Summary Of Anna Lappé's Diet For A Hot Planet

In “Diet for a Warm Planet,” Julia Whitty advocates for Americans to change their diets to save the environment. In the beginning, Whitty references her interview with James Hansen to give scientific figures on the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. From this interview she conclude that something must be done. “Hansen’s number presents a staggering challenge. It insists we dramatically reduce emissions at the time when we’re still increasing them by 2ppm per year, and when little or nothing is happening on the political front.” (p. 720). She then warns that Americans “need to tighten up, get fit, get agile, smart, and quick.” (p.720). Furthermore, Whitty encourages Americans to behave more like the bar-tailed godwit bird. These birds only eat

Brought up in the southern of China, I often heard about that people from there “eat anything with four limbs except tables, anything that flies except aero planes, and anything that swims except ships”. Nevertheless, I eat more fruit, vegetables, nuts, and whole grains but less meat to make careful choices for environmental protection. Similarly, Kathy Freston argues that animal agriculture is one of the top contributors to global warming. In her Huffington Post selection “Vegetarian Is the New Prius,” Freston lists how many emissions of greenhouse gases people make when they eat meat and illustrates the consumption of tree in animal agriculture. She effectively convinces her audiences that the livestock results in the most serious environmental problems and encourages people to lead a greener diet to protect our environment. However, ardent craving, poor health, and perpetual hassle and cost prevent all Americans from being vegetarian.

Overall, changing one’s diet to include less meat results in less of a carbon footprint on the planet as less energy is required to raise meat and less is expelled in the process of production, food waste, storing, and transport.

In the article “We Can Save the Earth without giving up Bacon: Here’s how”, published in the Washington Post, Brian Kateman discusses methods of sustainability for the environment. Additionally, Kateman constructs a plan using the diet that humans consume in order to combat health problems, unfeasible business practices within the food industry like factory farming, global warming, and other environmental issues.

Consuming less meat helped me lose weight, gain a livelier complexion, and decrease my risk of heart disease since it runs in my family. Therefore, focusing on the individual as the source of environmentally beneficial social change is more useful because a large organization misuses power to get ahead monetarily, instead of profiting from environmental actions. The individual not only values their treatment of power, but utilizes it to point out environmental concerns such as obesity. So, by starting to eliminate all processed meats to eventually put an end to all red meat would reduce obesity and construct a healthier society that will encourage change. In order to turn the reduction of red meat consumption feasible over the long term, all individuals must gain the knowledge to make the choice to have a healthier lifestyle by recognizing that eating less meat will put both the environment and their bodies in good

While all of us relatively understand how driving cars, leaving the lights on, or using too much water can affect the environment, there is one massive human activity that is frequently overlooked—eating. From growing, to processing, to distributing, and finally consuming, our agricultural system uses an immense portion of our planet’s limited resources and emits large amounts of greenhouse gases that have drastic effects on the environment. Because of this, it is imperative to understand the environmental impacts of the type of foods that we choose to include in our diets. While much of today’s population is heavily reliant on animal products, it is evident that a meat-based diet is not environmentally sustainable; on the other hand, a plant-based diet is much more environmentally friendly in terms of the amount of grain, water, and

These situations uniquely affect each person’s human behavior, and their different reactions in various environments. Readers can gain improved understanding of economic and behavioral microanalysis, and why laws and actions sometimes bring unintended consequences. The authors’ thinking and ability to approach our complex world is the way of the future. The book mentioned how we can help global warming is by cutting back on meat portions or just by eating one meal a day. Reducing the world’s never ending and increasing appetite for meat is essential to avoid devastating climate change. Preventing global warming is reliant on tackling meat and dairy usage. Having an imbalanced diet that include low in fruits and vegetables and high in red and processed meat is responsible for the health burden globally. A poor food system is responsible for major climate change. By linking health and climate change in our eating habits may have more effect than focusing on each issues. Getting the government involved could help improve food education to encourage a healthy eating lifestyle habits and environmental

Chicken, lamb, turkey, milk, pork, eggs, fish, etc., all contribute to the environmental problems facing the planet. The fossil-fuel energy consumption to protein output for these livestock are as follows: chicken has a 4:1 ration, lamb 50:1, turkey 13:1, milk protein 14:1, pork 17:1, and eggs at a 26:1 ratio. This averages out to almost eight-times more “fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein” (Pimentel). In addition, each animal has its own benefits and downfalls. Pigs propose a lower carbon footprint but if raised in ideal free-range environments they can pollute the soil with nitrogen (Goffman 5). Chickens pose the threat of spreading bacteria through rivers and streams and spurring algal growth which create “dead zones”,

These are two extremes, but people who live in the developed world on average still eat twice as much meat compared to people living in developing countries. And while people in developing countries might consume less meat and dairy now, growing populations and wealth will strongly increase their consumption. This will have negative impacts on the environment - and on ourselves. More than 25% of climate gases that contribute to climate change are associated with our food. This is also expected to increase over the next decades. But our diets are not only unsustainable, they are also unhealthy leading to malnourishment and obesity.

