Mapping the world's opinions

<< Previous (2 of 2 Positions)

Devastating effects on the environment

The Union of Concerned Scientists lists meat-eating as the second-biggest environmental hazard facing the Earth

<< Previous (5 of 5 Arguments)


Enter the background of the argument here ...

The Argument

Very simply, eating meat is not sustainable for the planet. Some of the environmental effects that have been associated with meat production are pollution through fossil fuel usage, animal methane, effluent waste, and water and land consumption. By not eating meat we greatly reduce our carbon footprint and general damage on the environment. The land, water and energy needed to produce meat are much higher than those of producing crops for food. According to PETA; Cows must consume 7 pounds of vegetation in order to convert them into 1 pound of flesh. Raising animals for food consumes more than half of all water used in the U.S. It takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce a pound of meat but only 25 gallons to produce a pound of wheat.

Counter arguments

Some of the things causing environmental damage are inevitable. The land taken up by animals is necessary even if we weren’t to eat them and methane emission is natural. Also there are many other causes of environmental damage that would - if regulated or stopped - have the satisfactory effect of making our planet sustainable.


Enter the formal premises of the argument here ...

Rejecting the premises

Enter the technical rejections of the premises here ...


Content references here ...


Do you agree?

Sign up or log in to record your thoughts on this argument

Explore related arguments

This page was last edited on Monday, 1 Jul 2019 at 16:34 UTC