10種素食可以幫助拯救地球

英國的平均食肉動物吃超過 11,000動物在其一生中，每個都需要大量的土地，燃料和水到達板。它的時間去思考，以及廢物的味道

- 約翰維達爾
- 觀察家, 2010年7月18日星期日
- 第二十歷史

Aerial view of cattle farm in Amazonian deforested jungle close to Maraba — 數百萬公頃的樹木已被砍伐牛放牧在亞馬遜。攝影：保羅惠特克/路透

如果我們真的想減少人類對環境的影響，最簡單，最便宜的東西任何人都可以做的是，少吃肉類。後面的大部分關節對我們的牛肉或雞肉板是一個驚人的浪費，土地和能源緊缺的農業系統的毀壞森林，污染海洋，河流，海洋和空氣，依賴於石油和煤炭，並顯著負責氣候變化。我們的方式繁殖的動物，是目前聯合國所承認，科學家，經濟學家和政治家為產生許多相互聯繫的人類和生態問題，但已經有1億人沒有足夠的食物和30億需要吃飯的嘴在50年內，重新思考我們的緊迫性與動物的關係是極端。

1過熱的地球

我們人類食用約230米噸的動物一年的兩倍多，因為我們30年前。我們主要品種 4種 -雞，牛，羊，豬-所有這些都需要大量的食品和水，釋放出甲烷和其他溫室氣體和廢物產生的物理山區。

但多少也強調我們的食肉放在生態系統？答案是很多，但這些數字是不準確的和有爭議的。 2006年，聯合國計算，結合氣候變化的排放量為他們飼養的動物肉類約有18 ％的全球總- 超過汽車，飛機和所有其他形式的運輸放在一起。

作者們報告，呼籲畜牧業長長的陰影，不只是數量的甲烷從打嗝，放屁的牛，但氣體釋放的肥料，他們生產，石油燃燒到他們的屍體，以市場往往數千英里之遙，電力需要保持冷靜的肉，氣體用於烹調，能源需要犁和收穫的領域，種莊稼的動物吃，甚至抽水的水，牲畜的需要。

這個數字是在2009年上調世界銀行由兩個科學家超過 51 ％，但試圖完全辨認食肉被批判為簡單化。如果研究是基於美國大型工廠化農場，或更可持續育種歐洲？你應該包括所有的連鎖廢氣的砍伐森林？怎麼樣的肥料用於種植飼料作物的動物，或排放量所需的鋼材建造船隻，運輸的牲畜;或“默認“排放-溫室氣體將被釋放的活動，以替代種植食品，如果我們放棄肉？而且它是公平的計數動物用於多種用途，因為它們大多是在發展中國家，提供畜力到皮鞋或運輸，並只能成為肉一旦他們到達終點的經濟生活？

這是一個惡夢，但根據會計如何做，牲畜對氣候變化可以計算為低5-10 ％的全球排放量或高達 50 ％。去年，食品氣候研究網絡報告結論是，英國肉類和奶製品消費量為8％，負責該國的溫室氣體總排放量。但是，無論它的計算，禽畜養殖為一體的隊伍三個最大來源的排放量和氣候變化的最大貢獻者之一，環境退化。

二吃的土地

一個人的人口預計將增加30億美元，在發展中國家轉變吃更多的肉，和全球消費的軌道，以翻番四十年指向母親所有食物危機下的道路。我們的成長多少食物不只是數量有限的可用土地，但肉，需要吃更多的空間遠遠比素食者。一個孟加拉家庭靠大米，豆類，蔬菜和水果可以住在一英畝的土地或更少，而美國人的平均年齡，誰消耗約 270磅肉1年，需要20倍。

近30 ％的可用無冰水面面積的行星是目前使用的牲畜，或種植糧食的動物。 10億人每天挨餓，但消耗的大部分牲畜現在是世界上莊稼。阿在1997年康奈爾大學研究發現，大約1300萬公頃的土地在美國被用於種植蔬菜，水稻，水果，馬鈴薯和豆類，但三百〇二米被用作牲畜。問題是，農場動物是轉換效率不高的食物，肉。肉雞雞是最好的，需要大約3.4千克生產1公斤肉，但豬需要 8.4千克為該公斤。

