Animals, food and climate change: an
analysis of different responses to the
environmental costs of factory farms
by Rachel York-Bridgers and Paul York
Two most significant ways that animals
and climate change intersect
• Biodiversity loss / mass extinction (includes
loss of ocean ecosystems, e.g .coral reef
bleaching, habitat destruction of Amazon
rainforst, pine beetles, loss of Arctic
biodiversity, death of oceans, etc.)
• Animals as food, e.g. factory farms (CAFOs)
• Both are moral, as well as social and political
issues that challenge us to think biocentrically
Shark extinction as a municipal issue:
global concerns require local action
Biocentric vs. anthropocentric
cosmologies / worldviews
• Ancient cosmologies, (e.g. Mother Earth religions)
• Thomas Berry’s “Ecozoic Era” -- movement away from
anthropocentric industrialization / paradigm of
unlimited economic growth, via education, religion,
government, business, to biocentric worldview,
inclusive of nature and animals. The universe not as a
“collection of objects, but as a communion of subjects.”
Entering into a respectful relationship with animals.
Principle of universalizability.
• Marc Bekoff: compassion tied to ethical response to
climate change – “increase your compassion footprint”
“The meat industry is one of the most
significant contributors to today’s most serious
environmental problems and urgent action is
required to remedy the situation.”
- Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO’s Livestock Information and Policy
Branch and senior author of the United Nations report Livestock’s Long
Shadow
The environmental costs of CAFOs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Greenhouse gas emissions  global warming
Fossil fuel consumption
Deforestation  biodiversity loss, loss of carbon sinks
Land degradation on feedlots
Water overconsumption (largely grain production)
Water and air contamination (tailing ponds, runoff)
Biodiversity loss (thro’ industrial grain production)
Cost to human health (toxins, diseases, pandemics)
Cost to animals (approx. 58 billion killed, annually)
Source: Livestock’s Long Shadow, FAO/U.N., 2006
Greenhouse gas emissions: 18%
from industrial grain production, pesticides, fossil fuel use
in production and transportation, methane from animals
Source: Livestock’s Long Shadow, FAO/U.N., 2006
Animal agriculture generates 65 percent of all human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296
times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure. It
also accounts for 37 percent of all human-induced methane (23 times the GWO of CO2),
produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of all ammonia, which
contributes to acid rain.
Biodiversity Loss / Deforestation
Deforestation: Livestock expansion is cited as a key factor driving deforestation, in
the Amazon basin 70% of previously forested area is now occupied by pastures and
the remainder used for feedcrops.
Biodiversity: Livestock’s presence in vast tracts of land and its demand for feed crops
also contribute to biodiversity loss; 15 out of 24 important ecosystem services are
assessed as in decline, with livestock identified as a culprit.
Marine life: Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source of phosphorous and
nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to biodiversity loss in
marine ecosystems.
Water consumption
Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of above
and below ground water resources. Significant amounts of water are use for the
production of feed.
Data Source: Marcia Kreith, Water Inputs in California Food Production,
Water Education Foundation, September, 1991 (chart E3 p28)
Water contamination
•
•
Human disease. Animal waste
contains disease-causing
pathogens, such as Salmonella, E.
coli, Cryptosporidium, and fecal
coliform, which can be 10 to 100
times more concentrated than in
human waste. More than 40
diseases can be transferred to
humans through manure.
Biodiversity. Huge open-air
waste lagoons, often as big as
several football fields, are prone
to leaks and spills. In 1995 an
eight-acre hog-waste lagoon in
North Carolina burst, spilling 25
million gallons of manure into
the New River. The spill killed
about 10 million fish and closed
364,000 acres of coastal wetlands
to shellfishing.
Water contamination cont’d
•
•
•
•
•
•
Animal waste contains disease-causing pathogens, such as Salmonella, E. coli, Cryptosporidium,
and fecal coliform, which can be 10 to 100 times more concentrated than in human waste. More
than 40 diseases can be transferred to humans through manure.
In May 2000, 1,300 cases of gastroenteritis were reported, and six people died as the result of E.
coli contaminating drinking water in Walkerton, Ontario. Health authorities determined that the
most likely source was cattle manure runoff.
