The overall degradation of land, which should be more accurately referred to as depletion of land, is a global problem with implications that affect agricultural productivity, the environment, food scarcity, and the quality of life.46 Over the past fifty years, short-term economic gains by the meat and dairy industries have clouded the reality of poor and inefficient land management, failure to encompass sustainable practices, and long-term destruction of our topsoil. With more land being less productive, the narrow-visioned expansion of grazing and croplands into natural habitats occurs. As valuable topsoil is depleted by indiscriminate and continued use by livestock, attempts to restore this depleted land requires more and more of our natural resources, such as water, gas, oil, etc. Additionally, pollution is then invariably generated in the process, and there is increased use of chemicals, such as fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and even more of our energy resources. Desertification, another form of land depletion or degradation, also occurs as a result of overgrazing of livestock. This condition occurs when rich topsoil is lost to the point where minimal or no plant life can be supported. Desert-like conditions occur with lack of water retention, continued rapid erosion by wind or rain, and loss of nearly any form of productivity. Although these conditions are witnessed in many areas of the world due to the introduction of livestock, one of the more severe examples is in Africa. About 500 million Africans are affected by desertification, which seriously undermines any agricultural production, with livestock being the primary cause.47 Modern livestock production and its effect on land use are driven by demand for livestock products. If there is less demand, there will be less livestock production, then less land used, and ultimately, less destruction, less topsoil loss, and less overall land depletion.
According to the Global Footprint Network (GFN), the global demand for land overtook global supply by the end of the 1980s. GFN was established in 2003 to measure human impact on earth. The organization comprises scientists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academics, and over ninety global partners that are universities and technological institutions, and it is supported by twenty-three countries. Their “footprint” is a data-driven tool of measurement that tells us if we are living within our ecologic budget, or if we are using natural resources faster than the planet can renew them. It’s estimated that the human ecological footprint is currently 30 percent greater than the entire planet can sustain.48 Moderate projections suggest that if consumption and depletion continue at current levels, we will need the equivalent of two earths to support us by the mid-2030s. Livestock and related processes are the largest contributors to our ecological footprint through land uses of grazing and feed crops, land needed to absorb CO2, and even indirectly through fisheries needed to produce fishmeal for livestock feed.
The first level of land depletion is when forests are cleared for livestock. This reduces the soil’s ability to absorb CO2 and produce O2 and also destroys water cycles. The second level of depletion or destruction is after natural ecosystems and land have been cleared; this is when the development of cattle ranching and pasture degradation related to overgrazing occurs. This pasture degradation results in soil erosion.
The livestock sector uses more than 9.6 billion acres, or 30 percent, of the world’s surface land area. Certainly there must be concern for rapid global increase in the human population and the effect this has on our available resources. However, in terms of land use, it is our choice of food—collectively by our population and subsequent land management—that is having the most destructive effect. It is not simply a matter of having too many people for our planet; it is what these people are doing with our land and resources that is of most concern. One of many examples of this can be seen in our own country. There has been a population boom over the past thirty years in the southwestern United States; population there has doubled in this time period, with an increase of over 35 million people. Of the 99 million acres of land in this area of the United States that comprises the states of California, Nevada, and Arizona, 82 million acres are rangeland or pasture for cattle, while only 500,000 acres are classified as urban, being used as living areas by the population.49 Although there are 16 million acres remaining as state, federal, or some private land, most of this will be taken over by livestock as our demand for meat continues to rise. The 82,000,000-to-500,000 ratio of land use is absurd and found during the time of a population spike. This example shows that our land is used primarily for cattle, not for humans. When combined with the destruction of land that occurs, this imbalance displays an obvious inefficiency of use.
The destruction, or global depletion, of natural habitats in order to establish grazing or cropland for livestock is, not surprisingly, the leading cause of biodiversity loss. Countless species of plants and animals are either extinct or severely threatened from our practice of raising livestock. Some 825 terrestrial ecoregions are identified by the Worldwide Fund for Nature across all biomes and all biogeographical areas on earth. Ecoregions cover large areas of land or water and are characterized by the natural communities of habitat and wildlife that they contain. In these regions are found characteristic and geographically distinct groups of various species of living things. The biodiversity of fauna, flora, and ecosystems that constitute and characterize an ecoregion also usually is distinctively different from that of another ecoregion. Each of these regions is classified by biome type, which is a distinct group of plant communities determined by climate and rainfall. For instance, various types of grasslands, forests, and deserts are all further distinguished by in which climate they are found (tropical, subtropical, temperate, boreal, etc.), which allows for specific grouping into biome type. Of these 825 major land ecoregions, 306 are reported to have livestock as a current threat. Another analysis by the World Conservation Union Red List of Threatened Species reports that most of the world’s endangered or threatened species are suffering habitat loss due to livestock.50 There is clear, unregulated, unnecessary continued proliferation of livestock into natural habitat to satisfy our demand for use of animals for food, without regard for the irreversible effect on biomes, ecoregions, and all the natural communities of living things they contain.
