Surname 1

Name

Course

Instructor

Date

How Can the Society Address Climate Change?

In the current, evolving world, the issue of sustainability now lends itself as one of the

critical issues more than ever. It is arguably one of the outstanding subjects that policymakers are

discussing. This issue is hinged on the view that the growing global populations, the high rates of

depletion of natural resources and the various emerging social, health and economic challenges

call for a rethink on ways that the current generation will be able to continue sustaining itself,

considering the effectiveness of existing approaches have been questioned. Many of the

discussions have acknowledged the role of the environment as particularly imperative to

sustainable development. The primary premise for this position is that if the global community

does not protect or conserve the environment, the adverse environmental challenges such as

famine, natural calamities, and diseases will be experienced, and these results will subvert the

efforts aimed at achieving the social and economic development goals (Gille, 5). However, the

path to environmental sustainability has not seemed to be a straightforward one. Indeed, several

views have been offered as strategies for sustainable development, some of which have elicited

the questions concerning their appropriateness. Some suggestions have always been

characterized by heated debate contests. In fall 2008, the head of the United Nations

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, called upon the global society

to eat less meat in a bid to conserve the environment. His view has been perhaps the most

interesting of insights that have attracted sharp reactions. This paper explores the question of
 Surname 2

eating meat as a way of supporting environmental protection, focusing on the implications of

Hamilton's argument on Dr. Pachauris viewpoint.

A Look at Dr. Pachauris Opposing Viewpoint

Dr. Pachauris acknowledges that the state of the rising global temperatures cannot be

ignored it calls for drastic interventions. The most appropriate approach for this intervention

is by narrowing on some of the anthropogenic activities responsible for the emission of most of

the greenhouse gasses. Animal farming happens to be one of the most notable causes of

greenhouse gasses and, therefore, one way of addressing the issue is by avoiding eating meat. Dr.

Pachauris viewpoint rests on the startling statistics that the meat production processes account

for about 25 percent of the greenhouse gas volume emitted from the globe. These amounts of

pollutant gasses are produced during processing of animals feeds, while others, especially

methane, are emitted from ruminant digestion, and this happens to be about 23 times more

effective in contributing to global warming than carbon dioxide.

The essence of reducing consumption of meat is to lessen the meat demand, which would

translate to reduced animal farming activities. Dr. Pachauris concerns are expressed at the

backdrop of the growing demand for meat, which is projected to double in the next 5 decades.

Therefore, reducing consumption of meat would be the only rapid, feasible approach that would

enable the global community to tackle the worsening global warming issue. Dr. Pachauris

advises the regular meat consumers to give up taking meat for one day a week, and then continue

cutting down the consumption more and more. Apart from reducing meat consumption, Dr.

Pachauris has advised that the strategies to tackle climate change will need to be accompanied by

other forms of lifestyle change, which will help reduce the amount of gas emissions, and this

should be reflected in different sectors.

 Surname 3

A Look at Criticism

The approach has attracted criticism from various individuals, for instance, Lisa

Hamilton. Lisa Hamilton provides a relatively different approach to environmental sustainability

rather than eat less meat as Dr. Pachauris urges, she considers that people should, in fact, eat

more meat. Her views are essentially borne on two premises; livestock is a critical component of

the ecosystem protection equation and are a source of revenue and food.

First, while Hamilton does not refute livestock accounts for a significant percentage of

greenhouse gasses, she suggests that deciding not to have them will still not address the issue of

methane produced by other organisms such as deer and terminates. If only, livestock is important

because it produces manure that can be used to enhance soil fertility. In essence, farmers will not

be able to generate high yields in the absence of livestock. According to her, the best approach to

dealing with carbon problem is to get it back to the soil, and that happens only when the

livestock is in the conservation equation. Moreover, cattle play a much more crucial role other

than keeping the soil fertile when managed properly; they can enrich the capacity of in

sequestering carbon. Therefore, cattle do not only add manure to the ground, but their symbiotic

grazing also encourages the growth of plants, while their hooves crush plant residue to support

the ecosystem needs. Secondly, if cattle are well managed, intensive grazing processes may play

a crucial role in shifting the emitted carbon to so significant levels that livestock farming can be

perceived as a way of controlling the menace of greenhouse gasses. To her, the potential of

animal benefits is yet to be realized because the meat consumption is still low.

Therefore, for Lisa M. Hamilton, it is plausible to encourage people to eat more meat and

promote livestock farming activities because they are not only an economically viable project but

also an environmentally friendly event.

 Surname 4

Reflection

A look at Dr. Pachauris and Lisa Hamilton insights reveals opposing viewpoints. While

both do not refute the need for environmental conservation and the presence of high percentage

of greenhouse gasses emitted by livestock, they hold a different perspective of what must be

done about cattle. In particular, based on Lisa Hamiltons perspective, Dr. Pachauris approach

can be conceived as a radical one it overlooks the economic and ecological benefits that

livestock offer. She sees that if the livestock is not reared, farmers will not be able to earn a good

living, and at the same time, other derivative benefits such as manure will be lost.

However, it is noteworthy that, other than defending the economic and a few ecological

benefits of livestock, even Lisa Hamiltons perspective does not provide a succinct explanation

on how the society could deal with associated greenhouse emissions. Rather, her response is a

thesis that it is not just the livestock that is involved in the production of greenhouse gasses, but

also other organisms such as deer and termites. Therefore, her perspective is critical that

reducing livestock may not have much to do in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While she

posits the possibility of how livestock could be well managed to cut down greenhouse emissions,

her insights do not adequately specify how this could be done, as well as the rate the livestock

management approaches can subdue the actual greenhouse gasses the farms emit.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the aim of this paper has been to reflect on the issue of eating meat for the

environmental protection, focusing on the implications of Hamilton's argument on Dr. Pachauris

viewpoint. On one hand, Dr. Pachauris acknowledges that the state of the rising global

temperatures cannot be ignored it calls for drastic interventions, and that since livestock

farming happens to be one of the most common causes of greenhouse gasses, one way of
 Surname 5

addressing the issue is by avoiding eating meat. On the other hand, Lisa Hamilton provides a

relatively different approach to environmental sustainability rather than eat less meat, people

should, in fact, eat more to conserve the environment, reasoning that livestock is a critical

component of the ecosystem equation, and are a source of revenue and food, too. Therefore,

Hamilton's and Dr. Pachauris viewpoints can be seen as opposites. Based on Lisa Hamiltons

perspective, Dr. Pachauris approach to the issue is only a radical one that overlooks the

economic and ecological benefits that livestock offer. She sees that if the livestock is not reared,

farmers will not be able to derive a living, and at the same time, other derivative benefits such as

manure will be lost. While Lisa Hamiltons perspective does not provide a succinct explanation

on how the society could deal with the associated greenhouse emissions, she nevertheless

provides alternative thinking to the issue, which certainly weakens Dr. Pachauris viewpoint.

Such points of view, however, reflects the inherent challenges regarding the path to protecting

the environment.
 Surname 6

Works Cited

Gille, Sarah "Warming of the Southern Ocean Since the 1950s". Science. 295 (2012): 12757.

Print