Depending on your inclinations, you can heed the health arguments, the moral arguments, or the environmental arguments (regardless whether you agree with the UN study that meat production is the No. 1 contributor to global warming, it is obviously a very large contributor, never mind CAFOs' horrid effects on land, air, and water). Taken together, these arguments strike me as dispositive. It is not possible to participate in industrial animal farming with clean hands.Entire article.
Add to all this the fact that unlike giving up a car, moving closer to work, or retrofitting a home to be more energy efficient, giving up meat involves virtually no cost or inconvenience. Eating meat is entirely an aesthetic choice, based on taste and habit. Taste and habit are not convincing counterweights to the arguments against meat.
So yes, you should eat less meat; ideally you should eat none. You ought to be a vegetarian.
September 23, 2007
David Roberts on vegetarianism and environmentalism
Gristmill staff writer David Roberts suggests that meat-eaters make for poor environmentalists. This article is largely in support of PETA's recent claim that meat-eating is worse for climate than driving. Roberts writes:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Gristmill staff writer David Roberts suggests that meat-eaters make for poor environmentalists.
"Is it true that you cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist? This is a deeply silly question." - David Roberts
giving up meat involves virtually no cost or inconvenience
That's a bald-faced lie on its face.
Post a Comment