Essay \"Cowspiracy\" - final paper - referred​ by Serena Madden - grade 85% PDF

Preview

Summary

Cowspiracy final paper - referred​ by Serena Madden ...

Description

Cowspiracy Serena Madden 100593648 Prof: Tim MacNeill Teaching Assistant: Victoria Ginsley Introduction to Social Policy SOCI 1200U March 10, 2016

Introduction Once just a thought in the back of one’s mind, global warming has become a very large issue in the world today; and humans are a large part of the problem. This paper will explore the documentary “Cowspiracy” It will be argued that the human need for animal products is destroying our planet at a rapid rate. Within the first segment of the paper, the factual information discussed in the documentary will be listed, followed by the status of accuracy in relation to the claims as well as the main claim of the film. To close the paper, the policies that could be enacted to help resolve this issue will be discussed.

“Facts” stated in the film Within the film, there are a variety of sectors in which the facts may fall into. These sectors involve information pertaining to greenhouse gases, water consumption, land, oceans, food, and humanity. In relation to greenhouse gases the comparison between damage from animal agriculture and humans is made. Throughout the world, the main cause of greenhouse gas emission has always been said to be a result of the vehicles humans drive daily. In ‘Cowspiracy’ it was revealed that raising cattle produces more greenhouse gases than the exhaust from the entire transportation sector. (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014) Furthermore, the gas produced as a result of animal agriculture is 86 times more destructive than the carbon dioxide that comes from vehicles. (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014) Methane (CH4) has the potential to damage the environment at a higher rate than CO2; causing the potential for global warming to increase substantially. (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014) In addition to producing a large amount of gas, animal agriculture is responsible for a very large part of water consumption in the world (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014). In the United States alone, cattle raising is held accountable for the consumption of thirty-four

1

trillion gallons of water annually. (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014) Humans are constantly being told to take short showers and to be cognizant of their water use. Although humans do need to be cautious with water usage, they are only responsible for five percent of water usage whereas animal agriculture accounts for fifty-five percent of water usage in the United States. (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014)

Moving forward to issues involving land. Between growing food and raising animals, approximately 45% of the earths land is currently being used for animal agriculture. (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014) Aside from usage, majority of the damage toward land and rainforests is a result of raising animals for food. Approximately one acre is destroyed every second, causing species of plants, animals, and insects to disappear before us. (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014) Most importantly, animal agriculture is essentially destroying the planets lungs as every tree is cut down.

There is one aspect involved in animal agriculture that not many people think about. The oceans. When someone hears the words “Animal Agriculture” the first thing to come to mind is cows and crops. Unfortunately the oceans are not addressed as much as they should be when it comes to this topic. In 2009, twenty-eight billion animals were pulled out of the ocean. (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014) Within this twenty-eight million are five pounds of bykill for every one pound of wanted specie. (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014) Falling within this bykill are approximately forty to fifty million sharks that were unintentionally caught within fishing nets. (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014) The ocean ecosystem is in a very dangerous position right now as a

2

result of fishing and serial depletion. Overfishing is not only creating ocean “Dead Zones”, but is also putting endangered species at even more risk of extinction. (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014)

A subject many people do not address is what we could be doing with the resources that are currently being used for animal agriculture. If everyone in the world converted to a plant based vegan diet, it would use 1/6th of an acre of land per person; to feed one person on a vegetarian it takes approximately half an acre of land. (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014) With the way the average US citizen is eating today, it takes eighteen times as much land to feed one person. (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014) On only 1.5 acres of land it is possible to produce 37,000lbs of vegetables. On the same patch of land, only 375 pound of meat can be produced. (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014) For every one person that switches to a vegan diet, they can save (per day) : 45lbs of grain, 30sq. ft of forest, 10lbs of CO2 and the life of one animal. (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014) Adding up to 16,425lbs of grain, 10,950 sq.ft. of forest, 3,650lbs of CO2, and 365 animal lives every year. Over the course of a lifetime this would have an enormous impact on the planet.

