It is crucial to mention that the environment is essential for human life. Not many people believe about the environment when ordering a ruddy steak in a restaurant or frying a cutlet at home. However, the meat industry is one of the sources of environmental pollution and consumption of the planet’s resources. If the number of cows in one country is taken together, it will rank third in the world in terms of harmful emissions into the atmosphere. Thus, there is a debate about the need to reduce the cultivation and consumption of animals. However, there is another point of view that animals and their breeding are one of the ways to provide people with nutrients. Therefore, it is essential to establish whether reducing the number of cows will really improve people’s lives or vice versa.
Arguments for Reducing Cow Growing
It is crucial to note that the planet is rapidly growing hotter due to the large number of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere due to human activity. The most significant effect of this process is the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels. In addition, there are other dangerous greenhouse gases, one of which is methane, which is emitted in significant quantities by cows. The emissions of methane from livestock production account for 14.5 percent of all anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases (Wattiaux et al. 240). Nevertheless, numerous scientific studies indicate that about 65 percent of these emissions are associated with the breeding of cattle, specifically cows (Wattiaux et al. 240). Much of the gas is emitted into the atmosphere during the production and processing of feed for them and as a result of the expansion of land for pasture, but it is methane that is released most during the digestion of food by cows. This is partly explained by the significant number of cows but mostly by the peculiarities of the digestive system of these animals.
Moreover, adult cows are large in body size, but they grow relatively slowly, which means that it will take a long time before the animal starts producing meat and milk. During this time, they will eat a considerable amount of food, which they will grow on twice as much land as is needed to feed chickens or pigs (Vibart et al. 144989). At the same time, they emit more methane per unit of food consumed than goats, sheep, or a large wild red deer. Therefore, measuring the contribution of wild ruminants to methane emissions is difficult, if only because there needs to be more data on the size of the populations of these animals. However, scientists agree that wild ruminants emit an average of about ten teragrams of CH4 per year, while cattle emit an average of 106 teragrams per year (Vibart et al. 144989). That is, because of the same cow’s digestive peculiarity and their number, they make the most significant contribution to air pollution among mammals. Accordingly, it is more rational to grow other species of animals that can provide milk and meat to individuals.
The environment is far more harmed by cows than by cars and airplanes. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), there are about a billion and a half cows on the planet, directly or indirectly related to the emission of 18 percent of all greenhouse gases. This figure far exceeds the emissions of all transportation on Earth (Key Facts and Findings, para 3). In addition, the production and transportation of meat, transportation of feed, and pasture management for cows burn fuel that contributes nine percent of the world’s carbon emissions. Moreover, forests are being cut down to create pastures, after which these cleared areas are turned into deserts. Waste generated in the process of tending cows pollutes water (Sakadevan and Nguyen 150). Thus, reducing the number of cows will decrease greenhouse gas emissions and enhance the overall environment.
Counterarguments
Crucially, the human population continues to increase. It is expected that by 2050 there will be almost 10 billion people (Gerten et al. 200). This means that the need for food will also increase, and along with the overall growth of the population’s income, the number of people who can afford to buy meat and dairy products more often will increase. Thus, cows are one of the main options that will allow people to meet their consumer needs in the future. Accordingly, there is no necessity to destroy them now.
Although, this problem can be addressed in an alternative way. Currently, the trend is moving towards increasing the number of livestock. Nevertheless, if people change their eating habits, it is possible to stop the pace of global warming. For this purpose, it is not essential for everyone to become a vegetarian; scientists believe that it is enough to reduce the consumption of animal products, especially beef and cow’s milk, which will allow for keeping less livestock (Clark et al. 32). In addition, it would benefit the health of humans in developed countries, given the widespread lack of plant foods in their diets and the excess of meat. The World Resources Institute argues that reducing beef consumption by 50 calories per day (about 1.5 burgers per week) by residents of countries where meat is consumed the most will significantly reduce the need to expand agricultural land for livestock, even if there are 10 billion people (Clark et al. 35). Therefore, it is vital to maintain the ecological situation and not completely destroy the cow population.
It is also significant to mention the influence of politicians on animal farming. For example, Donald Trump, during the presidential elections in 2020, said that supporters of the Green Deal “want to take out the cows” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Associated Press para 1). Thus, the politician is against reducing the cow population and wishes every American could eat burgers. Moreover, the former president noted that the cruel treatment of cows is just the beginning. Trump said that after the Democrats destroy the cow population, the next on their way will be the humans. The former president noted that it is not rational to destroy farms and said that “Don’t say it. They want to kill our cows. That means you’re next” (Associated Press para 1). Thus, Trump clearly indicated that he is against the mass destruction of cows.
Nevertheless, the Green New Deal does not provide for the complete destruction of the cow population and, moreover, it does not concern people. According to the Green New Deal, which was announced in 2019, it is necessary to analyze the Green New Deal. Consequently, the main focus is to reduce the US dependence on fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Associated Press). Furthermore, the document specifies tools such as investments in the energy sector, new building projects, but the document does not mention the destruction of animals. Although, in additional documents distributed by Ocasio-Cortez’s staff it is stated “we are not sure we’ll be able to completely get rid of farting cows and airplanes” (Associated Press para 3). Thus, this does not indicate the need to destroy the cow population.
At the same time, the use of new technologies will contribute to saving the lives of cows. American food company Cargill will start selling methane-absorbing devices for cows in the form of masks that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The device was developed by the British startup Zelp, which will help to cut methane emissions by half (Vibart et al. 144989). The devices will be placed over the cows’ mouths and will act on the principle of a catalytic converter in cars. In addition, the device has a filter that absorbs methane. When the filter is saturated, a chemical reaction turns the methane into CO2, which is then released into the atmosphere. Therefore, there are ways to save the life of cows and not harm the environment.
Conclusion
Thus, in the modern world, a problem has arisen that the vitality of cows increases the amount of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. This is due to the fact that the digestive system of cows and the creation of feed for them provoke emissions into the atmosphere. Moreover, large pastures can be used more rationally by increasing the population of chickens or other animals. Therefore, it is necessary to reduce the number of cows in order to save the planet. The opposite opinion is that cows are one of the primary food resources for people and their destruction will lead to a food crisis. It is important to note that it is not necessary to destroy the population completely, but only to reduce it to reverse the damage to the planet. In this case, humans can adapt their food preferences and use other nutritious products. In addition, new technologies will support a certain number of cows that will be safe for the planet.
Works Cited
Associated Press.“‘They Want to Kill Our Cows. That Means You’re Next,’ Trump Says at Lowa Rally.” Market Watch, Web.
Clark, Michael, et al. “The Role of Healthy Diets in Environmentally Sustainable Food Systems.” Food and Nutrition Bulletin, vol. 41, no. 2, 2020, pp. 31-58.
Gerten, Dieter, et al. “Feeding Ten Billion People is Possible Within Four Terrestrial Planetary Boundaries.” Nature Sustainability, vol. 3, no. 3, 2020, pp. 200-208.
Key Facts and Findings. Food and Agriculture Organization, Web.
Sakadevan, K., and M-L. Nguyen. “Livestock Production and Its Impact on Nutrient Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Advances in Agronomy, vol. 141, 2017, pp.147-184.
Vibart, Ronaldo, et al. “Challenges and Opportunities to Capture Dietary Effects In On-Farm Greenhouse Gas Emissions Models of Ruminant Systems.” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 769, 2021, p.144989.
Wattiaux, Michel, et al. “Invited Review: Emission and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases from Dairy Farms: The Cow, the Manure, and The Field.” Applied Animal Science, vol. 35, no. 2, 2019, pp. 238-254.