The changing climate of the planet is a topic that is hotly debated in everyday media, politics and science. The different opinions surrounding this issue vary on a wide spectrum. While each opinion can be tentatively substantiated since science still does not have completely concrete evidence, it becomes more clear all the time that humanity’s impact on the environment is undeniable. However, within that argument, smaller discrepancies exist. Pollution is generally thought of as emissions from transportation and factories, deforestation from the lumber industry, or pollution from litter. But there is one major contributor that is often overlooked: the meat industry. Pollution from factory farming has a larger climatic impact than what is let on. NASA reports that 2016 was the hottest year on record so far, making climate change more relevant now than ever. But yet consumers still do not understand their part in this growing issue. It is an issue that effects every single species on this planet; humans are the only species who can do anything to reverse it. Meat production has an enormous negative impact on the environment through emissions from farm animal waste emissions contributing to greenhouse gasses, deforestation to create more farmland, excessive water usage, and much more. It is time that meat consumers understand the consequences of their dietary choices.

There are many climatic downfalls associated with meat production that the people of the United States need to become more aware of, but decidedly the most significant of these issues are greenhouse gas emissions. The United States is one of the leading producers and consumers of meat, which consequentially means they are also one of the leading producers of animal related emissions. This is a fact that needs to be addressed by both consumers and producers. According to the US National Library of Medicine, a 2011 study showed that meat consumption is continuing to rise in the United States, with red meat remaining the most highly consumed, at a rate of 58 percent. To make matters worse, 22 percent of all meat consumed by United States citizens is processed. (Daniel Trends in Meat). Processed meat creates significantly more pollution than organically produced meat would. Meat consumption is showing no signs of slowing despite research proving its environmentally destructive nature. Graham Hill reports in his TED Talk that in 2010 the United Nations, following a report by NASA stating that the decade of 2000 was the warmest decade on record, conducted a study that stated that 18 percent of all greenhouse gasses were produced by animal emissions due to factory farming (Hill, Why I’m a Weekday). That statistic puts meat production as the most significant contributor to greenhouse gasses, producing more emissions than all transportation pollution combined. This is a serious statistic that is not communicated to the consumers of meat in the United States. A common misconception is that transportation creates the most atmospheric pollution, when in reality the food being served around the country is truly to blame. It is time that the consumers become educated on the impact that processed, factory farmed meat has on climate change.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the environment is defined as “the natural world, as a whole or in a particular geographical area, especially as affected by human activity”. The natural world is made up of the earth and the things that inhabit it. So in a paper discussing the meat industry’s impact on the environment, it only makes sense to mention how all of the practices of the meat industry impact the animals themselves. Common practices in factory farming include the manipulation of livestock, such as stimulation with antibiotics and growth hormones, over breeding and the modification of birth patterns, and more, as reported by Michael Moss in The New York Times article “U.S. Research Lab Lets Livestock Suffer in Quest for Profit”. Moss details all of the ways in which factory farms are unconcerned with the well-being of their animals; they operate solely on profitability. Growing animals larger and more muscular with growth hormones, GMO’s, and antibiotics mean that each animal will yield more product for them to sell, despite the fact that it inhibits the animal’s ability to move and exist properly. By overbreeding animals, they are able to continually generate new offspring. Factory farms find ways to modify birth patterns to ensure that animals become pregnant with more offspring than what is natural to them, which leads to birth defects (Moss). There are also issues with the way the animals are being fed, which is exposed in the documentary Food Inc directed by Robert Kenner. Farms also have begun to feed their cattle corn, rather than grass, which is what their stomachs are designed to process. This has led to not only health complications for the cattle, but also for the consumers of the cattle, since this can lead to the outbreak of the E. Coli virus (Food Inc). These are all strategies implemented by the meat industry are purely for the sake of saving money and making more profit. However, these practices have real environmental implications, both on the earth and on the human consumers. These animals are a part of the earth’s ecosystem and when humans begin to alter them, there are sure to be unforeseen implications in the future.

While it is widely accepted that animal emissions create greenhouse gasses, there has been some dispute over the data presented by the United Nations. Following their study, skeptical scientist Frank Mitloehner conducted a study of his own that found only 3 percent of emissions to be caused by animal waste, a stark difference from the UN’s 18 percent (Mitloehner 269). Mitloehner claims that the UN’s data is misleading, and attributes a larger amount of a larger percentage of emissions being animal related, without disclosing that some of the emissions within that 18 percent may come from other forms of pollution. This information from Frank Mitloehner was published by Paul Armstrong on CNN, in the article "Scientist: Don't Blame Cows for Climate Change". While this data discrepancy is interesting, it does not invalidate the argument that animal emissions are contributing to greenhouse gasses. J.D. Wood and C. Rowlings of the Nottingham University Press, report in their scholarly, peer-reviewed electronic book, Nutrition and Climate Change: Major Issues Confronting the Meat Industry, that a major contributor to climate change and greenhouse gasses are the emissions released as a result of factory farming in the meat industry. Animal waste, specifically from cattle and sheep, contains mass amounts of methane which pollute the air enormously. Since meat production is detrimental to the environment, and meat consumption can be detrimental to health, the book argues that becoming a vegetarian diet can solve both of these issues (Wood). Since the meat industry is polluting the air, this is something that more American citizens should take into consideration when choosing what to eat. Regardless of the percentage, animal waste polluting the atmosphere is a fact. A percentage of 3 percent or 18 percent both support my argument that meat production is negatively impacting the environment, since even 3 percent is still a negative impact. 

