Name
Course
Instructor
Date
How
Can the Society Address Climate Change?
In the current, evolving world, the issue of
sustainability now lends itself as one of the critical issues more than ever.
It is arguably one of the outstanding subjects that policymakers are
discussing. This issue is hinged on the
view that the growing global populations, the high rates of depletion of
natural resources and the various emerging social, health and economic
challenges call for a rethink on ways that the current generation will be able
to continue sustaining itself, considering the effectiveness of existing approaches have been questioned. Many of the discussions have
acknowledged the role of the environment as particularly imperative to
sustainable development. The primary premise for this position is that if the
global community does not protect or conserve the environment, the adverse
environmental challenges such as famine, natural calamities, and diseases will be experienced, and these results will subvert
the efforts aimed at achieving the social and economic development goals (Gille, 5). However, the path to environmental sustainability has not seemed to be
a straightforward one. Indeed, several views have been offered as strategies for sustainable development, some of
which have elicited the questions concerning their appropriateness. Some suggestions have always been characterized by
heated debate contests. In fall 2008,
the head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Rajendra Pachauri, called upon the global society to eat less meat in a bid to
conserve the environment. His view has been perhaps the most interesting of insights that have attracted
sharp reactions. This paper explores the question of eating meat as a way of supporting environmental protection,
focusing on the implications of Hamilton's argument on Dr. Pachauris viewpoint.
A Look at Dr. Pachauris Opposing Viewpoint
Dr.
Pachauris acknowledges that the state of the rising global temperatures cannot be ignored — it calls for drastic
interventions. The most appropriate approach for this intervention is by
narrowing on some of the anthropogenic activities responsible for the emission of most of the greenhouse gasses. Animal farming happens to be one of the
most notable causes of greenhouse gasses and,
therefore, one way of addressing the issue is by avoiding eating meat.
Dr. Pachauris viewpoint rests on the startling statistics that the meat
production processes account for about 25
percent of the greenhouse gas volume emitted from the globe. These amounts of pollutant gasses are produced during processing of animals feeds, while
others, especially methane, are emitted
from ruminant digestion, and this happens to be about 23 times more effective
in contributing to global warming than carbon dioxide.
The
essence of reducing consumption of meat is to lessen the meat demand, which
would translate to reduced animal farming activities. Dr. Pachauris concerns are expressed at the backdrop of the growing
demand for meat, which is projected to double in the next 5 decades. Therefore, reducing consumption of
meat would be the only rapid, feasible approach that would enable the global
community to tackle the worsening global warming issue. Dr. Pachauris advises
the regular meat consumers to give up taking meat for one day a week, and then
continue cutting down the consumption more and more. Apart from reducing meat
consumption, Dr. Pachauris has advised that the strategies to tackle climate
change will need to be accompanied by
other forms of lifestyle change, which will help reduce the amount of gas emissions, and this should be reflected in different sectors.
A Look at Criticism
The
approach has attracted criticism from various individuals, for instance, Lisa
Hamilton. Lisa Hamilton provides a relatively different approach to
environmental sustainability — rather than eat less meat as Dr. Pachauris
urges, she considers that people should, in
fact, eat more meat. Her views are essentially
borne on two premises; livestock is
a critical component of the ecosystem protection equation and are a source of
revenue and food.
First,
while Hamilton does not refute livestock accounts for a significant percentage
of greenhouse gasses, she suggests that
deciding not to have them will still not address the issue of methane produced
by other organisms such as deer and terminates. If only, livestock is important
because it produces manure that can be used to enhance soil fertility. In
essence, farmers will not be able to generate high yields in the absence of
livestock. According to her, the best approach to
dealing with carbon problem is to get it back to the soil, and that happens
only when the livestock is in the conservation equation. Moreover, cattle play
a much more crucial role other than keeping
the soil fertile —when managed properly; they can enrich the capacity of in
sequestering carbon. Therefore, cattle do not only add manure to the ground, but their symbiotic grazing also
encourages the growth of plants, while their hooves crush plant residue to
support the ecosystem needs. Secondly, if cattle are well managed, intensive
grazing processes may play a crucial role in shifting the emitted carbon to so significant levels that livestock farming
can be perceived as a way of controlling the menace of greenhouse gasses. To her, the potential of animal benefits is
yet to be realized because the meat
consumption is still low.
Therefore,
for Lisa M. Hamilton, it is plausible to encourage people to eat more meat and promote
livestock farming activities because they
are not only an economically viable project
but also an environmentally friendly event.
Reflection
A
look at Dr. Pachauris and Lisa Hamilton insights reveals opposing viewpoints.
While both do not refute the need for environmental conservation and the
presence of high percentage of greenhouse gasses
emitted by livestock, they hold a different perspective of what must be done about cattle. In particular, based on
Lisa Hamilton’s perspective, Dr. Pachauris approach can be conceived as a
radical one — it overlooks the economic and ecological benefits that livestock
offer. She sees that if the livestock is not
reared, farmers will not be able to earn a
good living, and at the same time, other derivative benefits such as
manure will be lost.
However,
it is noteworthy that, other than defending the economic and a few ecological
benefits of livestock, even Lisa Hamilton’s perspective does not provide a
succinct explanation on how the society could deal with associated greenhouse
emissions. Rather, her response is a thesis that it is not just the livestock
that is involved in the production of
greenhouse gasses, but also other organisms
such as deer and termites. Therefore, her perspective is critical that reducing
livestock may not have much to do in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While
she posits the possibility of how livestock could be well managed to cut down
greenhouse emissions, her insights do not adequately specify how this could be done, as well as the rate the livestock
management approaches can subdue the actual greenhouse gasses the farms emit.
Conclusion
In
conclusion, the aim of this paper has been
to reflect on the issue of eating meat for the environmental protection, focusing on the implications of
Hamilton's argument on Dr. Pachauris viewpoint. On
one hand, Dr. Pachauris acknowledges that the state of the rising global
temperatures cannot be ignored — it calls
for drastic interventions, and that since livestock farming happens to be one of the most common causes of greenhouse gasses, one way of addressing the issue is by
avoiding eating meat. On the other hand, Lisa Hamilton provides a relatively
different approach to environmental sustainability — rather than eat less meat,
people should, in fact, eat more to
conserve the environment, reasoning that livestock is a critical component of the ecosystem equation, and are a source
of revenue and food, too. Therefore, Hamilton's and Dr. Pachauris viewpoints
can be seen as opposites. Based on Lisa
Hamilton’s perspective, Dr. Pachauris approach to the issue is only a radical
one that overlooks the economic and ecological benefits that livestock offer.
She sees that if the livestock is not reared,
farmers will not be able to derive a living, and at the same time, other
derivative benefits such as manure will be lost.
While Lisa Hamilton’s perspective does not provide a succinct explanation on
how the society could deal with the associated greenhouse emissions, she
nevertheless provides alternative thinking to the issue, which certainly
weakens Dr. Pachauris viewpoint. Such points of
view, however, reflects the inherent challenges regarding the path to
protecting the environment.
Works
Cited
No comments:
Post a Comment