The United Nations proposed the reduction of meat consumption in the world to curb global warming. Many are unaware that raising animals can contribute to the rate of global warming and are incapable of understanding how harmless animals, such as cows, can drastically affect the world's climate. Others, may see this proposal as something absurd for they do not wish to give up on eating meat, as something essential for their diet. What is misunderstood, is that we as current inhabitants of this planet have to decrease greenhouse gas emission, if one cannot change his or her eating habits, one has no idea of how much harder it would be to change or even reduce their means of transport. Therefore, as the simplest and most effective solution, there should be a significant reduction on the meat production and consumption in the world.
Meat production, often forgotten, is one of the greatest contributors to the emission of greenhouse gases. It is responsible for approximately one fifth of the greenhouse gas emissions and methane, a gas emitted as animal waste, is over twenty times more harmful than carbon dioxide. Studies show that one kilogram of beef is equivalent to the release of 36.4 kilos of carbon dioxide. Based on this data, it is undeniable that a reduction on meat production would also cause a reduction on the rapid rate of global warming.
Despite the urgency in finding solutions to decrease the global warming rate, scientists and officials must understand that humans need a time for adaptation and acceptation of a new idea. The Compassion in World Farming, asked the governments to create a campaign to reduce meat consumption by 60 per cent by 2020. In less than nine years, such an accomplishment is unrealistic. On the other hand, the government should be active in informing and educating the people about how such a simple act would not only ameliorate their lives, but also the world's.
There are several negative consequences due to this policy though. For instance, if there were to be a reduction, that would mean that certain farmer would suffer affecting unemployment and the economies of countries. Around 56% of the meat is produced in developing countries such as China and Brazil. A drastic reduction would severely damage these economies and would generate great dissatisfaction. Therefore, the government should interfere by providing such farmers with subsidies and encouragement to reduce. Another problem is the cultural and traditional impacts. In some cultures, eating meat is very valued and a strong part of people's lives. The Brazilian population, for example, eats meat everyday and usually appreciates a "churrasco". In a churrasco, each person eats the equivalent o a one week consumption of meat. Demanding a reduction would not be easily accepted by the consumers or the restaurant owners.
When comparing the possibilities for curbing global warming, there is not one solution that will be able to plead everyone in the world, after all, reaching unanimity with a population of 6 billion people is not possible. It is essential that people are willing to compromise and fight against global warming, which is not affecting our generation, but will definitely have impacts on the next. How hard is it to keep from eating meat for one day, and eating a delicious salad. For those who absolutely despise leaves, imagine how much harder it would be for them to have to keep their cars at home for one day. Although it might sound absurd at first, having a "meat-free" day a week would indeed reduce a great release of greenhouse gas emission, decreasing the rate of global warming, preserving our planet for at least a greater period of time.
