Have a Helping of Kangaroo
If you’re worried about the environmental implications of
meat eating, just remember that the issue isn’t black and white. Fretting about
methane emissions? Greenpeace has suggested kangaroo as a sustainable
low-methane alternative red meat. Why not have a heaping helping of delicious
kangaroo loin with fig sauce for dinner instead of a bowl of quinoa?
Worried about the amount of petroleum being burned to grow
meat and bring it to your plate? The concept of “food miles” has become much more
complicated recently, with new studies turning up surprising findings about the
relative amount of fossil fuels consumed in different meals. New Zealand lamb
shipped to the U.K by boat, for example, produces less carbon than British lamb
eaten in the U.K., and far less than most beef. Different kinds of meat have
radically different environmental impacts. Be specific about your concerns and
eat accordingly, rather than imposing a blanket ban.
A dozen hothouse apples might cause more carbon emissions
than a slice of delicious crispy bacon, so scope out the facts before assuming
all vegetarians are greener than all meat eaters.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
"Be specific about your concerns and eat accordingly, rather than imposing a blanket ban."
I agree that this is a logical way to approach the issue.
For anyone whose concerns include...
1. animal welfare,
2. human health and wellness,
3. workers rights and safety,
4. crime and violence,
5. small farmers and the economy, or
6. the environment
...should reduce their meat consumption. Go vegetarian or vegan part-time.
For anyone whose concerns include...
1. the above, and/or,
2. animal rights
...should go vegan.
Remember, it's not an either/or decision.
You can go vegan AND eat organic, local, sustainable.
I think your whole argument is summed up in your dozen apples vs a slice of bacon comparison. It is dishonest and laughable. You can't grow just one slice of bacon and the amount of resources it takes to raise a pig, slaughter it and transport him or her to a market or restaurant is much more damaging to the environment than even 100 apples. The only thing more damaging is this argument you've laid out about eating meat here.
The paper "food miles undermined" declares itself at the beginning - it was written to try to convince environmentally consicous consumers in the EU to buy New Zealand meat and produce. There is no supporting evidence given for the findings. Who commissioned the report? What are the credentials of the people who wrote the report? The argument that a dozen hothouse apples might produce more carbon emissions than a slice of bacon is based on a paper without any credentials and the faulty assumption that a person who refrains from eating meat for environmental reasons would then turn around and eat produce grown in a hot house half way around the world.