Recent orders
Change your diet to combat climate change in 2019
Change your diet to combat climate change in 2019
By Lisa Drayer, CNN
Updated 6:57 AM ET, Wed January 2, 2019
(CNN)You may be aware that a plant-based diet can make you healthier by lowering your risk for obesity, heart disease and Type 2 diabetes. But research shows there’s another good reason to regularly eat meatless meals. By filling your plate with plant foods instead of animal foods, you can help save the planet.
One study, published in October in the journal Nature, found that as a result of population growth and the continued consumption of Western diets high in red meats and processed foods, the environmental pressures of the food system could increase by up to 90% by 2050, “exceeding key planetary boundaries that define a safe operating space for humanity beyond which Earth’s vital ecosystems could become unstable,” according to study author Marco Springmann of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food at the University of Oxford.
“It could lead to dangerous levels of climate change with higher occurrences of extreme weather events, affect the regulatory function of forest ecosystems and biodiversity … and pollute water bodies such that it would lead to more oxygen-depleted dead zones in oceans,” Springmann said.
“If the whole world, which continues to grow, eats more like us, the impacts are staggering, and the planet simply can’t withstand it,” said Sharon Palmer, a registered dietitian nutritionist and plant-based food and sustainability expert in Los Angeles who was not involved in the new research.
Sustaining a healthier planet will require halving the amount of food loss and waste, and improving farming practices and technologies. But it will also require a shift toward more plant-based diets, according to Springmann.
As Palmer noted, “research consistently shows that drastically reducing animal food intake and mostly eating plant foods is one of the most powerful things you can do to reduce your impact on the planet over your lifetime, in terms of energy required, land used, greenhouse gas emissions, water used and pollutants produced.”
How a meat-based diet negatively affects the environment
It might come as a surprise, but Springmann’s study found that the production of animal products generates the majority of food-related greenhouse-gas emissions — specifically, up to 78% of total agricultural emissions.
This, he explained, is due to manure-related emissions, to their “low feed-conversion efficiencies” (meaning cows and other animals are not efficient in converting what they eat into body weight) and to enteric fermentation in ruminants, a process that takes place in a cow’s stomach when it digests food that leads to methane emissions.
The feed-related impacts of animal products also contribute to freshwater use and pressures on cropland, as well as nitrogen and phosphorus application, which over time could lead to dead zones in oceans, low-oxygen areas where few organisms can survive, according to Springmann.
For an example of how animal foods compare with plant-based foods in terms of environmental effects, consider that “beef is more than 100 times as emissions-intensive as legumes,” Springmann said. “This is because a cow needs, on average, 10 kilograms of feed, often from grains, to grow 1 kilogram of body weight, and that feed will have required water, land and fertilizer inputs to grow.”
In addition, cows emit the potent greenhouse gas methane during digestion, which makes cows and other ruminants such as sheep especially high-emitting.
Other animal foods have lower impacts because they don’t produce methane in their stomachs and require less feed than cows, Springmann explained. For example, cows emit about 10 times more greenhouse gases per kilogram of meat than pigs and chickens, which themselves emit about 10 times more than legumes.
Like animals, plants also require inputs from the environment in order to grow, but the magnitude is significantly less, Springmann explained.
“In today’s agricultural system, we grow plants to feed animals, which require all of those resources and inputs: land, water, fossil fuels, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer to grow. And then we feed plants to animals and care for them over their lifetime, while they produce methane and manure,” Palmer said.
Adopting more plant-based diets for ourselves could reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the food system by more than half, according to the Nature study. A mainly plant-based diet could also reduce other environmental impacts, such as those from fertilizers, and save up to quarter use of both farmland and fresh water, according to Springmann.
Palmer explained that “legumes [or pulses], such as beans, lentils and peas are the most sustainable protein source on the planet. They require very small amounts of water to grow, they can grow in harsh, dry climates, they grow in poor nations, providing food security, and they act like a natural fertilizer, capturing nitrogen from the air and fixing it in the soil. Thus, there is less need for synthetic fertilizers. These are the types of protein sources we need to rely upon more often.”
Flexitarian: The healthy compromise for you and the planet
Experts agree that if you are not ready to give up meat entirely, a flexitarian diet, which is predominantly plant-based, can help. This diet includes plenty of fruits, vegetables and plant-based protein sources including legumes, soybeans and nuts, along with modest amounts of poultry, fish, milk and eggs, and small amounts of red meat.
Vegetarian and vegan diets would result in even lower greenhouse gas emissions, but a flexitarian diet “is the least stringent that is both healthy and would reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough for us to stay within environmental limits,” according to Springmann.
Palmer said that “although vegan diets, followed by vegetarian diets, are linked with the lowest environmental impacts, not everyone is interested in taking on those lifestyles. But everyone can eat more of a flexitarian diet. It doesn’t mean that you have to give up meat completely, but you significantly reduce your intake of it.”
Registered dietitian nutritionist Dawn Jackson Blatner described it this way: “A flexitarian is really someone who wakes up with the intention of being more vegetarian. It’s different from vegetarian in that there is some flexibility.”
Going flexitarian
J
ust how “flexitarian” you wish to be can be flexible, too. For example, Blatner, who was not involved in the Nature study, offers three levels of the diet in her book “The Flexitarian Diet”: a “beginner” flexitarian, who consumes six to eight meatless meals per week (or is limited to 26 ounces of animal protein); an “advanced” flexitarian, who eats nine to 14 meatless meals per week (or is limited to 18 ounces of animal protein); and an “expert” flexitarian, who eats at least 15 meatless meals or limits animal protein to 9 ounces per week.
