Scientific American tackles the meat/global warming connection

In December I blogged about a lengthy story in The New York Times that examined the startling connection between cattle rearing and global warming.  And now Scientific American has addressed the topic in its February issue with a probing feature detailing the disastrous environmental impact of raising cattle for beef.

The inefficiencies of raising cattle for food are shameful.  According to the article, producing a pound of beef in a feedlot generates the equivalent of 14.8 pounds of C02, more than 36 times the C02 equivalent of producing the same amount of asparagus.  

It takes 10 pounds of plant protein to produce 1 pound of beef protein.  The grains used to feed cattle that will ultimately be slaughtered for their meat can feed billions of people who are starving to death in developing countries.

These numbers are startling and give more credence to scientific conclusions that raising animals for food produces far more greenhouse gasses than buildings, cars and factories.  

The article touches on solutions, from improving waste management and farming practices to consuming more locally grown food (which significantly lessens the impact on the environment).

It's disappointing that the word "vegan" appears nowhere in the story.  Veganism is the fastest and healthiest way to lessen our individual impact on the planet.  And when you factor in the horrible conditions that animals suffer through on feed lots, the karmic benefits of veganism come into stark relief.

Yes, we should be looking for ways to make factory farming less damaging to the environment.  Yes, we should seek out locally grown food.  But we should also promote and encourage veganism as the most ethical personal choice - for animals, for people and for the environment.  Go vegan!