Zullo, 1
Haley Zullo
Dempster
Focused Inquiry 112
23 November 2015
Veganism as a Climate Change Solution
Based on research conducted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), roughly 150,000 people die from climate change every single
year. Even with this unbelievable statistic, climate change and its solution is continuously
a topic that is forever changing, debated, and controversial. Based on scientific facts and
data researched by experts, it is certain that climate change, due to human activity, exists;
what is debated is the solution, or at least the suppressor, to the problem. Climate change
affects humans, animals, and the physical earth. Even though some scientists still believe
that the primary cause of climate change is fossil fuel burning and other carbon dioxide
emissions, it is currently widely accepted in the scientific community that the main cause
of climate change is due to livestock production as a whole, but this complication is the
least talked about within environmental action organizations and when informing the
general public. As anyone can agree, the best solution to climate change is one that is
cheap, easily enforced, able to be obtained on a global level, and one that works. Experts
in the science and environmental community have come up with, and even implemented,
many theories, laws, and regulations to resolve climate change, and some suggest that
this is the best solution. With temperatures still rising, extreme natural (or in this case,
“unnatural”) disasters still recurring, biodiversity still decreasing, greenhouse gases still
polluting, and malnutrition and hunger still existing, these implemented remedies are
Zullo, 2
clearly not working. We need a new solution; so, what is the one fix that can be all of
these qualities while holding only a few cons? Veganism. Veganism is a complex dietary
choice, but there are basics that go into it. A vegan does not eat any animal products,
including dairy, eggs, fish, seafood, meat, poultry, etc. Dietary restrictions such as
veganism have become practiced because of many different reasons; some include health,
allergies, animal sympathy, and a more recently proposed reason: the suppression,
impeding, and slowing down of climate change.
Throughout the past years, climate change has been a topic of conversation in the
scientific, news, and political communities, along with many others. Even though climate
change deniers still exist, climate change has been proven to an almost certain extent. The
controversial parts of climate change now include the primary cause and the solution.
Some scientists still accept fossil fuel burning as the main cause for climate change, but
the majority of the scientific community has researched and proven that the main cause
is, in fact, livestock production. Through extensive research and testing, Anderson T.
Scott and Baylee L. Campbell are able to claim, in Emissions of Methane and Nitrous
Oxide from Natural Sources, that livestock production is the main cause for negative
climate transformation. The evidence specifically shows that only 37% of methane
emissions is from natural sources and the other 63% is from unnatural and human-made
sources, hence livestock production. Specifically, from “anthropometric,” man-made
sources, methane pollution holds a value of 610, demonstrating the high impact livestock
has (6). Livestock production as a main cause of climate change can also be shown
through evidence of the past. To demonstrate by statistics, Luke Jones, a researcher for
the acclaimed documentary, Cowspiracy, reports, “51% of greenhouse gas emissions
Zullo, 3
(GHG) are due to livestock and their byproducts while only 13% is due to transport.” On
the contrary to what the general population is told, GHGs (Nitrous Oxide) are even more
harmful to the earth than excess carbon dioxide emissions. Livestock has been
responsible for 65% of these emissions (Jones). In addition to GHG emissions, livestock
production has been linked to biodiversity (the variety of species on the earth) loss. As
stated by Jones, “110 animal and insect species are lost every day from animal
agriculture. It is the leading cause of species extinction…” Biodiversity loss is a huge
side-effect of this, especially in Less Economically Developed Countries (LEDCs).
LEDCs tend to be the most naturally biodiverse, and in LEDCs, livestock production is
very high because it’s cheaper than agricultural development. This causes an even greater
loss in biodiversity, which is imperative to the earth’s survival. Adding to these two
problems with livestock production is malnutrition especially within LEDCs. As L.
Baroni, et. al. put it, in Evaluating the Environmental Impact of Various Dietary Patterns
Combined with Different Food Production Systems, the current livestock, meat, lipid,
and fatty-acid heavy diets that are prevalent through LEDCs are malnutritious (220).
High livestock production, of course, contributes highly to these poor diets. Through
research, evidence, data, statistics, etc., it is easy to say that livestock production is one of
the the most harmful methods of adverse impact for the environment; and again, we ask,
what is one way that we can partially resolve this issue? Veganism.