The most recent and comprehensive assessment of the effect of our activities on other living species took place in Nagoya, October 26, 2010, at the Convention on Biological Diversity. The meeting received minimal media coverage due to the minute-by-minute attention given to our financial crises. I found this both interesting and disconcerting, as the gathering in Nagoya was about the future of all life on Earth. The convention in Nagoya was a gathering of the world’s leading authorities from sixty-two participating countries to report a summary of the current status of our planet’s loss of biodiversity, as well as to create a plan to reduce the current rate of extinction. It was essentially a follow-up convention from the meeting held in 2002, where there was an agreement by the world’s governments, as the Executive Summary and Report explains, “to achieve by the year 2010 a substantial reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss …” that has not been met. Of the five “principal pressures directly driving biodiversity loss—habitat change, overexploitation, pollution, invasive alien species, and climate change—all are increasing in intensity.”
Species that were assessed for extinction risk are moving closer to extinction, with amphibians and coral reefs showing the most rapid decline. Almost 25 percent of all current plant species are nearing extinction. As of mid-2010, 170 countries had adopted national biodiversity strategies and plans of action. Delegates agreed to protect 17 percent of the land area of the world that remains and 10 percent of the oceans by 2020. Specifics of exactly how this is to be accomplished are vague at best, and these targets are not ambitious enough. A “flexible framework” was adopted that allows countries to continue doing as they wish, with no real threat of sanctions or repercussions serious enough to effect change. As of December 2010, the U.S. had not even signed the UN Accord on Biodiversity. Examples cited of existin
g scenarios that cause the most effect on biodiversity loss are: “Tropical forests which are being deforested in favor of crops and pastures, climate change and pollution, and overfishing which would continue to damage marine ecosystems and cause collapse of fishing populations.” The two primary suggested solutions were:
1. much greater efficiency in the use of land, energy, fresh water, and materials to meet growing demand for food, and
2. use of market incentives and avoidance of perverse subsidies to minimize unsustainable resource use and wasteful consumption.
Because raising livestock is a primary cause of land depletion, global warming, water usage, deforestation, and pollution, doesn’t it make sense that this topic should have been addressed specifically? And because eating fish is the cause of our exploitation of fishing stocks in our oceans, doesn’t it make sense that this topic also should have been addressed? There should be no mistake that our choice of eating animal products as food is the driving force behind the demand to continue raising livestock and to fish. This, then, is obviously what fuels the continued loss of habitat and biodiversity on our planet. And yet nowhere in the Executive Summary of this very important gathering was there proper addressing or direct management for resolution. Let me help:
The major cause of biodiversity loss on our planet is from the livestock we raise for food and from overfishing of our oceans, both driven by demand. The most effective methods of correcting this are to:
1. Eat only plant-based foods.
2. Eliminate all subsidies for any businesses that produce animal products.
3. Create incentives for those businesses that produce plant-based foods.
4. Educate all nations as to the real reasons for biodiversity loss and the most effective and quickest way for resolution. Specifics are the rule; there is no room for generality.
There have been five previous massive extinctions on earth, with the last one occurring 65 million years ago at the end of the Mesozoic era, due in large part to the effect of the impact of an asteroid striking what is now the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. We are currently in our sixth period of extinction. The major difference between previous extinctions and the current one is quite clear—the current extinction is not due to external, uncontrollable forces; it is due to our own actions. We humans are causing the massive loss of species of plants, insects, and animals every day, and this has been happening at an escalated rate since the 1960s. Once more, it is not the number of humans as much as our combined actions with respect to how we affect Planet Earth. We are destroying our forests, especially our rainforests, converting natural habitats to pasture or crops for livestock, polluting and causing excessive global warming, using water at an unsustainable rate, and overexploiting many species of life, particularly in our oceans. Although there are many reasons for this, it is quite clear that the primary reason for the combined effect of human activities on loss of life is our choice of animals for food … period. Until clear communication and recognition is established regarding this reality, and then a concise plan created to implement strategies to resolve it, true progress will never be made. There is no room for a halfway approach. Heavy economic penalties should be imposed on all producers and consumers of animal products, as well as nations that continue the practice.
Food depletion is also ongoing and occurring at an alarming rate. What is food depletion? Well, let’s look at the United States, for instance, where an almost unbelievable 70 percent of all grain produced is fed not to humans but to animals that are raised for food.51 The World Hunger Organization reported that six million children died of starvation in 2009 alone. Another one billion people currently are suffering from hunger and malnutrition. There is more than enough grain produced each year to eradicate world hunger, but the solution is to stop giving grain to livestock and to simply give it to those who are starving to death.