Are the claims accurate? Through the process of researching these claims, it can be said they are accurate. Upon researching the claims in regards to greenhouse gases, it has been found that “although the concentration of methane in the atmosphere is much less than that of CO2, its greenhouse effect is far from negligible” (Houghton, 2005). Methane may not have as long of a “life expectancy” as carbon dioxide, yet what it does possess is the ability to trap radiation in the atmosphere for much longer (Houghton, 2005). Secondly, the claims made about how much water is consumed

3

by cattle was verified as well. Although a scholarly source could not be found in relation to US water consumption, many were provided for Canadian cattle; which would be very similar to that of the United States. On average, a Canadian cow consumes 115 liters per day; which converts to approximately 30 gallons (Ontario Ministry, 2015). 30 gallons per cow, per day for 365 days. There is no question to how cattle raising is responsible for fifty-five percent of water usage in the United States (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014). In addition to water usage, the issues involving land have checked out as well. The main cause of rainforest loss is cattle grazing. The cows need a patch of land to graze. Additionally, their food needs a place to grow as well (Lund, 2006). Add both of these factors together, and it is understandable how animal agriculture is killing the planets lungs. Furthermore, the oceans are indeed facing “deadzones” and serial depletion. Fisherman are overfishing the oceans, causing the species living under water to die out due to lack of time to reproduce and repopulate (Beamish, 2006). Not to mention the “Predators that feed on commercially exploited fishes have seen substantial declines” (Pikitch, 2012). Not only are humans capturing fish, they are capturing the food of other animals.

What is the main claim? Although there is a vast amount of claims made in this film, they all come together and have one thing in common. The main claim of this film is that animal agriculture, cows in particular, is destroying our planet at a dangerous rate. Between the: greenhouse gases, consumption of water, loss of land and the destruction toward our oceans and bodies of water, we will not be able to

4

provide food or even sustain life for much longer. With the amount of greenhouse gases being produced by the animal agriculture business, global warming becomes more realistic and a bigger threat to the planet. At the rate animals are consuming water, we are taking more and more away from those in need. Approximately 82% of the worlds starving and parched children live in countries where all of the food and water is going to the animals which will be killed and fed to those who have an income. (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014) If fisherman keep up with their “mass fishing”, the world could be looking a fishless oceans within the next 40 years (Cowspiracy, n.d.). Not to mention the population of sharks and other species included in the bykill would face major depletion. The health of the earth is rapidly declining, and it is all because of humans need for animal products.

Does the film leave anything out? In a personal opinion, this film did not leave anything out. The directors showed all of their interviews and provided proof that the ‘environmentalists’ refused to discuss the issue of animal agriculture. This film had no reason to ‘leave’ anything out or lie about any of the issues covered. Any of the claims stated in the film can be researched online, and there is proof to back up the statements made. If there was any information that has been left out of the film, how damaging could it really be? With all of the claims made within the 90 minute documentary, there is not much that could be left out. Maybe the situation would be different if the film were to glorify animal agriculture. Guaranteed the directors would have left all of the information portrayed in this film as far away from the production as possible. The truth is, there is nothing good that comes out of the animal agriculture business aside from meat and dairy products.

5

What sort of policies are suggested by the film makers? The filmmakers suggested that the policy in relation to living conditions should be acted upon. The film suggests that people try to adapt a vegan lifestyle. By doing this, the amount of all the resources that are used would decrease and be better for the planet. To feed a person on an all plant based vegan diet for a year, it takes approximately 1/6th an acre of land. To feed the same person on a full diet takes 18x as much land. (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014). By living a vegan lifestyle, humans would not have to overbreed animals, or use valuable land to grow feed for them. The land currently being taken up by the animal agriculture business could be used for much more important things; such as feeding those who are starving in third world countries. The same goes for the water being consumed by the soon-to-be food people eat. “When you take animals out, you take out the greenhouse gases and food safety issues out, and put the values back in. Values such as compassion and kindness. Natural values to human beings” (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014).

