Author

Sareen Ishanyan

The History of Modern Climate Science

The role of human-made carbon emissions is central to current discussions and scientific research on climate change. A major goal of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol was to reduce the carbon emissions of signatory states.¹ Likewise, its successor, the Paris Agreement is centrally focused on human-made carbon emissions. However, this crucial link between human-made carbon emissions, the greenhouse effect, and climate change, which is now a core component of modern climate science, was the subject of debate in the scientific community from the late nineteenth century and throughout the twentieth century. Indeed, the role of increased carbon dioxide emissions in increasing global temperatures only began to be widely accepted among the scientific community in the last four decades. This article traces the research in this area, which began in the early nineteenth century, and then considers the impact of such findings on state policy and initiatives beginning in the late nineteenth century, and continuing into the present where climate change has become a central (albeit polarizing) issue in international relations.

Beginning in the early nineteenth century, individuals interested in science began to research what we now refer to as the “greenhouse effect.” Today, we define the greenhouse gas effect as the role of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, like carbon dioxide, “[trapping] heat radiating from Earth toward space.”² The entrapment of heat, in turn, leads to global warming. One of the first individuals to theorize on the greenhouse gas effect was Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier, a French scientist.³ In the 1820s, Fourier’s theoretical research led him to tentatively conclude that the atmosphere of the earth retains heat radiation. This, he believed, explained why the Earth was warmer than predicted by the Earth’s size and distance from the Sun.

Later in the century, the Irish physicist John Tyndall made advances on Fourier’s research. Tyndall determined that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorbs the solar radiation which is given off from the Earth’s surface.^4,5 He further concluded that the different gases in the atmosphere absorb heat at different degrees.⁶ From a modern perspective, Tyndall discovered the difference in radiation between different greenhouse gases. Hence, Tyndall’s experimental research laid the molecular foundation for the greenhouse effect.

Then, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius reached another highly significant conclusion that, arguably, drives the polarized debate on climate change today. Arrhenius claimed that human-produced carbon dioxide emissions (e.g. through the burning of fossil fuels) had the potential to increase global temperatures.⁷ He understood the implications of increasing production and release of carbon dioxide in the industrials age. However, in the early twentieth century, the conclusion reached by Arrhenius was treated with skepticism in the scientific community. Many scientists pointed to errors in Arrhenius’s calculations and assumptions about the climate system, and therefore many concluded that human activity played little role in producing climate change.

However, this widespread view was largely reversed with the end of World War II and the onset of the Cold War, as research greatly increased during these tense years. Indeed, the twentieth century yielded much in terms of climate science and related policy. Particularly important in this period was the work of American scientist Charles David Keeling, who established the global record for atmospheric carbon dioxide.⁸ A precise and accurate way to measure atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide remained elusive into the 1950s. Previous calculations lacked rigor, and this stood in the way of establishing a clear connection between human-produced carbon emissions, the greenhouse effect, and climate change. However, Keeling established a revolutionary method with which atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide could be measured. In 1956, the United States Weather Bureau tasked Keeling with establishing a baseline concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

And so, in March 1958, at the Weather Bureau’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, a carbon dioxide observatory was established. Later that month, the observatory recorded the first measurement for global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. However, while the initial intent was to record a baseline level of carbon dioxide concentration, and then conduct another measurement ten years later, the “Keeling Record” at the Mauna Loa Observatory expanded and continued to be recorded. Daily averages continue into the present day.

It was these long-term observations made at Mauna Loa that revealed a definite and indisputable year-by-year increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. With this, the link between the burning of fossil fuels, the greenhouse gas effect, and climate change became clear in the 1960s. An idea that had been developing and circulating throughout the scientific community was finally proven. Indeed, the infamous “Keeling Curve”⁹ reveals the dramatic increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations with time.

