This graphic from the New York Times illustrates the different environmental costs of meat and vegetable production (click on image to enlarge):
This graphic from the New York Times illustrates the different environmental costs of meat and vegetable production (click on image to enlarge):
Comments 2
Kylie — February 1, 2008
Isn't it also important to look at the production process of meat vs. vegetables? Does raising cows actually require the burning of fossil fuels?
Petteri — August 31, 2008
I'd like to point out that the argument in the image works only for industrially manufactured meat. It's not a good argument against eating meat or keeping livestock in general. You wouldn't criticize a meat-eating eskimo for being eco-unfriendly, because thats the way they have lived for millenia, and its the only way to survive in areas where agriculture is impossible. Originally, the purpose of livestock was to convert inedible vegetation (grass, lichens etc.) for human consumption in unarable locations. The same goes with hunting. Wild animals rarely eat plants that we could eat as such. And of course the carbon footprint of wild animals is irrelevant.
This could be an interesting addition to conversations about ethical and environmental issues concerning meat-eating. A hunter vs. the average McDonald's customer. A lot of things get twisted in industrial processes.