I’ve been a vegetarian for about four years now.
No, I’m not an activist tree-hugger who houses stray animals.
No, you do not need to apologize for me.
Yes, you can go ahead and eat that steak in front of me; it will not gross me out.
No, I do not want just one bite.
Yes, I am sure.
Yes, I understand it tastes good.
No, I’m not judging you.
Yes, I actually get plenty of protein, but thank you very much for your concern.
After a frenzy of warm-up questions, comes the mother of all questions that a vegetarian must be prepared to answer at any meal with carnivore counterparts: what made you decide to be a vegetarian? Ethical reasons, they propose. At their invitation, I begin.
While my switch to a plant-based diet was, in part, due to a concern for animal welfare and a general desire to eat lighter, it was primarily out of concern for the environment.
Livestock is one of the largest contributors to climate change. According to a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, at 18 percent, than transport. In In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan writes that if everyone in the United States opted out of meat one day a week, it would be the equivalent of taking around five million cars off the road.
Livestock accounts for 37 percent of all human-induced methane, which is 23 times as warming as CO2, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes to acid rain. Acid rain erodes buildings, alters soil chemistry and buffering capacity and harms the flora and fauna that rely on the water.
But what really galvanized me into the veggie lifestyle was learning how much water is used in the production of meat. My burger seemed significantly less appetizing when I learned that it takes approximately 660 gallons of water to produce.
While the importance of reducing our carbon footprint is generally recognized, the urgency of water conservation is often overlooked. However, already one-fifth of the world’s population lives in areas of water scarcity. This number is projected to increase with global warming and population growth.
About 27 percent of our “water footprint” can be traced back to the production of animal products, primarily the meat industry. Further, only about four percent of our water use comes from use at home. While a pat on the back may be deserved for a shorter shower or an efficiently loaded dishwasher, what makes a much larger impact is skipping meat at your next meal.
Why does the meat industry use so much water? Animals must be fed grain, which requires water, and much more grain is required to produce meat than is needed to feed someone on a plant-based died. For reference, 2,000 pounds of grain are required to produce enough meat to feed a person on a meat-based diet for a year. By contrast, only 400 pounds are needed if that grain is eaten directly.
And only about 10 percent of the energy obtained from one trophic level (levels of the food chain) is passed on to the one above it, because energy is lost as metabolic heat. That means that if you eat spinach, you would be getting 100 percent of the energy from that spinach. However, if you eat at a deer that has eaten that spinach, you can only get 10 percent of the energy.
Thus, it is more expensive to produce energy content in the form of meat and other animal products than in the form of corn, soybeans, and other crops. In fact, 800 million more people could be fed if all the grain grown in the US for livestock was used to feed people instead.
Now, I don’t necessarily advocate for universal vegetarianism, but I do think it is paramount that we become more conscientious omnivores. Granted, in some communities and cultures, refusing meat is not practical or economically feasible, but for a large portion of Americans, that is not the case.
I realize that on a micro-scale, regardless of my choice not to indulge in meat, the meat will still be in the grocery store packaged and waiting for someone else to buy it. However, I don’t think that what someone else choses to eat should influence my decision.
Furthermore, nearly all change starts at a micro-level. When consumers started fearing fat consumption in the 1980s, more and more fat-free alternatives started filling the shelves. Today, the vast majority of the snacks we consume come in fat-free or reduced-fat varieties.
Opting to consume fewer meat-based meals doesn’t mean eating salads all day—dairy, beans and grains provide hearty, more sustainable alternatives to meat. They, too, let you go to bed feeling, perhaps, a little better about your carbon footprint and environmental impact.
Diana Tarrazo is a Trinity sophomore.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.