Frustrating article from Bloomberg, both in terms of the reporting and in what’s being reported:
The European Parliament warned about the livestock industry’s emissions while stopping short of urging a reduction in meat consumption to fight global warming.
Never thought friggin’ Cincinnati (née Porkopolis) would be taking a more enlightened environmental stance than the European Union.
The European Union assembly’s balancing act highlights the potential conflict between tackling climate change and ensuring adequate food supplies.
Nonsense. The conflict is between the need to stabilize earth’s climate and agribusiness’ influence on government leaders. Industrialized meat production diminishes, rather than expands, the total amount of food available to feed people.
The livestock industry’s role in food-supply security is ambiguous, the Food and Agricultural Organization said in a 2007 report.
Ambiguous, huh? Here’s the first paragraph of the summary:
As we have seen, the livestock sector is a major stressor on many ecosystems and on the planet as a whole. Globally it is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases and one of the leading causal factors in the loss of biodiversity, while in developed and emerging countries it is perhaps the leading source of water pollution.
You can make a strong case that limited animal agriculture can boost the food supply in impoverished regions while reducing malnutrition. But in places with abundant food production, such as the countries in the European Union, I don’t think you can argue that animal agriculture is anything but a health and environmental menace. Link.