Poorly managed CAFOs and overgrazing is the leading cause of river and stream impairment and
the second leading cause of impairment in lakes, ponds, and reservoirs (National Water Quality
Inventory, 2002)
California officials identify agriculture, including cows, as the major source of nitrate pollution in
more than 100,000 square miles of polluted groundwater.
Huge open-air waste lagoons, often as big as several football fields, are prone to leaks and spills.
In 1995 an eight-acre hog-waste lagoon in North Carolina burst, spilling 25 million gallons of
manure into the New River. The spill killed about 10 million fish and closed 364,000 acres of
coastal wetlands to shellfishing.
From 1995 to 1998, 1,000 spills or pollution incidents occurred at livestock feedlots in 10 states
and 200 manure-related fish kills resulted in the death of 13 million fish.
Water contamination cont’d
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
When Hurricane Floyd hit North Carolina in 1999, at least five manure lagoons burst and
approximately 47 lagoons were completely flooded.
Runoff of chicken and hog waste from factory farms in Maryland and North Carolina is
believed to have contributed to outbreaks of Pfiesteria piscicida, killing millions of fish and
causing skin irritation, short-term memory loss and other cognitive problems in local people.
In Oklahoma, nitrates from Seaboard Farms' hog operations contaminated drinking water
wells, prompting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to issue an emergency order in
June 2001 requiring the company to provide safe drinking water to area residents.
In 1996 the Centers for Disease Control established a link between spontaneous abortions
and high nitrate levels in Indiana drinking water wells located close to feedlots.
High levels of nitrates in drinking water also increase the risk of methemoglobinemia, or
"blue-baby syndrome," which can kill infants.
In this country, roughly 29 million pounds of antibiotics -- about 80 percent of the nation's
antibiotics use in total -- are added to animal feed every year to speed livestock growth. This
widespread use of antibiotics on animals contributes to the rise of resistant bacteria, making
it harder to treat human illnesses.
Large hog farms emit hydrogen sulfide, a gas that most often causes flu-like symptoms in
humans, but at high concentrations can lead to brain damage. In 1998, the National Institute
of Health reported that 19 people died as a result of hydrogen sulfide emissions from manure
pits
Land use efficiency; land degradation
About 20 percent of pastures are considered
degraded through overgrazing, compaction
and erosion. This also contributes to
desertification in some regions of the world.
Human health costs
• Heart disease, cancers
• Illness from water contamination
• Risk of global pandemics
There is a relationship between animal protein
and heart disease. Red meat is not the only
problem. The consumption of chicken and fish is
also linked to colon cancer . The risk of
developing stomach cancer rose by 15 to 38
percent if consumption of processed meats
increased by 30 grams (1 ounce) per day. – Gerald
Pugliese, The Meat-Disease Connection, 2006
Cost to animals
58 billion per year killed; unimaginable suffering; loss of most basic liberties
(e.g. ability to move, turn around); grief at loss of loved ones; terror; despair.
Four Major Responses
1. Pro-animal solutions (vegan/vegetarian / meat reduction)
– Sees nonhuman animals as fellow Earthlings, not as food
– Critical of CAFOs. Proposes diet change. Three variants on the
solution: (i) meat reduction (e.g. Meat Free Monday); (ii)
vegetarian diet (e.g. Toronto Vegetarian Association); (iii) vegan
diet (e.g. Vegan Outreach)
2. Silence: no mention of CAFOs
– Sees nonhuman animals as food.
– Does not address issue of animal agriculture as a major
contributing factor in climate change. Example: many
environmental NGOs
3. Local omnivore solution (e.g. grass-feed beef)
– Sees nonhuman animals as food.
– Critical of CAFOs; propose consumption of local organic grassfed cows and free-range chickens as a solution. Example: WWF
4. Technological solution
– Sees nonhuman animals as food.
– Accepting of CAFOs; proposes technological solutions to
mitigate environmental costs (e.g. engineer a less flatulent cow).
Some questions we want to explore
• Why do many environmental, climate justice, food equity
and food justice groups opt for Option 2, 3, 4, all of which
regard animals as food? Why do they distance themselves
from vegetarian and vegan solutions?
• How can we account for and understand the difference
between the pro-animal and the local omnivore solutions?
How do they compare? Can they be reconciled?
• Can movements for social and political reform work
together on points of agreement? Specifically, it is possible
for environmental and animal rights movements to work
together to end factory farming, even if they do not agree
on the solutions?
