Carus, Felicity. “UN Urges Global Move to Meat and Dairy-free Diet | Environment | The Guardian.” The Guardian, 2 June 2010,
The article discusses a suggestion by United Nations that the reliance on dairy and meat products is increasing the rates of climate change and hunger. The argument here is that these products have increasingly become popular, increasing the rate of production of the livestock (Carus). As such, the rate of green house gas emission has risen and is expected to maintain the trend if an action is not taken. The suggestion here is to embrace vegan diets far from meat and dairy products.
The article finds at the heart of the discussion that global warming will keep rising. As such, this makes the study credible. However, the article does not suggest any reason behind the use of vegan diet although it is clear that the reason is lower emission rates with crop production.
Crutzen, Paul J., et al. “N2O Release from Agro-biofuel Production Negates Global Warming Reduction by Replacing Fossil Fuels.” Paul J. Crutzen: A Pioneer on Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Change in the Anthropocene, 2016, pp. 227-238.
Crutzen, et al. (227) present the finding that green house gases are from both livestock and crop production (agro-biofuel) and from crop production as an independent entity (fossil fuels). The bio fuels from crop production are mainly those that are existing naturally through the decomposition of plants and release of carbon dioxide in the air contributing to the green house gas emission. On the other hand, livestock production involves a lot of use of fossil fuels in the operation of transportation of the products and machine operations. The main emissions in these are carbon monoxide and nitrogen gases. These are higher in emission of green house gas. The larger picture in this article is thereby relying on fossil fuels not to be the source of food production but rather the long term increased reliance on biofuels which have lower emission rates. This idea thereby suggests moving from livestock production to crop production for the reason of reducing emission rates of green house gases.
This article is strong by incorporating the comparison of green house gas emission from livestock production and crop production. The weak point is that while crop production is associated with fossil fuels, it is still a contributor to green house gas emission through the use of fertilizers.
Hamad, Ruby. “Meat the Hidden Culprit of Climate Change (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).” ABC News, 28 Apr. 2014,
The article presents findings that animal livestock in agriculture contributed 70% of the overall green house emission with 37% of this being from methane (Hamad). This means that reducing the effects of green house emission should begin with this sector. Comparison of the fossil fuels used here and in crop agriculture, the latter poses a lesser threat implying the reason why people shift despite the fact that the sector is also dangerous to the environment.
This article uses data from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an independent research firm; this is the strength of the article in that the information is scientifically proven. The language used however is weak by not giving clear suggestions on the importance of moving from livestock production.
Hillier, Jonathan, et al. “A farm-focused calculator for emissions from crop and livestock production.” Environmental Modelling & Software, vol. 26, no. 9, 2011, pp. 1070-1078.
The insight given here by Hillier, et al. (1073) is that the main green house emission rates are high in crop production due to poor farming activities such as typical crop cultivation leading to the loss of carbon in the soil, the use of fertilizers, tractors and pesticides, all which contribute to the use of fossil fuels including diesel. The article presents the findings that this sector has far much damages caused to the environment. The transportation of meat products is very high due to the increased overreliance on meat by many people. The insight from this article gives a stronger credit to the difference between green house gas emission from crops and livestock. . The weakness about it is lack of concrete data since the article exploits qualitative data.
Jewish Veg. “Abolishing Intensive Livestock Agriculture: A Global Imperative.” Jewish Veg |, 2011, .
Agriculture in this article is put under the contexts of crop and livestock in interdependence. The rising consumption of meat and dairy products has increased the dependence on fossil fuel. The reason is that more crops are required to feed the livestock being reared and slaughtered. This means that people do not consider the fact that this practice will create higher green house emission gases by both farming systems.
This article has the strongest correlation of the topic because it explains the reliance of livestock production on the fossil fuels from crop production. The language used is however weak by posing strong implications that might be received by the reader with discontent.
Koneswaran, G., and D. Nierenberg. “Global Farm Animal Production and Global Warming: Impacting and Mitigating Climate Change.” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 116, no. 5, 2008, pp. 578-582, doi:10.1289/ehp.11034.’