In the later decades of the twentieth century, the findings of individuals such as Keeling increased public concern and governmental action on climate change caused by human activity. For Keith E. Peterman, a professor of chemistry, the first Earth Day, which was held on April 22, 1960, marked the start of the “modern environmental movement.”¹⁰ It was during this period that the public began to realize that human activity could negatively impact the Earth and climate. In 1979, the First World Climate Conference in Geneva expressed worry about the role of human activity in changing global climate. New research and data continued to reveal the link between global temperatures and concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, thus adding onto the work of Arrhenius and Keeling, among others. In 1981, researcher James Hansen and scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Spaces published an article in Science which predicted that increased carbon dioxide concentrations would lead to global warming at a rate faster than was previously predicted.

Then, in the 1980s, concern for the greenhouse gas effect and climate change gave rise to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This organization of scientists has sought to provide an apolitical assessment of global climate trends, and is currently recognized as the authoritative leader in the realm of climate science. Indeed, the findings produced by the IPCC were central for the development of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was established in 1992. Today, the UNFCCC, which seeks to prevent “…dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,”¹¹ includes approximately two hundred nations. It was also responsible for the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Thus, the scientific conclusions that were firmly established in the latter half of the twentieth century increased public concern and governmental efforts to study and prevent climate change.

The study of the greenhouse gas effect began with the research of scientist Fourier in the late eighteenth century. Yet, the notion that human activity could result in global warming was empirically proven only in the second half of the twentieth century by the data collected at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii with Keeling’s calculations. In the last several decades, this affirmation of the link between human-made carbon emissions, the greenhouse gas effect, and climate change continues to be strengthened by new and alarming research. While public concern and governmental actions has increased since the late twentieth century, the accelerated pace of global carbon emissions and the publication of concerning reports on climate change by scholars and organizations such as the IPCC reveals the urgency with which this matter must be treated.

Despite the current scientific consensus on climate change, polarization on the matter of climate change continues to challenge efforts to reduce carbon emissions and effectively respond to climate change. In the United States, the interests of industry lobbyists represent one barrier toward effective action. President Trump’s claims that climate change research is an exaggeration¹² represent another such hindrance. More broadly, the notion of climate change as a “tragedy of the commons”¹³—because the public or common nature of air and the Earth incentivizes overexploitation—is further suggestive of the challenges which bedevil more widespread acceptance and concern for scientific research on climate. Despite this, with the work of scientists of climate science converging to a consensus that change and action is imperative, it is now crucial for policymakers across the globe to take meaningful action.

“The Keeling Curve: Carbon Dioxide Measurements at Mauna Loa,” American Chemical Society, accessed January 6, 2019. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/keeling-curve.html.
“A Blanket Around the Earth,” Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet, accessed January 6, 2019. https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/.
“The Discovery of Global Warming,” American Institute of Physics, last modified February 2018. https://history.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_M085.
Ibid.
Steven Graham, “John Tyndall: (1820-1893),” Earth Observatory, last modified October 8, 1999. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Tyndall.
Richard Black, “Tyndall’s Climate Message, 150 Year On,” BBC, last modified September 28, 2011. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15093234.
“The Discovery of Global Warming,” American Institute of Physics, last modified February 2018. https://history.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_M085.
“The Keeling Curve,” Scripps Institution of Oceanography, accessed January 6, 2019. https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png.
“The Keeling Curve,” Scripps Institution of Oceanography, accessed January 6, 2019. https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png.
Keith E. Peterman et al., Climate Change and Education: The Sciences and Perspectives from the Global Stage, Volume 1 (Washington, D.C., American Chemical Society, 2017), 8. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/bk-2017-1247.ch001.
Ibid, 9.
Emily Holden, “Trump Officials Argue Climate Change Warnings Based on ‘Worst-Case Scenario,’” The Guardian, last modified December 1, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/01/trump-officials-argue-climate-change-warnings-based-on-worst-case-scenario.
Roger Highfield, “Climate Change Will Get a Whole Lot Worse Before It Gets Better, According to Game Theory,” Wired, last modified July 6, 2018. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/climate-change-prediction-game-theory-tragedy-of-commons.

