A Hampton Creek Article on Wikinut Explores Why Meat Truly is Non-Sustainable

Meat enthusiasts hear a big argument against meat consumption. The argument essentially boils down to production. Meat takes more energy and resources to produce than vegetables. Furthermore, meat production is destroying the environment.

There is a specific Wikipedia article put together that explores many of these concerns in great detail. It can be viewed here at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production.

Does the argument have any weight? The Hampton creek article on Wikinut expands on some of these ideas by arguing what is sustainable and what is not. Meat is non-sustainable because it requires entirely too many resources without feeding enough people. But, meat enthusiasts fairly ask, what are these resources? What is the impact really of eating a cheeseburger over a vegetable burger?

Firstly, the animals need to be maintained, fed, cared for, fed, and fed again. They eat a whole lot. But, feeding the animals requires a separate plant production. The plants (grass included) is produced solely to supply for another resource. Every animal is not just the animal. It is the months of food it has eaten before that is being used to care for that “meat.”

Water and land consumption is a major issue. But, the actual meat production uses energy. This also contributes to the adverse effects on the environment. The fossil fool usage brings everything back to the carbon footprint. There is a clear and distinctive imprint being left on the environment from meat production. A Hampton creek article on Wikinut explores further details about meat production, and how non-sustainable foods are burdening modern culture.

It all comes back to the fact that any meat was once alive. It used many resources in that process. Caring for, preparing, packaging, distributing, and everything else in-between results in a system that cannot hold on its own. This is hardly the case for a vegetable, which relies on natural resources (the sun and rainwater) to remain in production. Distribution costs are far milder considering local farmers can easily pick up to the task for their specific community. It is a massive cultural burden and one that cannot just continue indefinitely without an inevitable shake-up soon enough.