其他學者的計算，如果糧食餵養的動物在西方國家，而不是由人直接食用的動物，我們可以養活至少兩倍，許多人 -可能更- 正如我們現在要做的。

為了使事情更糟的是，我們的飢餓吃動物，導致積壓的脆弱的土地和大量的水土流失和荒漠化。過度放牧，從唐蘭英格蘭南部的高地埃塞俄比亞和尼泊爾山區，造成巨大損失的生育，以及水浸。

但數字必須謹慎對待。動物糞便可以振興土壤和以百萬計的動物生活在貧瘠的土地，這是比較不適合作物。

但在我們的結論和一次飛躍，所有牲畜飼養在一起，想想看：在西方國家的動物繁殖和飼養把盡可能多肉盡可能在最短的時間後，他們被屠殺。但在貧困地區，牛- 尤其是在乾旱地區- 是中央對人的生命和文化，往往是唯一的食物來源和收入數百萬的牧民。這些運動的不懈游牧牧民在遼闊的地區，在許多非洲國家經濟的骨幹，並從一個新的大型研究的國際環境與發展研究所建議，一個更為有效的方法生態農業比牛只飼養方式在澳大利亞或美國。

三喝太多水

吃了牛排或雞肉，你有效地消耗的水，有需要的動物生活和成長。素食作家約翰羅賓斯計算需要60 ，108， 168和229磅的水來生產一磅的土豆，小麥，玉米和大米分別。但是，一磅牛肉需要約 9000升 -或超過 20,000磅水。同樣，它需要近1000公升的水，生產一公升牛奶。阿肉雞，相比之下，效率高得多，生產同樣數量的肉一頭牛上，在1500公升。

豬是一些缺水的動物。一個普通大小的北美豬農場的豬隻需要近80000 7500加侖的淡水一年。一個大型的，可能有100萬以上的豬，可能需要多達一城市。

農業，它使用70 ％的水可用於人類，已在水直接競爭的城市。但隨著對肉類需求增加，因此會減少可用於農作物和飲用。豐富，但缺水的國家，如沙特阿拉伯，利比亞，海灣國家和南非說是有道理的種植糧食的貧窮國家保護本國的水資源，並正在購買或租賃百萬公頃的埃塞俄比亞和其他地方提供他們的食物。每個牛養肥在埃塞俄比亞甘貝拉州南部，並出口到阿布扎比或英國正在起飛的壓力供水回家，但在其他地方增加。

4造成毀林

全球有30年的農業綜合企業轉向熱帶雨林- 不是木材，而是為他們的土地，可用於放牧牲畜或種植棕櫚油和大豆。數百萬公頃的樹木已被砍伐，以漢堡為美國提供更多的動物飼料的農場最近對歐洲，中國和日本。

報告在其最新的食物有什麼飼養我們的食品？地球之友估計，約600萬公頃林地1年- 一個面積相當於拉脫維亞或兩倍大小比利時 -一個類似的面積和濕地的泥炭其他地方，被轉換為農田一年。其中，它說，大部分用於牲畜或種莊稼養活牛。

由於大豆成為世界主要作物的雞飼料，因此正在推動養牛業更深入的森林。

5中毒地球

工業規模的農業企業佔主導地位的西方牲畜和家禽產業，一個農場現在能夠生成盡可能多的廢物作為一個城市。牛排泄糞便約40公斤，每公斤的食用牛肉有關，當它使你有成千上萬擠在小範圍內可顯著效果。他們的糞便和尿液注入到持有大量浪費潟湖有時多達40米加侖。這些污水池經常中斷，洩漏或溢出，污染河流和地下水供應與氮，磷和硝酸鹽。

成千上萬英里的河流在美國，歐洲和亞洲的污染，每年。單灑百萬加侖的廢料北卡羅萊納州的一個潟湖豬廠於 1995年魚類死亡約 1000萬，迫使封閉三六四○○○英畝沿海濕地來shellfishing 。

動物的絕對數量正在提高人類吃現在威脅到地球的生物多樣性。三分之一以上的世界825 “生態區域“確定的環保組織世界自然基金會說成是威脅，牲畜和美國大型組保護國際估計有23個40多全球性的“生物多樣性熱點“ -地方認為是最寶貴的生命- 現在嚴重影響畜牧業生產。

6海洋溺愛

目前的石油污染災害的墨西哥灣並不是唯一的問題，該地區的面孔。大部分夏季之間13,000-20,000平方公里的海域在密西西比河口成為“死亡地帶“ ，造成大量過剩時，從動物營養浪費，工廠式養殖，污水，氮化合物和肥料是席捲了強大的河流。這將導致藻類大量繁殖而採取了所有的氧氣在水中的地步，幾乎可以住。