In 1986, during the food crisis in Ethiopia, there was an increase in global awareness of hunger in that country—most media services covered the topic well, including using infomercials on television. What was blatantly lacking in media coverage, however, was the fact that each day, while thousands of people were dying from hunger, Ethiopia was—at the very same time—using a significant amount of its agricultural land to produce cereal grains (linseed, rapeseed, and cottonseed) for export to the UK and other European nations, to be used as feed for European livestock.52
Today, as then, millions of acres of undeveloped third-world land are being used exclusively to produce feed for European livestock—and those livestock eventually end up in the United States. I find it interesting and tragic that 80 percent of the world’s starving children live in countries where food surpluses are fed to animals that are then killed and eaten by more well-off individuals in developed countries. It is estimated that one-fourth of all grain produced by third-world countries is now given to livestock. This figure has tripled since the 1950s.53
Each year in the United States, inefficient use of land for food is exemplified by the fact that 157 million metric tons of cereal, legumes, and vegetables—all suitable for human use—is fed to livestock to produce barely 28 million metric tons of animal protein for human consumption.54 Globally in 2007, there was a “record harvest,” with 2.1 billion tons of grain production.55 There should not have been much difficulty, then, with providing assistance to those people in the world who suffered from hunger—except for the fact that over 50 percent of all crops grown were used to feed livestock instead. Each year nearly, one billion tons of grains and vegetables are fed to animals in the meat and dairy industries.56 We have enough of the right type of land on this planet to provide healthy food for humans in a sustainable manner, but currently, the land is being depleted—perhaps irreversibly—by livestock operations and unsustainable agricultural techniques used to produce feed that supports animals to be slaughtered, instead of its going directly to humans to keep them alive and healthy.
CHAPTER VI
Water and Oceans
Part 1: Drinking water and sustainability—where is it all going?
Part 2: Our oceans—what is happening below the surface?
“When the well is dry, we know the worth of water.”
—Benjamin Franklin
THERE ARE THREE PRINCIPLE AReas of global depletion as it relates to water: the realities of our drinking water and who is using it; the current exploitation of our oceans and fish; and the pollution of both of these. Let us begin by taking a closer look at our drinking water.
Part 1: Drinking water/fresh water
Once again, we are raising 70 billion animals each year that are killed and eaten. Each of these animals, particularly cattle and pigs, require much more water daily than either you or I would—many, many more gallons. Now, multiply that times 70 billion. It is not so difficult to surmise where all of our drinking water is going. It actually requires over five thousand gallons of water to produce one pound of meat.57 It is well-known that each of us needs six to eight eight-ounce glasses of water each day for proper hydration and proper health. Were you aware that a cow needs thirty gallons of water each day, just to stay alive, and a pig needs up to twenty-one gallons?58 That is up to sixty times more water for just one animal than we humans would drink in one day. And that does not count all the water it requires to wash the areas where the animals live or that is used in their slaughtering and butchering processes. Are you asking, “So what?” Well, why would anyone want to give sixty times the amount of water that we would drink ourselves in one day to pigs or cows or any other animal that we then kill a year later and eat parts of it—parts that are, factually, unhealthy for us?59 Remember that much of the water that is used for these animals is to produce crops for livestock feed, drinking water, or slaughtering is, in most cases, nonrenewable in our lifetime.
To understand what can only be viewed as bizarre misuse of our drinking water, it is important to know that there are currently eight million people living in the states of Iowa and Missouri, amid
more than 50 million pigs.60 That’s 50 million pigs, in just two states, that are raised each year, using our land, crops, fossil fuel, and water, with massive amounts of waste polluting our ground, water, and air. Again, so what? Well, that is where your bacon, pork chops, hot dogs, etc., are really coming from, not from your local grocer. Every time you eat bacon, pork chops, hot dogs, or any other animal product, please keep in mind all the depletion for which you, personally, are responsible. Don’t look the other way or pass the blame; it is you—and you alone—who ate that particular animal, thus keeping the wheels of depletion moving onward. If you did not ask for and eat it, the meat and dairy industries would not produce it and exploit our resources. There are alternatives—many alternatives.
In fact, more than one-half of all the water used in the United States is, in one way or another, given to livestock. That means one-half of all the water used by all humans and businesses is going to animals raised for us to eat.61 Consider that it requires more than five thousand gallons of water to produce one pound of edible beef, but only twenty to sixty gallons to produce one pound of vegetables, fruits, soybeans, or grains (all of which are more nutritious than meat and which do not contribute to a number of diseases, as do animal products).62 Essentially, one person can save more water simply by not eating a pound of beef than he could by not showering for an entire year. It does not seem logical to continue in the direction we have been going with regard to raising animals for food.
Comfortably Unaware Page 4