April 27, 2019 0 comment

Environmental Change Europe Featured

Models for Reducing Food Waste

written by Sareen Ishanyan

Throughout the world, food waste accounts for a significant percentage of carbon emissions. From the production, packaging, and decomposition, food and food waste are important to consider amid efforts to combat climate change. In recent years, legislation in France and South Korea have sought to address the matter of food waste in different ways. French legislation passed in 2016 seeks to address the matter by eliminating food waste from grocery stores. Grocery stores serve as the focal point of this effort as they have typically been major sites of waste. Meanwhile, South Korean laws aim to recycle household food waste through a ban on discarding food waste into landfills. Such efforts, which have been found to significantly reduce food waste in the respective regions, offer good models for the rest of the world. And while major US cities such as San Francisco and New York City have attempted to implement their own programs to target food waste, there is currently no national legislation in the United States which strongly targets food waste. As the United States, which wastes a third of its food, is the largest producer of food waste in the world, considering recent food waste legislation in France and South Korea can offer insight on the ways in which the US can tackle its struggles with food waste.

In 2016, the French government introduced a law aimed at reducing food waste across the nation. In a unanimous decision, the French parliament agreed to issue fines to grocery stores that throw away edible food. According to the law, edible food must either be donated to local charities or used as animal feed. Those markets in violation of this legislation run the risk of facing financial penalties. This legislation seeks to tackle food waste at the ‘consumption stage,’ which is the stage at which wealthier nations such as France typically waste much of their food. Further, the successes of this legislation, which is the first of its kind to set punitive damages for food waste, has rendered France a leader of global food sustainability.

South Korea, meanwhile, has taken a different approach to food waste. Beginning in the late 1990s, the South Korean government began to organize efforts to recycle and decrease food waste. South Korean households are charged for the amount of food waste that they produce a month, and are banned from discarding food waste into landfills. South Koreans are required to separate food waste from other forms of garbage that will ultimately end up in landfills. Since 2012, adoption of the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) system has led to the proliferation of high-technology trash bins which accept food waste. When parting with their food waste at such depositories, South Koreans are required to scan identification cards which keep track of the amount of food waste that they produce. This stock of food waste is then turned into animal feed or biogas, the latter of which provides a good source of electricity for the power plants which recycle such waste. Thus, this legislation seeks to both recycle food waste, by diverting it from decaying and emitting greenhouse gases in landfills, and also encourage South Koreans to decrease their food waste. And much like the successes of French legislation, this South Korean law has led to decreases in food waste across the nation.

Furthermore, in spite of the lack of comprehensive national legislation, many American cities have still been increasingly involved in attempts to reduce food waste. For example, San Francisco has been a forerunner in food composting. The city passed legislation for such a program in 1996. By 2000, San Francisco was able to meet the California-wide goal of diverting half of its waste from landfills Then, in 2009, San Francisco established a mandatory program which requires residents and businesses to compost food waste. Even tourists to the city are required to separate their trash between recycle, landfill, and compost bins. This food composting program has succeeded in decreasing food waste, and also has allowed for conversion of food waste into productive composting materials which provide nutrients to the soil. Similarly, beginning under the Bloomberg administration in 2013, New York City began its own attempts to divert food waste from landfills. NYC implemented a program for residential organic collection, thus providing an increasing number of city residents with a convenient way to recycle food and yard waste.

Food waste is an important issue amid the widening concern for climate change. Countries such as France and South Korea, and American cities such as San Francisco and NYC have taken meaningful strides in reducing the food waste produced by their residents. Each has tackled the matter in a slightly different way and while these efforts have proven successful, no state has yet effectively addressed food waste at all levels of the food system. Still, these varying efforts offer good models for policymakers around the globe. Given the amount of food waste produced by the United States, it is particularly important that American policymakers at the national level consider and possibly adopt such models. Such is especially the case in light of the implications that food waste has on the environment.

January 9, 2019 0 comment

Environmental Change Featured Global Health Globalization History Human Rights International Trade Society and Culture The International Economy

Bayer Acquires Monsanto: Controversy & Implications for Global Agriculture

written by Sareen Ishanyan

Following two years of negotiations and approval seeking from various governmental bodies, the acquisition of the American agricultural biotechnology company known as Monsanto by the German pharmaceutical and life sciences giant Bayer was approved in spring 2018. Less than half a year later in August, Dewayne Johnson of the Bay Area was awarded $289 million in a civil suit which charged Monsanto’s infamous Round-Up Ready herbicide–also known as glyphosate–with causing Mr. Johnson’s diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

For years, Monsanto has been decried by environmentalists and farmers alike for its pesticides, herbicides, genetically modified seeds, and seed policies. Additionally, with Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto, there are concerns for monopolization of the global seed market, as Bayer itself is a highly important player in the field of agriculture. This article seeks to understand the implications of a potential monopolization of the global agriculture system. First, however, this article will provide a background with a brief overview of the various controversies associated with Monsanto.

