Eating meat has devastating effects on the environment

Question: Should you go vegan?
Position‹2 of 2: Eating animal products is unethical
Argument‹3 of 5›: Eating meat has devastating effects on the environment

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

The argument

Eating meat is not sustainable for the planet. Meat production leads to 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 to the environment. The land, water and energy needed to produce meat are much higher than those for 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.

Premises

[P1]Meat production pollutes through fossil fuels, animal methane, effluent waste, and heavy water and land consumption, so it is not sustainable for the planet. [P2] Producing meat requires far more land, water, and energy than crops — PETA notes a cow must eat 7 pounds of vegetation to yield 1 pound of flesh. [P3] Raising animals for food consumes over half of all US water, with 2,500 gallons needed per pound of meat versus 25 gallons per pound of wheat. [C] Therefore, eating meat has devastating effects on the environment.

Counter-arguments

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

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Stopping the production of animal products would not fix climate change.