Position 1: Pro-animal /Veg*n
Vegetarian / Vegan solutions
Meat-reduction solution
Paul McCartney backs 'Meat Free
Monday' to cut carbon emissions” – UK
Guardian, June 15, 2009
“UN says eat less meat to curb global
warming: Climate expert urges radical shift
in diet” – The Observer, Sept. 7, 2008
Analysis of pro-animal solutions
• Philosophically, aligned with ethical
individualism
• Environmental concern often secondary, and
used to support the animal rights position
(e.g. PETA)
• Focused on behavioral change (not structural
or technological change)
• Not widely accepted by dominant society
An example of deliberate silence
Toronto Climate Campaign email: “Here are some of the
things people across our city are working on: community
gardens, bike lanes, solar hot water heating panels [list
continues] . . . eating less meat (or becoming vegetarian).”
Reply: "The sponsoring groups do not have a consensus
position on eating meat. I would leave that out. Perhaps
replace it with more support for public transportation."
Second comment, in reply to the first: "UNEP has come out
strongly in favour of reducing meat consumption, as has
the IPCC. That’s not even contentious. If the UN can agree
to this surely our group of climate activists can agree on
this one. If not, I’d like to hear why not.” No response.
Position 2: Silence on the issue of the
environmental costs of CAFOs, and the
plight of animals
– Toronto Climate Campaign
– 350.org
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Climate Action Network
World Preservation Campaign
Blue Water Network
Center For a New American Dream
Earth Rights International
Environmental Working Group
World Resources Institute
PEW Foundation
Act for the Earth
Additional examples of silence
•
•
•
•
Green Party climate change conference, Toronto 2010
PBS documentary on climate change, HBO
Documentary: An Inconvenient Truth
Green Education Council
Comparison chart
No Statement on GHGS,
Factory farms, or Veg*n
Grassroots:
TO Climate Campaign
ENGO’s
1.Climate Action network
2.WWF
3.World Preservation
campaign
4. Blue water network
5. Center for a new american
dream
6. Earth rights international
7.Environmental working
group
8.World resources institute
9. PEW
10. Act for the Earth
11. Earthroots
12. Green Education Council
Authors
Food groups:
Foodshare
The Stop
Small statement on
factory farms;
prescribes reduced
meat-eating or
grassfed, free-range
options; no campaign
Larger statement, or
series of statements, or
campaign for reduced
meat-eating and/or
grass fed, etc. Some
options.
Complete rejection of
all animal products:
environmental and AR
grounds
1.Sierra Club
2. Greenpeace
3. Earthjustice
4. Environmental
Defense fund
5. National wildlife
federation
6. NRDC
1. 350.org
2. Friends of the earth
3. Worldwatch
institute
1.Global
Action
Network
2. PETA
Sara Elton
David Suzuki
George Monbiot
Michael Pollan
Wayne Robert
Wendell Berry
George Wuerthner
Food groups:
Foodshare
The Stop
Documentaries
PBS
Climate
scientists
Civic, activists
groups
Danny Harvey
Toronto Climate
Campaign
Ark II
Analysis of silence
• Different philosophical foundation: ethical holism
(naturalistic argument); view of animals as food
• Charge of speciesism; cultural bias?
• Decision-makers in the group are meat-eaters?
• Fear of losing public support and funding?
• Attempt to appeal to the widest possible audience
• Focus on policy issues, not behavioral change
• Focus on energy issues, as fossil fuels are the main
cause of greenhouse gas emissions
• Exclusion of domestic animals from environmental
analysis: non-universalizable definition of sustainability
Defining sustainability
• Potentially exclusive definition: maintains and contributes
to the integrity and well-being and proper functioning of
the ecological system (e.g. Leopold’s land ethic)
• More inclusive definition: any cooperative construct that
protects and/or enables universal access to life goods. i.e. –
universalizable, taking all individuals into account
• The inclusive definition can be anthropocentric, excluding
animals (not truly universal); or inclusive of animals (an
extension of ethical individualism to all individuals). Key
concept: universalizability (Kant)
Position 3: Local omnivore solution
grass-fed, local, free-range, organic, etc.