Criticism of Monsanto has spanned decades. During the Vietnam War, Monsanto was the largest American manufacturer of Agent Orange, an herbicide and tool of warfare used by the American military. Research in this area suggests that exposure to Agent Orange is associated with negative health effects. Vietnamese people and American veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange have been found to have higher cancer incidence rates than those who were not exposed. Meanwhile, the spraying of Agent Orange in Vietnam resulted in serious environmental problems, namely deforestation and reduction in the diversity of animal species.

Additionally, the seeds produced and patented by Monsanto have been a major source of controversy. One common charge involves cross-pollination lawsuits. For example, if a farm has planted the seeds of a patented GMO and, by way of cross-pollination, these seeds reach a neighboring farm and produce plants, it is often believed that Monsanto will sue, and has sued, the latter farm simply because of wind patterns affecting the movement of pollen. However, in reality, as one NPR article notes, there have been no such suits. But in 2013, the United States Supreme Court heard a seed saving case involving Monsanto. Based on patent law, the Court ruled in favor of Monsanto, which had sued a farmer from Indiana for saving seeds. Saving seeds refers to the practice whereby after harvest, seeds are saved and planted during the next year. Monsanto requires farmers who purchase their seeds to sign contracts in which they pledge not to save the patented Monsanto seeds they purchase in a given year. Still, this issue and the surrounding debate remain controversial as many question the practice of granting companies patents of living things. Arguably, patenting seeds is especially problematic as seeds are, both literally and symbolically, one of the most important living things on the Earth. Further, in India, over ninety percent of the cotton seed is controlled by Monsanto. In fact, some have even argued that increased suicide rates among Indian cotton-farmers is associated with Monsanto’s practices and patents of seeds. The evidence regarding a causal relationship is not conclusive, and many argue that a causal relationship does not exist; still, it is striking that Monsanto owns over ninety percent of the Indian cotton seed.

Additionally, the biotechnology of Monsanto has serious implications for agriculture and the environment. Round-Up Ready, also known as the chemical glyphosate, is the most popular herbicide used in agriculture. Glyphosate is a powerful chemical that is able to eliminate the growth of unwanted plants such as weeds. Yet glyphosate is also capable of killing valuable plants too. It is for this reason that Monsanto created genetically engineered crops that are resistant to glyphosate. The first of the company’s genetically engineered crop was the soybean in 1996. However, the use of glyphosate has the potential of developing so-called superweeds, which are resistant to glyphosate. Also, the development of such superweeds may induce the increased use of herbicides and pesticides by farmers attempting to contain such weeds. It is for these reasons that some protest Monsanto on environmental grounds.

Another issue is that there are concerns about the impact of glyphosate on human health. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research concluded that glyphosate is a possible carcinogen. And, as discussed, a recent court ruling in San Francisco ruled in favor of Mr. Johnson, who claimed that Monsanto’s Round-Up Ready herbicide caused him to develop cancer. Monsanto, now considered a ‘unit’ of Bayer, faces thousands of other similar lawsuits, with many dying individuals in Northern California being given expedited trials. Still, Bayer is arguing that Mr. Johnson and the court ignored certain pieces of scientific evidence which claim that their is no link between cancer and glyphosate, and are seeking a mistrial.

