Changing Climate and Diets

By Lou Perini

“A change in management style is necessary. It’s about how much and how many in terms of overall catalysts of damage” - Persis Acworth, manager at the UW Farm. Climate change is a concern that seems to be everywhere these days. Blame – and solutions – are rampant, but who and what is really responsible? Ultimately, it might be everyone and no one at the same time. Since the climate crisis is a universal issue, everyone can take steps to help, both big and small.

Animal agriculture – the practice of breeding animals for the production of animal products such as meat, eggs, and dairy – is a climate-relevant industry that everyone who eats food interacts with. A shift in diet has proven to be a beneficial idea, beyond the moral questions of raising animals for enslavement and consumption. There exists a disparity between countries in terms of who climate change will affect most. More economically well-off countries in developed regions are expected to fare better than their counterparts in the developing world. These are the same countries that end up producing most of the animal related greenhouse emissions. Furthermore, in the United States more food is produced than needed and much goes to waste, resulting in resources being consumed for no reason. Environmentally, the animal agriculture industry contributes >30% of greenhouse emissions when taking into account transportation, deforestation, subsidies, etc.. Not only is it one of the biggest emitters, but animal agriculture is a greenhouse gas source that nearly everyone funds willingly and could be reduced with a change in eating habits.

Changing which food sources money is spent on will have significant implications for the food industry's supply and demand chain, as manufacturers will have to adapt to meet consumers' needs. Currently, only a fraction of the U.S. government's spending on agriculture goes toward alternative non-animal products. The amount of money spent annually on feeding animals before their slaughter will surpass 1.3 trillion dollars by 2050, yet these funds could go toward feeding the starving instead. Present-day costs are hard to find, but a 1997 estimate concluded that the amount of grain purchased each year as livestock feed could sustain 800 million people in need instead. Animal agriculture has only grown exponentially in the decades since due to high demand.

As paramount as it is for large corporations to switch their practices, by the nature of business companies meet public demands. Reallocating funds spent on animal agriculture to less climatologically impactful food sources considers a more holistic view of the planet, wherein actions, cycles, and everyone's needs are codependent. It is no more expensive for people to remove animal products from their diet than to consume them; with time and increased revenue towards animal agriculture alternatives, it will become cheaper and the norm, without destruction. Everyone can take part.