近400名死亡區面積從1至超過70,000平方公里，現已查明，從斯堪的納維亞的峽灣到南中國海。畜牧業是不是唯一的罪魁禍首，但它是一個最嚴重的。

7敗壞了空氣

任何人誰也住在附近一家大工廠農場知道氣味可以極端。除了溫室氣體，例如甲烷和二氧化碳，牛和豬產生許多其他污染氣體。全球數字不可用，但在美國，牲畜和動物飼料作物是負責37％的農藥使用，超過一半的抗生素生產和三分之一的氮和磷在淡水中。近三分之二的人工氨-的一個重要因素酸雨- 也產生牲畜。此外，集中工廠養殖動物有助於臭氧污染。

8使我們容易疾病

動物廢棄物含有多種病原體，包括沙門氏菌，大腸桿菌，隱孢子蟲和糞大腸菌群，可以轉移到人類通過水徑流或肥料或觸摸。此外，數百萬英鎊的抗生素添加到飼料一年牛的生長速度。但是，這有助於增加抗藥性細菌，所以使得它更難治療人類疾病。

9排水世界石油

西部畜牧業經濟主要依賴石油，這就是為什麼有23個國家糧食騷亂時，石油價格在2008年達到頂峰。每一個環節鏈中的事件，使肉類的需求用電表，從生產的肥料投入的土地上生長的動物飼料，水抽水他們需要從河流或地下深處，需要的燃料運輸冷藏肉巨型船舶和超市的貨架上。據一些研究報告，多達三分之一的所有礦物燃料產生的美國現在要對動物農業。

10肉類的昂貴，在許多方面

民意調查顯示， 5-6 ％的人口都在吃沒有肉，許多人自覺地以百萬計的數量減少他們所吃的肉或只偶爾吃一吃。這是支持新政府的數字，顯示去年我們吃了5 ％，少吃肉，以重量計，比2005年。

但數量仍然驚人的：根據素食學會，英國平均超過11,000食肉動物吃動物在一生：1鵝，兔1 ，四牛，豬18日，23綿羊和羔羊，28只鴨，39只火雞， 1,158隻雞， 3593和6182的魚貝類。

對於這一點，說，素食者，吃得到肉的機會增加肥胖，癌症，心髒病和其他疾病以及一個洞在口袋裡。阿肉的飲食通常被認為是昂貴的兩倍，作為一個素食主義者之一。

10 ways vegetarianism can help save the planet

The average British carnivore eats more than 11,000 animals in their lifetime, each requiring vast amounts of land, fuel and water to reach the plate. It's time to think of waste as well as taste

- John Vidal
- The Observer, Sunday 18 July 2010
- Article history

If we really want to reduce the human impact on the environment, the simplest and cheapest thing anyone can do is to eat less meat. Behind most of the joints of beef or chicken on our plates is a phenomenally wasteful, land- and energy-hungry system of farming that devastates forests, pollutes oceans, rivers, seas and air, depends on oil and coal, and is significantly responsible for climate change. The way we breed animals is now recognised by the UN, scientists, economists and politicians as giving rise to many interlinked human and ecological problems, but with 1 billion people already not having enough to eat and 3 billion more mouths to feed within 50 years, the urgency to rethink our relationship with animals is extreme.

1 Overheating the planet

We humans eat about 230m tonnes of animals a year, twice as much as we did 30 years ago. We mostly breed four species – chickens, cows, sheep and pigs – all of which need vast amounts of food and water, emit methane and other greenhouse gases and produce mountains of physical waste.

But how much stress does our meat-eating put on ecological systems? The answer is a lot but the figures are imprecise and disputed. In 2006, the UN calculated that the combined climate change emissions of animals bred for their meat were about 18% of the global total – more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

The authors of the report, called Livestock's Long Shadow, did not just count the methane from the belching, farting cattle, but the gases released from the manures that they produce, the oil burned taking their carcasses to markets often thousands of miles away, the electricity needed to keep the meat cool, the gas used to cook it, the energy needed to plough and harvest the fields that grow the crops that the animals eat, even pumping the water that the cattle need.

