The environmental footprint of animal products is not the same across the board. While westerners today eat the most meat and dairy, developing countries emit more per pound. A glass of milk in India means, on average, five times more CO2 equivalent than it does in the US. In fact, the UN Food & Agriculture Organization estimates that we could reduce global emissions from livestock by approximately 30% if all producers were to follow the best practices of the top 10% most efficient members of the industry.
Unfortunately, many of the practices that have allowed for these reduced climate impacts are strictly at odds with animal welfare goals. Pastoral frolicking means more land use, for example, which means less land for jungles and forests. Cattle finished on energy-dense food, like cereal grains, emit less methane compared to fiber-rich grass. If the floors of pigs’ stalls are concrete, it's a lot easier to collect manure than if the animals are kept on cozy straw. Methane digesters, furthermore, work best in large-scale, confined conditions. So how do we think about this increased suffering for animals when it leads to a decreased climate footprint — especially when achieving environmental goals means good news for animal biodiversity, habitats, and lower extinction risks?
As Marta Zaraska writes in the latest issue of the Journal: "We must be aware that we are making a decision here. Happy chickens or happy penguins? How happy is happy enough? There is no perfect Kumbaya meat, no matter how much we’d like it to exist."
|
|
