Lentils, a protein-rich and high calorie grain, can be coupled with other grains as a meatleses protein source.
via Instagram http://ift.tt/1BqPJki
Meat has been a
staple in the human diet for millennia, and its consumption has been inexorably
tied to many advancements throughout human evolution. Some experts posit that meat consumption led
to larger brains due to the concentrated calories and proteins and that group
hunting of meat fostered language development, socialization, and a capacity
for planning.[1] But in a culture so removed from the
production and procurement of its food (including— nay, especially its
meat), what has changed? For one, and
possibly most importantly, the environmental impact of meat consumption has
raised to an unprecedented level. No
longer are we hunter-gatherers or even modest herders infrequently eating
meat. As Americans today, we have
developed a nearly insatiable appetite for meat. The average American eats 270.7 pounds of
meat per year, finishing second behind only Luxembourgers in this carnivorous
competition.[2] That’s roughly three-quarters of a pound
every day. Even as recently as 1965,
Americans were eating far less per year, averaging around 175 pounds.[3] The pre-WWII boom rates of meat consumption
were even lower than that.
This meat
typically comes from feedlots, where ruminant cattle are fed subsidized corn as
feed instead of their natural diet of grass.
How energy intensive is this industry?
Per calorie, meat production (specifically beef in this case) takes 160
times more land and releases 11 times more greenhouse gas emissions than plant
staples like potatoes or wheat.
Agricultural activity accounts for 15% of our country’s carbon emissions
and half of that is from livestock. The
negative environmental effects of meat extend beyond emissions though, requiring
massive amounts of water and producing phosphate- and nitrate-rich run-off
leading to ecological disruption in aquatic ecosystems.[4] Clearing land for livestock grazing has been
the single biggest driver in deforestation occurring in Central and South
America, with much of the meat produced going to European markets. The damage from this is two-fold: for one,
the forests that once acted as natural carbon sinks are destroyed, leading to a
net gain in carbon emissions and secondly, larger livestock herds increases
methane emission, originating from the animals themselves.[5]
Even among
different types of meat though, it seems that stalwart omnivores can make more
eco-friendly choices. Pork and chicken
both take around 28 times less land and 11 times less water. Choosing to significantly reduces one’s
consumption of red meat is possibly more effective at cutting your greenhouse
gas emissions than altering your transportation habits and driving less. This is considered by some to be the single most
effective intervention in reducing personal carbon emissions.[6] To eat significantly less meat of all kinds
is correspondingly even more effective at shrinking our carbon footprint.
While all
agricultural activity will have some impact, it’s clear that meat production is
the most energy- and water-intensive portion of the industry and plant-based
diets do in fact have a much smaller carbon footprint. A strict vegetarian or vegan diet is possibly
too austere for some, but coupled with the added personal health benefits of a
low-meat diet it would be worthwhile for all of us to at least eat less meat.
[1] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/should-humans-eat-meat-excerpt/
[2] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visualizing-a-nation-of-meat-eaters
[3] http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/
[4] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/21/giving-up-beef-reduce-carbon-footprint-more-than-cars
[5] http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2005/102924/
[6] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/21/giving-up-beef-reduce-carbon-footprint-more-than-cars
