ByJonathon Macnab
Just off the bat, yes. Yes, you absolutely can call yourself an environmentalist if you eat meat. After the backlash following a similar statement from actor and environmental advocate Suzy Amis Cameron in 2014, I would not say otherwise. I do, however, think it is important that people who care about the human impact understand that, in terms of lifestyle choices, by far the most effective thing you can do is change the way you eat.
From birth to plate, every 400g of beef produces 105kg of greenhouse gasses (GHG). The average pack of mince weighs 500g meaning eating beef once a week for a year produces 6552kg of GHG emissions, as well as using 520,000 litres of waterand cutting down 3432 trees. For comparison, the average car produces 4600kg of CO2 per annum.
Palm oil, the current media villain, is responsible for 26 million acres of deforestation to date; the cattle industry is responsible for 136 million acres. 59% of all land on earth is used for livestock farming, this represents 83% of all farmland despite the industry only contributing 18% of our dietary calories. And, while only 0.3% of ocean plastics are straws, 46% are fishing nets and tackle.Agriculture isn’t generally regarded as an environmental issue, but it currently greatly outstrips travel and even energy in terms of emissions and global impact.
In the case of animal agriculture, making a change very much is your responsibility
This is clearly the most significant environmental challenge we face, but unlike energy or transport, the solution to this one is very simple. Agriculture is entirely consumer driven and, as consumers, we have a huge amount of power and freedom to influence the market. You can’t demand that the national grid only provide renewable energy to power your house, but you can stop buying meat. The effect of societal change is very evident from Quorn’s growth in recent years. In 2017, the company registered a 16% growth as a direct result of increasing numbers of vegetarian and flexitarian customers. In the case of animal agriculture, making a change very much is your responsibility.
It seems illogical that anyone who claims to care about the environment would disregard it
The practicalities of being vegetarian or vegan are a prolific argument against, but it’s becoming less and less compelling. With over 3,000,000 vegetarians and 600,000 vegans in the UK alone, the surrounding industries are growing rapidly. Gone are the days when it was hard to find alternatives for meat, a good recipe, or a restaurant to eat at. There’s even a place in Manchester where you can have wings, a BBQ bacon cheeseburger, a brownie, and a milkshake without a hint of an animal product.
The nutritional argument holds no water either; it is generally accepted that you can get every nutrient you need without eating meat or dairy which, incidentally, also constitute the main food groups which cause heart disease. As for protein, Kenneth G Williams is a lot bigger than all of you.
The fact is, it is no longer unenjoyable or difficult to stop eating meat. For such a simple and impactful lifestyle choice, it seems illogical that anyone who claims to care about the environment would disregard it. It is this cognitive dissonance which I encourage people to acknowledge and address.
Simply cutting out beef could be the same as getting rid of your car
I am not under any illusions that I have the right to say who is and isn’t an environmentalist. Imagine being the person who tried to claim our saviour David Attenborough wasn’t an environmentalist because he still has roast chicken on Sundays. However, those who call themselves environmentalists, or even just claim to care a bit, should appreciate that this is the biggest impact you can have in terms of lifestyle choices.
You don’t need to become vegan overnight. It’s unsustainable in the same way that going to the gym seven days a week when you first join is unsustainable. But simply cutting out beef could be the same as getting rid of your car, meaning you don’t need to subject yourself to riding a bike for miles and miles, or struggling to carry your weekly food shop home cradled in your arms because you forgot bags. Just lay off the beef burgers, give Linda McCartney sausages a go, and your carbon footprint could shrink considerably.
Image by Victor U via Flickr.
As a seasoned environmental expert deeply immersed in the intricate web of sustainability, ecological impact, and dietary choices, I find myself compelled to shed light on the nuanced discourse surrounding environmentalism and meat consumption. Over the years, my extensive engagement with environmental science, sustainable practices, and public discourse has equipped me with firsthand knowledge and a profound understanding of the intricate dynamics at play.
The article penned by Jonathon Macnab delves into the controversial realm of whether individuals can legitimately claim the title of "environmentalist" while still partaking in meat consumption. Drawing from my wealth of knowledge, I can affirmatively assert that one's environmental credentials are not solely determined by their dietary choices. However, the environmental impact of meat consumption, particularly beef, is a topic of paramount importance that warrants careful consideration.
Macnab astutely highlights the staggering ecological footprint of beef production, citing compelling statistics. The revelation that every 400g of beef generates a substantial 105kg of greenhouse gases, along with the accompanying water usage and deforestation figures, underscores the profound impact of meat consumption on the environment. Such data aligns seamlessly with the broader discourse on sustainable living and climate-conscious choices.
The comparison between the environmental impact of beef and that of a car serves as a poignant reminder of the significance of dietary decisions in shaping our carbon footprint. The article masterfully navigates through various environmental issues, skillfully juxtaposing the notorious reputation of palm oil with the far-reaching consequences of the cattle industry. This nuanced perspective adds depth to the conversation, urging readers to broaden their understanding of environmental challenges beyond popular narratives.
Furthermore, Macnab aptly emphasizes the consumer-driven nature of agriculture, positioning individuals as agents of change. This aligns with my expertise in sustainability, where I have witnessed the transformative power that conscious consumer choices can exert on industries. The example of Quorn's growth reflects the tangible impact of shifting consumer preferences towards plant-based alternatives.
The author effectively dispels common arguments against vegetarianism or veganism, addressing the practicalities and nutritional concerns. Drawing on my comprehensive knowledge base, I concur with the assertion that a well-balanced, plant-based diet can fulfill nutritional requirements without compromising health.
In conclusion, the article navigates through the intricacies of environmental responsibility, dietary choices, and their collective impact on the planet. As someone deeply entrenched in the field, I wholeheartedly endorse the call for heightened awareness and action. It is my firm belief that individuals, whether self-proclaimed environmentalists or those aspiring to make a difference, should heed the insightful counsel provided by Macnab and embark on a journey towards a more sustainable and conscientious lifestyle.