Based on the common diet currently consumed by the general population, the
world is nowhere close to sustainability. To be sustainable, changes in the way humans
eat need to take place. The best solution to climate change and impact is veganism. Based
on evidence and scholarly predictions, veganism can be one way to help reduce land use,
Zullo, 4
reduce methane and nitrous oxide (GHG) emissions, reduce malnutrition and hunger, and
lead the world to sustainability. These facts can be successfully be proven with
researched statistics that Toni Meier and Olaf Christen have published in Environmental
Impacts of Dietary Recommendations and Dietary Styles: Germany As an Example. They
found that GHG emissions per person, per year for a vegan is at a value of 1.0, with the
common diet being at 2.3. The land use (in m ) per person, per year for the average
2
person is at 2098 with a vegan being at only 1052. Overall, a vegan’s energy use is only
9.4 and the average diet is 4.1 points higher at 13.5. All of these statistics show how
drastically veganism can change a person’s carbon footprint and, “There is a declining
intensity [of impact] toward the vegan diet” (884). Water use is also greatly affected by
change in diets. According to L. Baroni, et. al. in the current sustainability situation that
the world is in, “70% of the total water consumption is due to agriculture, 22% is due to
industry, and 8% is due to domestic uses” (225). Since this data is so extreme for
agriculture, L. Baroni, et. al. came up with the probable solution of veganism and they
claim that, “A shift in eating habits towards the increase of the direct consumption of
plant foods seems to be a desirable objective in this perspective. Owing to their lighter
impact, confirmed also by our study, vegetarian and vegan diets could play an important
role in preserving environmental resources and in reducing hunger and malnutrition in
poorer nations” (285). The research, data analysis, and experiments that the authors have
conducted successfully support this possibility of veganism as a solution and as a
conclusion. For example, the number of resources used for an omnivorous diet is at a
0.798 value while a vegan diet has a value of 0.455, 0.334 lower than omnivorous, which
is an extreme difference (285). With these facts, the authors claim that switching to less
Zullo, 5
meat in diets would, perhaps, create a double positive: it would help malnutrition/hunger
as well as the environment. To illustrate and reiterate all of these statistics, research
shows, “A person who follows a vegan diet produces 50% less CO , and uses 1/11 oil,
2
th
1/13 water, and 1/18 land compared to a meat eater” (Jones). If everyone in the world
th
th
switched to veganism, these facts would conceivably create a sustainable world; but, this
request is unrealistic. Instead of asking the entire world to replace meat with plants,
educating the world on the effects would become more effective to gaining sustainability.
Overexploitation of livestock can contribute to hunger and malnutrition,
especially in LEDCs. Many believe that increasing livestock production and use in
LEDCs is cheaper and will assist in ending hunger and malnutrition, but the opposite is
also implied to be true; higher production of plants and shifting to a plant-based diet is
cheaper and more beneficial to decreasing hunger and malnutrition. A shift in eating
habits towards veganism could possibly be highly beneficial to decreasing hunger and
malnutrition, and this is successfully confirmed by research done by L. Baroni, et. al.
Specifically, they say, “...confirmed also by our study, vegetarian and vegan diets could
play an important role in pre-serving environmental resources and in reducing hunger and
malnutrition in poorer nations” (285). These researchers also recommend that one way to
accomplish this dietary shift would be through education regarding diets and their
importance. After thorough research, they write, “...[we] support the opportunity of
educating people living in developed countries to ‘change their attitude with regard to
consumption and to individual behaviour’” (285). With this information, it is possible
that the health of MEDCs would also increase with a shift in diet. Again, this is proven
through research done by Anthony J. McMichael, et. al. and published in Food, livestock
Zullo, 6
production, energy, climate change, and health. The authors claim that, “A substantial
contraction in meat consumption in high-income countries should benefit health, mainly
by reducing the risk of ischaemic heart disease, obesity, colorectal cancer, and, perhaps,
some other cancers” (220). Through the educating of the importance of vegan and plantbased diets, such as volunteers and others working to educate, hunger could decrease in
third world countries and health in developed and third world countries could increase.
Regardless of the extensive research that has proven that methane emissions and
livestock production are largely the reason for unnatural climate change, some scientists
are still going to claim that fossil fuel burning is the primary cause. In, Emissions of
Methane and Nitrous Oxide from Natural Sources, the EPA’s claim of the primary cause
of climate change is different than other experts have suggested. Rather than admitting to
livestock production being the main cause, they state that deforestation and fossil fuel
burning are the two greatest contributors to negative environmental impact. In relation to
fossil fuel’s environmental impact, based on research published by Scott and Campbell,
the EPA declares that, “CH (methane) and N O (nitrous oxide) are chemically stable and
4
2
persist in the atmosphere over time scales of a decade (CH ) to centuries or longer (N O)”
4
2
(22). This claim means that while the EPA admits to these two gases being emitted, they
don’t admit to the gases being the most harmful pollutants; the EPA is wrongly claiming
that methane and nitrous oxide is stable and that an excess of the gas is not the largest
cause in climate impact. Even though they claim this, the EPA has conducted research
into methane gases and the environment -under the radar- which reveals that the
emissions estimated from non-natural sources of methane is much higher than other
sources of emissions; so what they actually claim to the public is opposite of what their
Zullo, 7
research displays. Despite conducting research that resulted in showing that methane is
one of the most harmful gases to the environment, the EPA never actually posts any of
this information on their website or publishes it in journals; it has only been published by
third parties. The EPA vaguely claims, “...Although our understanding of the scope of
possible changes in emissions has significantly increased over the past few years through
model development and improvement, large unknowns still remain” (193). From saying
that they still have a lot to discover and uncover, the EPA talks around the concept of
livestock production being a predominant cause in climate change. Just as there is a
second side to the cause of climate change, there is also a second side to the possible
solutions.