Popular environmental authors who
advocate this solution:
– George Monbiot
– Wendell Berry
– Wayne Roberts
– Michael Pollan
– David Suzuki
– Lierre Keith
Three major ethical positions:
anthropocentrism
ethical holism (e.g. land ethic)
ethical individualism (e.g. animal rights)
Anthropocentrism
Puts human interests foremost, views nature and
animals instrumentally. There are two types:
sustainable and unsustainable. Sustainable
anthropocentrism advocates sustainable management
of resources. (e.g. Herman Daly) Unsustainable
anthropocentrism advocates endless economic growth
(e.g. Julian Simon). This difference depends on how
human health and well-being are viewed, and
recognition of the finitude of natural resources.
Neither position would favour the pro-animal position
on CAFOs. Anthropocentrism is subject to criticism as
being speciesist.
Ethical holism
Gives priority to the natural system and puts the
“biotic community” first (Leopold). Nature has
inherent value. Human beings are not superior to
other creatures in the biotic system. The criticism
of this ethic is that it is prone to “environmental
fascism” (Tom Regan). The local omnivore
solution to CAFOs is vulnerable to that criticism, if
the local farm is viewed as an extension of
nature, and farm animals are thus viewed as
expendable within that system.
Analysis of local omnivore solution
• Very popular with non-vegan environmentalists.
• Unregulated and increasingly corporatized, in danger of
greenwash.
• The environmental benefits are clearly superior to
CAFOs, but not necessarily superior to veganism ; the
jury is out on this question.
• Ethical analysis: not inclusive of animals, speciesist.
• Philosophically, it rests on ethical holism and the
land ethic.
• Question: Is a synthesis with ethical individualism,
which takes the interests of animals in account,
possible?
Ethical individualism
Gives priority to the individual. This could be
mean human beings and/or nonhuman
animals as well (e.g. animal rights). This ethic
is most closely aligned with pro-animal
position. Both anthropocentricism and ethical
holism can be critical of this ethic, as ignoring
either human interests or the interests of the
biotic community.
Debate between animals rights and
local omnivore positions
• Crucial distinction between a technical argument (how
sustainable is each position) and ethical arguments
(moral considerability of animals, i.e. inclusive
sustainability).
• Examples of technical criticisms of the local omnivore
solution: Worldwatch Institute, PETA
• Ethical criticism: animal ethicists -Regan, et al. The case
for the moral considerability of animals is often
compared to moral case against racism. It rests on
Darwin’s discovery that humans and nonhumans are
different in degree, not type.
Local omnivore solution relies on the
“lesser of two evils” argument
Essence of the argument: given the choice of factory farming and
local farming, local is better, because people will eat meat
anyway. Response from AR position: there is a 3rd option –
behavioral change: pro-animal solutions .
There appears to be an irreconcilable
difference
.
between the pro-animal and local omnivore
positions, and their corresponding political
movements, environmentalism and animal rights,
regarding the moral considerability of animals. Can
this be resolved?
Two philosophical resolutions: (i) “moral pluralism”
(Don Marietta). There can be more than one ethic
employed in complex moral situations. The interests
of the individual (individualism) and the interests of
the natural system (holism) could be consistent in
some situations. (ii) “indirect holism” (Jon Moline):
holism as a guiding principle, not a direct duty. This
is very similar to the idea of the “regulative”
interpretation (Kant). This train of thought is
potentially important for helping to bridge
environmental and animal rights movements.
Sustainable anthropocentrism and the pro-animal position also
seem at odds. However, if we subscribe to moral pluralism and
regulative interpretation, they can be seen as reconcilable. It is in
humanity’s best interests to not exploit animals, for several
reasons:
(i) individual human health (prevent diseases linked to meat
consumption);
(ii) global human health (prevent pandemics);
(iii) environmental (mitigate global warming; save water, etc);
(iv) mitigate the mass extinction, which will have adverse effects
on humanity (E.O. Wilson)
(v) ethical argument- “indirect duties to man” (Kant)
This is important because most of the social and political
movements for climate justice, food justice, water justice, human
rights, etc. draw inspiration from sustainable anthropocentrism.
To be able to illustrate that animal and human interests are
consistent may help to bring human-centered environmental
justice and pro-animal movements together, politically.