The figure was revised upward in 2009 by two World Bank scientists to more than 51%, but attempts to fully account for meat-eating are condemned as simplistic. Should the studies have been based on giant US factory farms, or on more sustainable breeding in Europe? Should you include all the knock-on emissions from clearing forests? What about the fertiliser used to grow the crops to feed to the animals, or the emissions from the steel needed to build the boats that transport the cattle; or the "default" emissions – the greenhouse gases that would be released by substitute activities to grow food if we were to give up meat? And is it fair to count animals used for multiple purposes, as they mostly are in developing countries, from providing draught power to shoe leather or transport, and which only become meat once they reach the end of their economic lives?

It's an accounting nightmare but depending on how it's done, livestock's contribution to climate change can be calculated as low as 5-10% of global emissions or as high as 50%. Last year, a Food Climate Research Network report concluded that UK meat and dairy consumption was responsible for 8% of the country's total greenhouse gas emissions. But however it's counted, livestock farming ranks as one of the three greatest sources of climate changing emissions and one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation.

2 Eating up land

A human population expected to grow by 3 billion, a shift in developing countries to eating more meat, and global consumption on track to double in 40 years point to the mother of all food crises down the road. How much food we grow is not just limited by the amount of available land but meat-eaters need far more space than vegetarians. A Bangladeshi family living off rice, beans, vegetables and fruit may live on an acre of land or less, while the average American, who consumes around 270 pounds of meat a year, needs 20 times that.

Nearly 30% of the available ice-free surface area of the planet is now used by livestock, or for growing food for those animals. One billion people go hungry every day, but livestock now consumes the majority of the world's crops. A Cornell University study in 1997 found that around 13m hectares of land in the US were used to grow vegetables, rice, fruit, potatoes and beans, but 302m were used for livestock. The problem is that farm animals are inefficient converters of food to flesh. Broiler chickens are the best, needing around 3.4kg to produce 1kg of flesh, but pigs need 8.4kg for that kilo.

Other academics have calculated that if the grain fed to animals in western countries were consumed directly by people instead of animals, we could feed at least twice as many people – and possibly far more – as we do now.

To make matters worse, our hunger to eat animals has led to overstocking of fragile lands and massive soil erosion and desertification. Overgrazing, from the downlands of southern England to the uplands of Ethiopia and mountains of Nepal, causes great loss of fertility, as well as flooding.

But the figures must be treated with caution. Animal manures can revitalise the soil and millions of animals live on marginal land that is quite unsuitable for crops.

But before we leap to conclusions and lump all livestock rearing together, consider this: in western countries animals are bred and reared to put on as much meat as possible in the shortest time after which they are slaughtered. But in poorer regions, cattle – especially in dry areas – are central to human life and culture and often the only source of food and income for many millions of pastoralists. The ceaseless movement of these nomadic herders over vast areas is the backbone of many African economies and, a major new study from the International Institute for Environment and Development suggests, a far more ecologically efficient method of farming than the way cattle are reared in Australia or the US.

3 Drinking too much water

Eat a steak or a chicken and you are effectively consuming the water that the animal has needed to live and grow. Vegetarian author John Robbins calculates it takes 60, 108, 168, and 229 pounds of water to produce one pound of potatoes, wheat, maize and rice respectively. But a pound of beef needs around 9,000 litres – or more than 20,000lbs of water. Equally, it takes nearly 1,000 litres of water to produce one litre of milk. A broiler chicken, by contrast, is far more efficient, producing the same amount of meat as a cow on just 1,500 litres.

Pigs are some of the thirstiest animals. An average-sized north American pig farm with 80,000 pigs needs nearly 75m gallons of fresh water a year. A large one, which might have one million or more pigs, may need as much as a city.

Farming, which uses 70% of water available to humans, is already in direct competition for water with cities. But as demand for meat increases, so there will be less available for both crops and drinking. Rich but water-stressed countries such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, the Gulf states and South Africa say it makes sense to grow food in poorer countries to conserve their water resources, and are now buying or leasing millions of hectares of Ethiopia and elsewhere to provide their food. Every cow fattened in Gambella state in southern Ethiopia and exported to Abu Dhabi or Britain is taking the pressure off water supplies back home but increasing it elsewhere.

4 Causing deforestation

Global agribusiness has for 30 years turned to tropical rainforests – not for their timber but for the land that can be used to graze cattle or grow palm oil and soya. Millions of hectares of trees have been felled to provide burgers for the US and more recently animal feed for farms for Europe, China and Japan.