As said before, another refutation to the original argument is that of the solution.
Whereas veganism seems to be the best solution, other experts may claim otherwise. In
Carbon Footprint Analysis, by Defne Apul and Matthew John Franchetti, the authors
claim that their founded approach to the solution will be most beneficial. That approach
is “The Systems Approach to Project Implementation” (9). This explains how to create a
law or regulation to help stall climate change. In their approach, these authors state, “‘If
you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.’ The purpose of this model is to quantify
energy and GHG emissions and achieve the goals” (6). Instead of claiming veganism as
the most preferred solution to environmental change, as many experts do, they are
choosing something entirely different as a possible solution. They are saying that to end
climate change, GHG emissions must first be measured then policies must be created to
slow this change. Based on other research done by scientists, this claim can be shown as
slightly invalid because this method of creating and implementing has been generally
Zullo, 8
used before and is continuing to be used. As the statistics show though, climate change is
still increasing, meaning this solution is not working. While there are claims by other
accredited researchers that refute the original argument presented, that veganism is the
most probable solution to helping climate change decrease, overall, this other side of the
the argument is overshadowed. The statistics show that the policy creation and
implementation method does not work, as climate change continues to increase, and it
can be said, that veganism is, based on research and proven data, the best solution to the
primary problem in climate change: livestock production.
One of the biggest pollutants that affects the earth is Green House Gas (GHG)
emissions. Green House Gases include many different types of harmful gases that affect
the condition of the environment. Based on statistics, data, and research conducted by
field experts, the most harmful and common GHGs are methane and nitrous oxide , both
of which are largely produced by overexploitation of livestock and livestock production.
Despite the claim of certain scientists that fossil fuel burning is the primary cause, there
has been extensive research by many more acclaimed researchers to confirm that
livestock production is the primary cause of climate change. After determining this, the
experts also create potential solutions to this climate destruction. Many solutions have
been tested, such as policy change and implementation, which have proven ineffective,
but the most probable for actually helping to suppress climate change is suggested to be
the converting from the current average diet to veganism and other plant based diets. In
conclusion, from extensive research and data, experts have been able to prove that
switching to veganism could play a role in helping the environment and halting climate
Zullo, 9
change, as well as reducing malnutrition and hunger in LEDCs and increasing overall
world health.
Zullo, 10
Works Cited
Apul, Defne, Matthew John Franchetti. Carbon Footprint Analysis. Boca Raton, FL:
Taylor & Francis Group, 2013. Book.
Baroni, L, L Cenci, M Tettamanti, and M Berati. Evaluating the Environmental Impact of
Various Dietary Patterns Combined with Different Food Production Systems.
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. EBSCOhost Academic Search Complete,
2007. Web. 27 October 2015.
Climate Change. n.p. The Health and Environment Linkages Initiatives. World Health
Organization. Web. 10 November 2015.
Jones, Luke. Cowspiracy. Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secrets: The Facts. A.U.M
Films.Web. 10 November 2015.
Machovina, Brian, Kenneth J. Feeley, and William J. Ripple. ScienceDirect. Biodiversity
Conservation: The Key is Reducing Meat Consumption. Science of the Total
Environment. Virginia Commonwealth University, 29 July 2015. Web. 20
October 2015.
Meier,Toni, Olaf Christen. Environmental Impacts of Dietary Recommendations and
Dietary Styles: Germany As an Example. Environmental Science and Technology,
28 November 2012. Web. 29 October 2015.
McMichael, Anthony J., John W. Powles, Colin D. Butler, Ricardo Uauy. Food, livestock
production, energy, climate change, and health. ScienceDirect. The Lancelet, 612 October 2007. Web. 13 November 2015.
Scott, Anderson T., Baylee L. Campbell. Emissions of Methane and Nitrous Oxide from
Natural Sources. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 2012. Book.