesia, and the grinding of male chicks still occur, even though these farms have been deemed better than factory farms. In addition, the author also claims that locavorism supports factory farms, because a locavore does not have to only eat grass-fed meat every time meat is consumed, only every now and then. Thus, this helps locavores feel better about their meat consumption. Moreover, Stanescu discusses how animals bred for food are unloved within either corporation. Unethical practices are  commonplace, like forcing undesired sex on the female animals. This increases the amount of animals on the farm thus, upping profit.  Stanescu has sited all of his sources and this was published in the Journal of American Culture, which helps me to trust that this is a credible source and the author has done much research on the topic.

The second source I found was much more scientific, it contained graphs, figures and evidence backing up any claim in the article. The main idea of the article was to find out how high the demand for meat and dairy products is in Sweden. Then, once that information is produced, implementing a tax on the food products as a way of counteracting the damage that these products have on the environment. The tax would act as an incentive to cut down on meat consumption, thus helping both the environment as well as the health of the Swedish population. The most important meat product to regulate is beef, which has a CO2 emission of 24.29 per kilogram. It was found that these dairy and meat taxes could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, nitrogen, and phosphorus up to twelve percent in the Swedish sector. This article gives me no reason to doubt its credibility.. All of the graphs, data, and equations that were used in the experiment are provided, as well as every source used is referenced in the article and cited. This article is more of an experiment write up, thus showing little to no bias from the authors, or the book the study is published in. 

The third article I have found is a TIME article titled The Triple Whopper Environmental Impact of Global Meat Production. This touches more on the idea that the Earth has turned into one big farm, and everything must support the agricultural industry. The article compares how different countries raise livestock and how climate changes how much water and grain is necessary to feed the animals. For instance, "1.3 billion tons of grain are consumed by farm animals each year  --  and nearly all of it is fed to livestock, mostly pork and poultry, in the developed world and in China and Latin America. All of the livestock in sub-Saharan Africa eat just 50 million tons of grain a year, otherwise subsisting on grasses and on crop residue." Much of the comparisons in the article are between more developed countries and less developed countries. The difference between livestock emissions and which animals produces the most is discussed as well. This article has its sources cited within the article and has information from the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. As well as information from other research institutes that help with credibility leading me to believe the author, Bryan Walsh, has knowledge on the subject. 

The research question of "how does eating meat affect the environment?" is arguable because one could argue that the emissions from the livestock industry are minuscule, or choose to not believe that they effect the environment. All of the sources agree that livestock animals give off a huge amount of emissions and are one of the biggest causes for our suffering planet. These articles do not have very many disagreements among them, perhaps that is because they are all fairly scientific articles that all support the same idea. The perspectives of the sources, just enhance my own perspective on the issue. However, I may need to make my research question more arguable, and within a smaller scope. 