However, it ought to be noted that the link between glyphosate and cancer is one that is under debate. For example, the National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency have concluded that glyphosate is likely not carcinogenic. Monsanto has also been accused both of attempts to suppress scientific research reports which offer a negative assessment of Monsanto pesticides, and also instances of ‘ghostwriting’ scientific research findings which hold that glyphosate is safe for human health. For example, The New York Times notes of one 2015 article posted on the Forbes website that is believed to be ghostwritten by Monsanto but is credited to an academic named Henry I. Miller. Still, however, a study published in Scientific Reports found a link between glyphosate and fatty liver disease. Along with the recent court ruling, the possibly carcinogenic nature of glyphosate has been particularly salient in the last several weeks following a report that found traces of glyphosate in cereal such as Cheerios. The environmental research and advocacy group that published this report, Environmental Working Group, claim that such traces of glyphosate can says could “increase cancer risk for children.” However, as stated, findings about the nature of glyphosate remain inconclusive.

Amid the debate on the health and safety of glyphosate, there has been much talk in the European Union on the question of whether or not glyphosate should be a banned chemical. Many contend that glyphosate should be banned across all EU member states. While states such as Belgium voted against re-licensing glyphosate in the European Union in 2017, the vote ultimately ended in Monsanto’s favor with glyphosate’s license being extended for an additional five years. It will be interesting to see whether the acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer, a German company, will have any effect on the use of glyphosate in the EU.

Further, Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto suggests that alterations in the agricultural arena await. First, it should be noted that there has been a recent trend of consolidation in the agriculture industry. For example, before the Bayer-Monsanto merger, the companies Dow and DuPont merged, as did Syngenta and ChemChina. As Mark Connelly, an agriculture analyst notes, Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto indicates that “$1 out of every $3” that farmers spend on seeds, pesticides, and herbicides will go to Bayer. In other words, a third of the world’s agriculture supply is now controlled by one company–Bayer. This consolidation has farmers across the globe concerned. For many, the increased trend of monopolization means increased prices. This is supported by data and research from the Farmers Business Network. In research that focused on the price of corn seeds and chemicals, this group found that greater market share was associated with higher market prices for products. As mentioned, Bayer now controls a third of the market share. Dow-Dupont and Syngenta-ChemChina are not far behind.

Monsanto has historically been associated with a variety of controversial products and practices. Despite all this, it is undeniable that the science and innovation of Monsanto has been remarkable. For instance, in the 1990s, the ringspot virus threatened to destroy the papaya industry in Hawaii. However, Monsanto, which had a patent on transgenic technology, allowed for this technology to be used to create the Rainbow Papaya, a genetically modified papaya that is resistant to the ringspot virus. This saved the Hawaiian papaya industry. However, there is the the fact that Monsanto manufactured Agent Orange, a biochemical weapon with possible long-term health effects, that was used in Vietnam. But Monsanto was not the only company contracted by the American government to produce this war chemical. There is also the fact that Monsanto’s patents over biological entities, such as seeds, has also received considerable attention. However, sensational claims of Monsanto suing small farmers because of wind patterns and pollen drift appear unsubstantiated. Also, the health and safety of Round-Up Ready is a current and hotly-debated topic. Thus, while Monsanto has been a topic of debate for decades, it is not clear whether Monsanto has done more harm than good, especially with regard to the agriculture industry, human health, and the environment.
Finally, while the acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer means that, legally, the name Monsanto refers to a company of the past, doubtless, the issues associated with (what was) Monsanto will continue to persist. Further, this recent acquisition marks a highly significant moment for the global agricultural sector. It is especially important to see how all of this will unfold in the coming years.

September 24, 2018 0 comment

Africa Environmental Change Featured Global Health

The Politics of Dinner

written by Sareen Ishanyan

Approximately 795 million people suffer from chronic hunger. Many of these individuals—780 million of them—are from developing countries. While data indicates that global hunger has declined since the late twentieth century, world hunger remains a salient topic in international politics. In a sense, this issue has less to do with the total availability of food than with the way it is distributed in our highly capitalist society. In part, global hunger is a result of the inefficient and immoral allocation of available food. Due to increased global demand for meat, modern food production is increasingly dominated by livestock production, which represents an especially profit-driven and monopolistic market. As a result, significant amounts of food resources are given to the millions of livestock worldwide, while many people are subject to food shortages. Given that modern methods of agriculture produce more than enough food to feed the human population, such shortages are better understood as a result of societal error rather than as actual deficiencies in global food resources. Additionally, this increased meat production has meant significant deforestation and represents a leading source of greenhouse gas emissions. While livestock production’s unsustainability threatens the environment which, in turn, can jeopardize food security in the near future, meat production also poses a direct challenge to the presently starving population. In order to bring about real change in environmental degradation and global hunger, the international community must adequately acknowledge the role of livestock production and consumption in regard to these phenomena.