Position 4: Technological solution
Basic premise: the environmental problems
caused by CAFOs can be solved technically:
“The overall impact of livestock activities on the
environment is enormous. Part of the damage
can be offset by applying scientific knowledge
and technological capability for dealing with
these problems.” – Livestock’s Long Shadow,
2006, page 5
Examples of technological solution
Researchers in Australia are looking into the
possibility of reducing methane from cattle and
sheep by introducing digestive bacteria from
kangaroo intestines into livestock.
A research team at Obihieo University of Agriculture
and Veterinary Medicine in Hokkaido found that
supplementing the animals' diet with cysteine, a type
of amino acid, and nitrate can reduce the methane
gas produced, without jeopardizing the cattle's
productivity or the quality of their meat and milk.
Analysis of technological solutions
1) Lack of regulation, danger of greenwash; an attempt to
maintain the status quo; a narrow focus which ignores the
operation of natural systems; legitimizes continuation of
ultimately unsustainable and unethical CAFOs
“Big Beef wants to cash in as well . . . the beef industry is
stamping the “grass-fed” label on cattle that have actually
been fed grain nearly their entire lives . . . Some producers
even feeding feedlot-confined animals with hay and corn stalks
and other agricultural leftovers, then labeling them as "grassfed." The new standard is voluntary …”
- Worldwatch Institute, “Of course "grass-fed" beef doesn’'t
mean "grain-fed"!” http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5406
Example: Sustainable beef conference with corporate beef producers Cargill and
JBS, as well as World Wildlife Federation, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, et al
Critiques of technique / technologism
• Technological sustainability vs. ecological sustainability – David Orr
• Prescriptive vs. holistic technologies – Ursuala Franklin.
• The modern age subscribes to an “Enlightenment faith” in science
and technology through knowledge of and mastery over nature
– George Grant
• Nature is infinitely complex, unpredictable, ultimately unknowable;
technological solutions operate within the paradigm of technique
and cannot imagine solutions outside that paradigm – Jaques Ellul
• Technique reduces ethics to gambling – Zymunt Bauman, Hans
Jonas
• Technique reduces ethics to risk management – Lawrence Schmidt
Synthesis: technological solutions are not ecologically sustainable;
they seek mastery over nature; they do not take into account the
unpredictability of nature; they gamble with the life systems of
Earth and apply a cost-benefit analysis in risks the possibility of life
on Earth for the sake of producing meat for profit.
Movement building goals
Need to indentify common educational
and policy goals.
Potential of animal rights, environmental
and human rights movements to strengthen
one another against a common problem: CAFOs.
GOALS:
• Behavioural change: elimination of consumption of animal
products.
• Social and political reforms to end CAFOs.
• Greater dialogue between reform movements.
• Adopt pluralist models for movements.
Examples of integrative approaches
• Supreme Master Television: marries pro-animal position
with environmental concern
• Thomas Berry’s spiritual / cosmological approach:“the
universe is a communion of subjects”
• Jay B. McDaniel’s pro-animal pro-environment theology
• Albert Schweitzer: “reverence for life”
What all these integrative models point to is the practical
advantage of having what Berry calls a “functional
cosmology” which marries a pro-environment ontology with
an ethical framework. However, modern society,
characterized by liberal individualism does not have such a
cosmology, according to Alisdair MacIntyre. This has led to
the situation where we have different ethical systems which
no one pays any attention to, and the default position is the
will of large corporations, and the paradigm of endless
economic growth and technological progress (not ethical
concern for the human or animal other).
Conclusions re: use of animals
• In the technical debate over emissions, between the local
omnivore and pro-animal positions, the jury is still out. It can
be decided by a technical calculation of GHGs, water use, etc.
(e.g. methane emissions higher in grass-fed cows 4x vs.
carbon sequestration in soil: grass-fed cows as a carbon
sinks). Ethically speaking, animal rights ethicists have won
the debate, but politically they have lost it, as the omnivore
solution grows more popular and CAFOs expand, and co-opt
the grass-fed beef label.
• Anthropocentric and holistic positions are best served by
ending CAFOs. However, CAFOs are increasing in number and
size worldwide. Ultimately, this growth is not sustainable and
will eventually collapse due to climate change, peak oil and
finite resource depletion, thereby forcing humanity to adopt
a combination of scenarios -- by default, not voluntary
choice.
The big picture