Contents page 1 — freedom for all, even for the animals page 2 — What is the animals with the Well? On a page
you May eat in times of climate crisis at all. And a liberal state may not require us to do it – or to consume at least: less animal food? He must not only, he even says Felix Ekardt, head of the research unit sustainability and climate policy in Leipzig and Berlin and a Professor at the University of Rostock.
Christmastime in Germany Christmas roast time. A few ruminations over animal welfare, we like us to make, and about five percent Vegetarians, we also have. Nevertheless, Germany is still among the countries with the highest consumption of animal food per head.
It seems to taste the most good. However, for the environment, animals and, often, our health is a big Problem.
Around four-fifths of the global agricultural area is used for the production of animal food, as a pasture or for fodder production. The extent of this is huge, because in order to produce one animal calorie, you have to feed about seven vegetable calories. Eutrophication – be it for the production of feed, whether it is because due to the mass animal husbandry excess manure is just dumped somewhere, pesticide and overly-intensive Farming pollute the environment. The consequences are the extinction of species such as insects, contaminated soil and water and disturbed Ecosystems, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles.
Also for the climate change, the proverbial pupsenden cows, and the Eutrophication is highly relevant. And for the world food calories waste is also a Problem.
is the head of the research unit sustainability and climate policy in Leipzig and Berlin as well as Professor at the University of Rostock. From him We can change: published in 2017, Social change beyond the critique of capitalism and Revolution, and a short circuit: such As simple truths that undermine democracy.
one Wants to limit global warming in accordance with the Paris climate agreement safe at 1.5 degrees, we need to reduce climate emissions in all sectors worldwide in around two decades, to zero. This means that We must keep fewer animals, even if in the feeding and support, or technical efficiency potentials, and even if you could bind a few emissions in forests or bogs. We are allowed to use no more fossil fuels for the production of mineral fertilizers and to power heavy machinery. Tractors and combines would have to in the future, along with renewable energy sources, and their number should, if necessary, be reduced.
agricultural yields would probably be lower. The more important it is to consume less animal foods. Then a larger part of the remaining Harvest could be used directly as a food, instead of going the detour via the feed production, and meat and milk production.
The does not automatically mean that we have to feed all vegetarian or even vegan. To feed the world and to fertilize the soil, do we need farm animals. The Grazing is for the protection of nature, often even good, and for the climate change after all, she’s the lesser of two Evils. Meat consumption, therefore, remains possible – but in very different quantities than it is today, and at prices that Express how precious meat in the truth.
we Ate less meat, we could solve other environmental problems will be easier. If we had neither Oil and Gas nor coal, and less animal excrement disposed of in a use to be, then we could close the nitrogen cycles, the water relieve, toxic and carcinogenic air pollutants to be reduced and the Ecosystems better conserved. If not more so, much food must be produced, we could stop the extinction of species, by giving nature more space.
the world grows Because population and in the emerging countries, more and more meat and dairy products are consumed, to reduce the citizens in the industrial countries is even more drastic. Finally, we eat the most meat.