The Green Revolution of the mid-twentieth century yielded unprecedented increases in food production. Currently, however, the outcomes of this revolution have serious implications for environmental protection. In Comfortably Unaware, Richard Oppenlander, an expert in the field of food sustainability, indicates that present methods of livestock production account for a significant portion of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, almost half of all land on the planet and nearly a third of freshwater extraction are used in livestock production. In fact, cattle ranching accounts for 80% of deforestation in the Amazon. These statistics indicate that what people eat has direct implications for the health of the environment. And, agriculture’s role in climate change has become increasingly recognized in the political sphere. In the monumental Paris Climate Agreement, as participant countries are given freedom to decide how they will reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, approximately 80% of the signatories have indicated that they plan on addressing agriculture’s impact on the environment. In other words, it is becoming increasingly evident that environmental protection requires significant changes in how food is produced.

Despite the seeming recognition and acceptance of the role that agriculture plays in environmental degradation, the status of livestock production continues to work against the desire to effectively target global hunger. The amount of grain produced can feed the human population approximately two times over. While this seems antithetical to the claim that nearly 800 million people suffer from chronic hunger, this apparent contradiction is explained by the existing emphasis on livestock production. Over three-fourths of the grain that is produced is fed to the many millions of livestock in the food industry. Therefore, as the demand for meat continues to increase globally, it is possible that more grain will be allocated to feed livestock while many millions die of starvation. This hints at a primary factor in the global hunger problem—improper allocation. That is, an important driver in global hunger is the unfair and inhumane distribution of the world’s food resources wherein many thousands die daily of starvation while the number of livestock, who consume the food resources that could eliminate world hunger, continues to grow. Thus, as the Green Revolution permitted stunning increases in grain yield and, more generally, increased the amount of food available, it also led to a rise in livestock production and consumption. As these livestock must be continually fed, significant portions of grain continue to be allocated to the meat industry to drive a highly profitable and monopolistic sector of the economy.

In turn, the grains given to livestock represent the vital resources that are no longer available for the hungry people across the world. In a stark contrast between food resources, Oppenlander notes that while almost half of the Ethiopian population struggles with hunger and water scarcity, the nation feeds approximately 150 million livestock. In neighboring Eritrea, over 60% of the population is undernourished. Yet, 80% of Eritreans work in the nation’s agriculture sector, which specializes in livestock production among other things. Meanwhile, in certain regions of the Horn of Africa where livestock take up nearly half the landmass, farmers theoretically would be able to grow thousands of pounds of grains, vegetables, and fruits that would go a long way in feeding the hungry people in the surrounding regions. However, as is the case for approximately half the landmass, livestock production yields only a fraction of such output. Moreover, much of the meat and dairy products produced on these lands does not function as a solution to local hungry populations but is instead shipped to wealthier countries. These examples demonstrate that as people perish from starvation and other hunger-related illnesses, livestock are given the food and resources that could save thousands of lives daily, all the while further contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, livestock demand and consumption, namely by more developed nations, continue to perpetuate climate change while sidelining global hunger in the face of monopolistic profitability.

Global hunger and environmental protection have resulted from and are propagated by a variety of factors. In terms of livestock production, however, these two issues converge on a clear implication: the current level and nature of livestock production is unethical and unsustainable. Capital-driven livestock production challenges the environment in a variety of ways that include high levels of greenhouse gas emissions and unsustainable water and land requirements. Also, the high profits associated with the livestock industry contribute to a problematic allocation of food resources—while about 8,000 children die daily from hunger-related illnesses, large portions of global food resources are produced for livestock. Although there does appear to be increased agreement that agricultural practices must be included in a solution to climate change, efforts to combat both climate change and global hunger require greater international commitment to modifying the food on our plates.

November 18, 2017 0 comment