Can you think of any policies that should be enacted as well? In a personal opinion, the policy suggested within the film is an excellent idea. Although, it may not be very realistic for the average person. Majority of the first world population has grown up eating meat and other foods that come from the animal agriculture business. The transition to a vegan lifestyle would be very difficult for most people; especially those with a busy schedule. Personally, the idea of “meatless Mondays” sounds much more reasonable. By cutting back on meat intake, even just for one day of the weak, one person can save: 45lbs of grain, 30sq.ft. of

6

forest, 10lbs of CO2 and the life of one animal. (Anderson/Kuhn, 2014). At the end of the calendar year, this adds up to 2,340lbs of grain, 1560 sq.ft. of forest, 520lbs of CO2 and 52 animal lives. Going meatless for one day every week would have an enormous impact on society, and it would be in an extraordinary way.

Conclusion To conclude, the planet is in a mass amount of danger due to animal agriculture. Greenhouse gases are beginning to take over and become more of a serious danger. Over half of the water in American is going to cows rather than people who are dying of thirst every day. The precious land of earth, including the rainforests which provide oxygen for humans to live off of, is being destroyed so cows can walk among it and graze before being killed for food for the rich. The oceans, sharks in particular, are in a grave amount of danger due to overfishing. The resources that our planet has to offer are being wasted on overbred animals. If people do not begin to act now, our planet will be destroyed before we know it.

7

References V Anderson, K. (Producer). Kuhn. K. (Producer). (2014). Cowspiracy [Motion Picture]. USA: A.U.M Films/ First Spark Media Houghton, J. (2005). Global Warming. Reports on Progress in Physics, 68(6), 1343-1403. Doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/68/6/R02 Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. (2015). Retrieved February 29th, 2016, from http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/07-023.htm#2 Lund, V. (2006). Animal Agriculture: Symbiosis, Culture, or Ethical Conflict?. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(1), 47-56. Doi: 10.1007/s10806-005-4378-9 Beamish, R.J. (2006). Progress in Oceanography. Marine Ecosystem Structure and Dynamics, 68 (2-4), 289-302. Doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2006.02.005 Pikitch, E.K. (2012). The Risks of Overfishing. Science, 338(6106), 474-475. doi: 10.1126/science.1229965 Cowspiracy. (n.d.) Retrieved February 17th, 2016, from http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

8

PAPER GRADING RUBRIC Introduction paragraph is concise with clear topic sentence, thesis statement and indication of the outline and purpose of the paper. Very Poor Excellent

Needs Work

Good (average)

Very Good

Discussion of general issue: How well and thoroughly does the student explain the issue? Do they understand their own sources (film, articles, text) and convey this understanding clearly? Very Poor Needs Work Good (average) Very Good Excellent Analysis: How well does student explore the issue critically? Very Poor Needs Work Good (average) Excellent

Very Good

Use of Theory: How well does the student relate the discussion to social science theory? Very Poor Needs Work Good (average) Very Good Excellent Conclusion: re-iteration of main points and thesis plus some originality and policy suggestion/s. Very Poor Needs Work Good (average) Very Good Excellent Clarity of Argument: How convincing, direct, substantiated, logical, and clear is the argument as presented? Very Poor Needs Work Good (average) Very Good Excellent In-text citation used for ALL information other than thesis statement, conclusion, and perhaps some topic sentences of paragraphs. Very Poor Needs Work Good (average) Very Good Excellent Paragraphs are ordered logically, have clear topic sentences, contain only relevant info, are less than one page (double-space) in length, with smooth transitions. Very Poor Needs Work Good (average) Very Good Excellent

9

General grammar and writing style: Very Poor Needs Work Excellent

Good (average)

Very Good

References: Does the student use proper references such as the textbook and peerreviewed journals and avoid pure speculation, “common knowledge”, lecture notes, and non-academic sources? Very Poor Excellent

Needs Work

Good (average)

Very Good

Reference page: with proper sources, and proper format Very Poor Needs Work Good (average) Excellent

Very Good

Formatting: Pages are numbered and the paper is generally well formatted. Very Poor Needs Work Good (average) Very Good Excellent TOTAL:

/30

Comments:

10...