In its latest food report What's Feeding Our Food? Friends of the Earth estimates that around 6m hectares of forest land a year – an area equivalent to Latvia or twice the size of Belgium – and a similar acreage of peat and wetlands elsewhere, is converted to farmland a year. Of that, it says, most goes to livestock or to grow the crops to feed the cattle.

As soya becomes the world's major crop for chicken feed, so the industry is driving cattle ranching deeper into the forests.

5 Poisoning the earth

Industrial-scale agriculture now dominates the western livestock and poultry industries, and a single farm can now generate as much waste as a city. A cow excretes around 40kg of manure for every kilogram of edible beef it puts on and when you have many thousands crowded into a small area the effect can be dramatic. Their manure and urine is funnelled into massive waste lagoons sometimes holding as many as 40m gallons. These cesspools often break, leak or overflow, polluting underground water supplies and rivers with nitrogen, phosphorus and nitrates.

Tens of thousands of miles of rivers in the US, Europe and Asia are polluted each year. A single spill of millions of gallons of waste from a North Carolina pig factory lagoon in 1995 killed about 10 million fish and forced the closure of 364,000 acres of coastal wetlands to shellfishing.

The sheer quantity of animals now being raised for humans to eat now threatens the earth's biodiversity. More than one third of the world's 825 "ecoregions" identified by conservation group WWF are said to be threatened by livestock and giant US group Conservation International reckons that 23 out of 40-odd global "biodiversity hotspots" – the places considered most valuable for life – are now seriously affected by livestock production.

6 Spoiling the oceans

The present oil pollution disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is not the only problem that the region faces. Most summers between 13,000-20,000 sq km of sea at the mouth of the Mississippi become a "dead zone", caused when vast quantities of excess nutrients from animal waste, factory farms, sewage, nitrogen compounds and fertiliser are swept down the mighty river. This causes algal blooms which take up all the oxygen in the water to the point where little can live.

Nearly 400 dead zones ranging in size from one to over 70,000sq km have now been identified, from the Scandinavian fjords to the South China Sea. Animal farming is not the only culprit, but it is one of the worst.

7 Ruining the air

Anyone who has lived close to a large factory farm knows the smells can be extreme. Aside from greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide, cows and pigs produce many other polluting gases. Global figures are unavailable but in the US, livestock and animal feed crops are responsible for 37% of pesticide use, more than half of all the antibiotics manufactured and a third of the nitrogen and phosphorous in fresh water. Nearly two thirds of the manmade ammonia – a major contributor to acid rain – is also generated by livestock. In addition, concentrated factory farming of animals contributes to ozone pollution.

8 Making us prone to disease

Animal waste contains many pathogens including salmonella, E coli, cryptosporidium, and fecal coliform, which can transfer to humans through water run-off or manure or touch. In addition, millions of pounds of antibiotics is added to animal feed a year to speed the growth of cattle. But this contributes to the rise of resistant bacteria, and so makes it harder to treat human illnesses.

9 Draining the world's oil

The western animal farming economy is based on oil, which is why there were food riots in 23 countries when the oil price peaked in 2008. Every link in the chain of events that brings meat to the table demands electricity, from the production of the fertiliser put on the land to grow the animal feed, to pumping the water they need from the rivers or deep underground, to the fuel needed to transport the meat in giant refrigerated ships and the supermarket shelves. According to some studies, as much as one-third of all fossil fuels produced in the United States now go towards animal agriculture.

10 Meat's costly, in many ways

Polls suggest that 5-6% of the population eats no meat at all, with many millions of others consciously reducing the amount of meat they eat or only eating it occasionally. This is backed by new government figures which show that last year we ate 5% less meat by weight than in 2005.

But the quantities are still staggering: according to the Vegetarian Society, the average British carnivore eats over 11,000 animals in a lifetime: 1 goose, 1 rabbit, 4 cattle, 18 pigs, 23 sheep and lambs, 28 ducks, 39 turkeys, 1,158 chickens, 3,593 shellfish and 6,182 fish.

For this, say the vegetarians, the meat eaters get increased chances of obesity, cancers, heart diseases and other illnesses as well as a hole in the pocket. A meat diet is generally considered twice as expensive as a vegetarian one.

Art,Poem,Vege,Photo,New life