The key is not just eliminating meat but swapping in plant-based proteins, including beans and lentils. A Mediterranean meal might incorporate chickpeas; a Mexican meal might have black beans or pintos; an Asian meal might include edamame; an Italian meal might use white beans or lentils to make a “Bolognese” pasta sauce, Blatner explained.
“I wrote the book because I really wanted to be a vegetarian, but I just couldn’t do it so strictly,” she said. “I really wanted to lean in to a more plant-based diet, but I needed a little more flexibility. So it’s the great compromise.”
Movie Response
Name
Professor’s name
Course
Date
Movie Response
Another America is a film produced by filmmaker Michael Cho that focuses on a conflict between African Americans and Koreans in the 20th century. The documentary touches on subjects such as history, culture clash, the past and the present life of new immigrants in America at the time, racism, personal stories, and the United States colonialism. The filmmaker, Michael Cho, also doubles as the narrator in the film. Cho decided to take it upon himself to investigate his family and the tragedy following the murder of his uncle in Detroit. The murder of his uncle hit close to home that he decided to closely examine his family’s experiences as Korean-American immigrants who were doing business at the time. In his investigation, he sheds light on the nitty gritty of the conflict in the southern central region as depicted by the uprisings of 1992 in Los Angeles.
Michael Cho captures the stories of ordinary African Americans and Koreans as they go about their business of shopping and selling in the mall. Cho decides to return to his hometown of Detroit as he wants to give them his relatives and local community members a chance to tell their own experiences of race relations with Asians. Some of the individuals that Cho features in his documentary include his cousin who is the daughter of his uncle, a Detroit poet, and an Asian-American sister and brother. Moreover, he incorporates interviews with several immigrants from Africa.
I think Cho does an impeccable job of painting the picture of the black-Korea conflict. At the time of his uncle’s murder, Cho was not In Detroit, but he decided to drive back home to film the documentary in the midst of grave riots and violence in Los Angeles. I think it was brave of Cho to take such a step, as he was placing his life at risk by doing so. Throughout the film, the audience sees scenes of rioters holding guns and shooting. There were also scenes of looting items from stores in the middle of the riots. When violence erupted between Asian Americans and Afro-Americans, all hell broke loose as there was no order, and law enforcement had difficulty controlling the crowd.
I appreciate Cho’s reporting as it is different from what other reporters were reporting. Cho’s narration was spot on and he did not shy away from addressing the issues that other people were avoiding reporting. At one point in the documentary, there was a female news reporter standing in a background where the riots were taking filled with smoke and damaged property. She mentioned that she was shocked at the ongoing scenarios as she was from that neighborhood. One could read the fear and frustration in the reporters’ voice]e and body language as she asks how she could cover the story with the violence happening right in her backyard. That scene was heartbreaking. I empathized with the lady reporter as she was in an unpleasant situation, but I expected more from the media. Cho mentioned that the main reason why he embarked on the filming journey by himself was that he was going on a fact-finding mission. I can relate to Cho’s situation and why he took it upon himself to record the documentary. He felt he could not trust the media to bring facts to the masses as they were biased in their reporting. Seeing that the conflicts between Koreans and people of color had hit home after the death of his uncle, I understand why Cho decided to send himself on a fact-finding mission. I appreciate Michel Cho’s effort in explaining the black-Asia conflict precisely as it happened in the late twentieth century.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Globalisation (2)
Advantages and Disadvantages of Globalisation
By (name)
Course
Professor’s name
Institution
Location of institution
Date
Advantages and Disadvantages of Globalisation
Globalization can be defined as a situation where multinational companies conduct business all over the world. Globalisation has been brought about by; breaking of barriers to trade, unabated movement of capital, reduced carriage cost and rising use of electronic technology (Potrafke 2015, p.510). These new communication technologies have increasingly spread a largely accepted commercial culture. From entertainment industry with Disney movies dominating children screen to culture where American youth culture is imitated all over the world. The exchange of the aspects of products and ideas will not stop anytime soon since new technology is emerging that makes the world more accessible to many people. This is a commendable feat that will be beneficial for the whole world’s population. Furthermore, globalisation helps appreciate the common human-characters that keep us together. Nonetheless globalization has widened the gap between the rich and the poor and led to centralisation of decision making. Globalisation also has eroded local cultures, destroyed biodiversity and increased animosity among regions. This is the unfortunate situation presents the harsh reality of globalisation which was intended for human growth but has marginalised human needs (Ransome 1997, p.8). Globalisation has led to high inequality levels and poverty as leaders cannot effectively implement policies. Thus, political solutions with good employment and human rights are needed to navigate the effects of globalization. Government should also set up good structures that ensure decentralisation of decision making and conserve the environment (Ellwood 2001, p.12). Globalisation commenced nearly 500 years ago when there was the launch of the European colonial era, which interlinked the global economy. However, globalisation has accelerated over the recent years owing to improved technology, breaking of trade barriers and increased influence of multinational corporations (Tan and Macneill 2015, p.852). Globalisation for multinational companies for instance makes them see the world which has people of different cultures as just a group of prospective buyers. These companies treat all their buyers to similar products, similar production technique and similar policies.
References
Potrafke, N 2015, The evidence on globalization, Journal World Economy, vol. 38, issue 3, pp. 509-552.
Ransome, D 1997, Globalization – an alternative view, New Internationalist, vol. 296, pp 7-10.
Ellwood, W 2001, The no-nonsense guide to globalization, by. Verso, London, pp.12.
Tan, C and Macneill, P 2015, Globalization, economics and professionalism, Medical Teacher, vol 37, issue 9, pp. 850-855.