As we begin the 21st century, the preservation and concern with our world environment becomes more of a highlighted issue. Authors such as Michael Pollan in his article “Escape from the Western Diet”, and Jonathan Safran Foer who wrote “Against Meat” both mention in their essays the negative impact fast food has created on our environment due to the method of factory farming. Foer quotes using reports from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN “Factory farming has made animal agriculture the No. 1 contributor to global warming…and one of the Top 2 or 3 causes of the most serious environmental problems, both global and local: air and water pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity.” (457) Looking at these facts one can see that the issue on hand causes threat to our environment. Fast food has spawned a mass producing industry know as factory farming which although supplies the needs of our fast food industry at a rapid pace, causes pollution to our environment due to its poor disposal methods of waste.

Consumption of meat by humans creates several problems. First and foremost, raising animals for food compromises the environment. For example, it takes a large amount of natural resources to sustain the meat industry. The use of water, land, and food to raise animals for human consumption is not an efficient use of our limited resources. In contrast, it is more efficient to feed humans directly than to use land, food, and water to feed animals to be used as food. There are shortages of fertile land, clean water, and food in several third world countries. Many of these countries’ resources are allocated to produce feed for animals in developed countries around the world. As a result, the citizens of these countries are stricken with water and food shortages, while their crops are feeding cattle from across the globe. However, this problem can be solved by adopting a vegan diet. The vegan diet will allow a more efficient use of resources that in turn can be used to feed starving men, women, and children throughout the world. Consequently, more people in the world could be fed if the land used to grow feed for animals was used to grow food for humans.

Climate change undoubtedly has a monumental effect on countries across the globe, It is becoming increasingly clear that it is the most important challenge facing international relations today. Agriculture and more specifically animal agriculture is one of the biggest contributors to human made climate change. This is important for international relations because animal agriculture effects trade, global food security and the global economy. With the population growing at a rapid pace the demand on animal agricuture is also rapidly increasing. This essay will discuss the consequences of the globes meat consumption and the challenge it poses to international relations. It will then go on to discuss the way the international community should address global food security while reducing the animal agriculture industries effect on the environment.

In addition to the mentioned reports above, it is also worth noting several recent news articles as a reference for the zero mention about the meat industry or the livestock sector at the recent COP21 in Paris. Based on an observation by Mia MacDonald, the Executive Director of Brighter Green and the Chair of Green Belt Movement International, the Paris agreement largely omitted a crucial element, i.e. “what the world eats and how it produces its food are central factors in addressing climate change. Even though the food menu at the Paris Climate Conference was screaming livestock emissions in the form of butter, cheese and meat – yet, they were nowhere to be found on the agenda. As noted by Professor Tim Benton, failure to tackle food demand could make the 1.5°C goal unachievable. He also, was aware that one of the sectors that was largely absent from the talks in Paris that has been continuingly neglected, is food.

In addition to the mentioned reports above, it is also worth noting several recent news articles as a reference for the zero mention about the meat industry or the livestock sector at the recent COP21 in Paris. Based on an observation by Mia MacDonald, the Executive Director of Brighter Green and the Chair of Green Belt Movement International, the Paris agreement largely omitted a crucial element, i.e. “what the world eats and how it produces its food are central factors in addressing climate change. Even though the food menu at the Paris Climate Conference was screaming livestock emissions in the form of butter, cheese and meat – yet, they were nowhere to be found on the agenda. As noted by Professor Tim Benton, failure to tackle food demand could make the 1.5°C goal unachievable. He also, was aware that one of the sectors that was largely absent from the talks in Paris that has been continuingly neglected, is food.

With the rise of earth’s temperature and overall climate, comes devastating consequences to not only animals and the planet, but also humans. The elephant in the room about climate change is with the regards of the meat and dairy industry’s contribution. These two concepts are linked together through the repercussions of animal agriculture, and greenhouse gas emissions.