Factory farming creates a myriad of environmental issues that expand well beyond greenhouse gas pollution. The land suffers just as much as the atmosphere, as farming is very demanding and taxing for the earth. In Kip Anderson and Keegan Kuhn’s documentary Cowspiracy, the extensive consequences of factory farming are detailed. The effects of animal emissions on the environment are chronicled throughout this film, while the filmmakers simultaneously delve into other facets of climate change as well. Among these aforementioned environmentally destructive effects of farming is deforestation. Forests are continually being cut down in order to create more land to farm on. This is due to the huge demand of corn required to feed all of the animals being raised on factory farms. While farming is not the only motivating force behind deforestation, it still rivals the deforestation caused by the lumber and construction industries in amount of forest destruction. This contributes to global warming because the oxygen emissions from trees would aid in counteracting increasing air pollutions; the removal of trees is a catalyst in heating the earth. This also causes habitat loss for woodland creatures, which is damaging to the ecosystems that exists there because it disrupts what is natural. Topsoil erosion also becomes an issue from excessive farming. The meat industry justifies these actions with the motive of needing to feed the people of the world. The industry keeps the American people from straying from their products through propaganda filled advertising and packaging, which Michael Moss mentions in his New York Times article (Moss, U.S. Research Lab). This creates enough issues on its own, but even more issues come into play with the need to feed the enormous quantities of animals that are being farmed. What seems like a necessary step in order to meet the demands of consumers in turn creates a trickledown effect of complications. The greenhouse gasses emitted by meat production are merely one portion of the whole issue of the meat industry’s impact on the environment. 

Some scientists argue that it is not the animals that are responsible for the pollution, but rather it is the way they are brought up and attended to that creates all of the environmental problems. If animals were raised the way they were intended to be- free range, organic, no artificial growth hormones, eating the foods their bodies were meant to process- there would be nothing destructive about farming. In Simon Fairlie’s book Meat: The Benign Extravagance, he makes the claim that if livestock was raised and produced in a natural way, it would not significantly impact the environment. Fairlie is a farmer who works first hand in the industry. It is true that factory farming does significantly more damage than a small, organic farm would. This is also displayed in Food Inc., as the videographers contrast a factory farm with a small local one. The practices are more humane, as well as more environmentally friendly on the smaller farm compared to the stark images from the inside looks of factory farming. It becomes clear in the documentary that the way the small farm operates leaves a much smaller environmental footprint. However, factory farming has become so powerful and so profitable through the practices that they use, that there is little to no likelihood that there would ever be a digression that reverted farming to its natural form. Even if meat was produced in a more humane and natural manner, this would only assuage some extent of the issues that come with using animals as a source of food.

Many experts believe that if people cut back on how much meat they have in their diets, it could be beneficial to the environment. If mass amounts of people began to incorporate veganism or vegetarianism into their routine diets, not only could climate change be slowed, but some of it could even be reversed. In Fiona Harvey’s article published by The Guardian, “Eat Less Meat to Avoid Dangerous Global Warming, Scientists Say”, the conversion to veganism by a significant amount of American citizens could cut down on emissions by nearly 66 percent. If meat became less in demand, there would be less farming of the animals that create the pollution, so concurrently, there would be a higher demand for plants, which in many cases the growing of plants would actually be beneficial to the environment. Cultivating plants also requires significantly less water than maintaining livestock does. According to Graham Hill in his Ted Talk “Graham Hill: Why I'm a Weekday Vegetarian”, beef production uses 100 times more water than growing crops does. This is another way that a plant based diet has less of an environmental impact. Although the evidence is there to support the argument for veganism benefitting the earth, the odds of American citizens becoming convinced to abandon their meat centric diets are small. The meat industry implements clever uses of propaganda to convey the production of processed meat in a positive light, and for decades that has substantiated it’s support in American households. However, the consequences of their diets and the impact that it has on the environment should be considered when choosing what they eat. 

The meat industry has monopolized the food industry for decades now with their tactful propaganda and profitable practices. Their influence extends into the realms of the economy, health, and ethics, in ways that are not always obvious to everyday consumers. What most consumers do not know is that it has also contributed significantly to the way our planet is changing. From global temperature rise, deforestation, sea level rise, species endangerment; the list of environmental damages is extensive, and each one can be traced back to the destructive practices implemented by factory farming. The people of the United States need to become more cognizant of their environmental impact whilst choosing their diets. The only way to reverse the cycle is to create less of a demand. The meat consumers of America could become a part of the solution, by transitioning their impact form a negative one to a positive one. Vegetarianism is a feasible solution that makes reducing emissions by 66 percent a possibility, and each passing day it becomes more pressing. For the sake of the planet, the people, and the animals, the vicious cycle of meat production and consumption must be broken.
