Johnson 1
Brian Johnson
Mrs. Sandoval
WRI 010; Section 20
27 October 2014
Experience’s Dilemma: The Need for Sustainability
Now in the 21st century, emission levels are reaching a record high, because of the
everlasting change in industrial technology. This issue has raised massive concerns in regards to
the sustainability of the earth’s environment, and what we can be doing to prevent further
ecological damage. The primary problem is the carbon levels released in massive quantities into
the air. The larger a nation’s technologic discovery, the larger its carbon dioxide emissions.
Blake Hurst and Bill McKibben are two references on opposite ends of the spectrum on how to
evaluate and solve this situation. Each has written arguments as to what should be done. Bill
McKibben’s, “The Only Way to Have a Cow”, and Blake Hurst’s, “The Omnivore’s Delusion:
Against the Agri-intellectuals”. These two articles are both in relation to this climate change,
while primarily focusing on the industrial farming aspect and its impacts, and the further steps
necessary for Earth’s sustainability. The true differences in argument, however, lie within
experience and research, and which account for their fundamental difference in their perspective.
Although each author understands the escalating crisis of climate change, the primary difference
between both authors is their fundamental belief in the results produced by industrial farming.
Furthermore, I believe that McKibben’s argument towards more sustainable techniques for food
production and consumption is urgently needed in order to most effectively counteract global
climate change.
The production and use of industrial farming provide negative effects, not only to global
warming, but within meat quality for consumption. The clearest relation to climate change that
Johnson 2
industrial farming has, is from the large deposits of methane gas. Bill Mckibben argues that the
results of methane deposits are due to the immobility of the cow livestock. He compares the
constant movement of livestock versus the cage like nation of industrial farming by stating,
“Recent preliminary research indicates that methane-loving bacteria in healthy soil will sequester
more gas in a day than cows supported by the same area will emit in a year” (McKibben). The
immobility of livestock disturbs the natural rehabilitation of the land, and from this proper
recovery methods are halted. This is the result of industrial farming. The inability for a land
biome to recover is a heavy factor that does not benefit the use of industrial farming.
Furthermore, industrial farming’s stationary method does not allow for proper field rotation and
revitalization of the land over a period of time.
Bill McKibben’s article is in reference to the nature of industrial farming in contrast,
Hurst is defending the idea, morality, and methods of industrial farming. His polar argument is
that climate change is due to occurrences in nature, and that industrial farming provides a vital
resource, nitrogen, for the sustainability of humanity. Hurst evaluates the need for nitrogen by
articulating, “The nitrogen problem is this: without nitrogen, we do not have life” (Hurst).
Methane is the most efficient way to produce nitrogen, and farmers get this methane form the
processes used to harvest cows. The essence of farming has been to produce goods and services,
but in more recent history rising populations and demand have called for a need for a larger
quantity of food. Given this quantity shift, new processes are being used to support this
heightened demand and the abundant need for nitrogen in the atmosphere. Quantity over quality
seems to be the main trend, but Hurst sustains that the features of industrial farming are not to
induce poor emission quality, but to help the environment through nitrogen production. While
this is a necessary aspect to consider, the resulting emissions of carbon dioxide are far more
dangerous.
Johnson 3
Both men address the issue of climate change and how it either does or does not relate to
industrial farming. The effects of the climate are negative and relate to our economy, health, and
the environment. McKibben’s main argument is that the use of industrial farming effects the
environment negatively, due to several of it harmful practices. The first being its beef
production process. The process involves taking cows in large quantities and strategically
feeding, breeding and harvesting them. Each step in this process has an effect, and is worth
considering when discussing climate change. Several of the stages for feeding and harvesting
create a large output of carbon dioxide. “The UN Food and Agriculture Organization finds that a
half pound of ground beef has the same effect on climate change as driving an SUV ten miles”
(McKibben). This is an astounding factor in industrial farming and rapid production of meat.
The massive burden that is created by meat production is easily displayed by the use of industrial
farming.
McKibben proposes the most difficult, but largely effective, solution to our climate
change crisis. This proposal is to end the production of meat in any industrial process.
Currently, the earth’s temperature and ecology are threatened by many man-made technologies
or procedures that are implemented industrially. Industrial farming, like all technology,
promotes revolutionary progress as well as fundamental fears regarding it. However, the dire
environmental impact that it has created is largely out of hand. If necessary precautions are not
taken immediately, a grim reality may be forced upon us. A reality in which climate change
destabilizes our earth. Steps as simple as carbon dioxide regulations may prove to be effective;
moreover, industrial farming has its impacts and it is vital to understand them and counteract
them. However difficult or unconventional, it’s an absolute necessity to keep our environment
clean and sustainable; thus industrial farming may need to come to an unexpected end.
Johnson 4
Works Cited
McKibben, Bill. "The Only Way to Have a Cow." Food Matters. New York:
Bedford/St. Martin's, n.d. 200-03. Print.
Hurst,Blake. “The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals.” Food Matters.
New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, n.d. 204-13. Print.