Written by Koneswaran and Nierenberg (578) the article discusses the underlying effects that global production of livestock at an industrial scale has on the environment. The complex processes involved during and before the production revolve around production of grains and fertilizer as part of use of the waste products from the livestock, production of gas, disposal of waste and transportation of the livestock, and the meat products. Arguably, these processes lead to a greater green house gas emission than that caused by the automotive industry. The data used from the study was sourced from different institutions including United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). The study found out that the global meat consumption by humans in 2008 was 56 billion farm animals in terms of rearing and slaughtering. Effects implicated in these numbers were increased green house gas emission, consequently causing climate change and devastating hunger. Arguably, this is the reason why the relevant persons involved in the industrial production of livestock have neglected this and turned to fossil fuels.
The strength of this article is that it presents the reader with the information they were looking for. To understand the dangers of industrial livestock production, figures are needed to show how the processes lead to emission of the gases as well as presenting a comparison of the rates with an existing green house danger such as the automotive industry. On the other hand, there is no mention of the instance where fossil fuels have become the center of attention.
Lappé, Anna. “Sustainable Table | Agriculture, Energy & Climate Change.” GRACE Communications Foundation, 2016, www.sustainabletable.org/982/agriculture-energy-climate-change.
This article is presented by Anna Lappé showing that livestock production contributes 18% of the overall global emissions and 37% in the agricultural sector. The reasons given include farming practices and the reliance on fossil fuels. She illustrates that farmers and large scale ranches have high demand for fast growth of crops to feed animals calling for the use of farm chemicals. She regrets that despite this information being available, few people know it since globally; people think that the problem of green house gas emission is caused by large industries and the automobile industry. As such, they end up relying more on the fossil fuels.
Anna’s use of direct language and statistical data is use alongside tables that classify the ideas making it easy to comprehend. On the other hand, she neglects the importance of citing scientific institutions where she sources for the information making it weaker.
Pfeiffer, Dale Allen. Eating Fossil Fuels: Industrial Agriculture and Energy Consumption. The Wilderness Publications, 2004. Organic Consumers Association.
Dale Allen Pfeiffer discusses the dependence on fossil fuels that the human generation has developed since the establishment of fertilizers, pesticides and other agricultural farm products. The article attributes the use of these products from fossil fuels as the greatest contributor to the rise in the global food production rates for both livestock and farm products, as well as an increased rate of depleting the fossil fuels at the expense of green house gases. The article uses the term Green Revolution to imply the increased use of fertilizers obtained and pesticides to increase the growth of crops, thereby increasing the crop production capacity to 250%. For this reason, the United States for example used 400 gallons of oil to produce these farm products. The effect is an increased emission of green house gases; comparing this with the livestock production industry, there is a lower rate of emission which makes the Green Revolution more sustainable than the industrial livestock production. In short, the reason the article gives here is to reduce the effect of green house gases in order to achieve sustainable food production; despite the rate of emission in farm production still high.
The author here uses the concept of Green Revolution to implicate that the use of fossil fuels in feeding the agricultural sector has high effects of green house emission but is comparatively better than livestock production. The author exhibits a strong usage of statistical analysis by calculating the relationship between capacity of fossil fuels used such as diesel to operate machines and the use of the fertilizers exploiting the fuels. The weakness of the article is that there is little correlation of the greenhouse gas in the crop production processes where fossil fuels are used and the same effect in the production of livestock.
Schaefer, H., et al. “A 21st-century shift from fossil-fuel to biogenic methane emissions indicated by 13CH4.” Science, vol. 352, no. 6281, 2016, pp. 80-84.
There is arguably a difference between agricultural practices and the use of fossil fuels in agriculture. While the fossil fuels are used in the case of funding agriculture, not all people use the fuels meaning that the scale of their use is limited to the size of the farming area. On the other hand, agricultural practices are uniform throughout all farm sizes and affect the green house gas emission by uncovering the carbon gases hidden in the soil. This article suggests that the emissions are not majorly caused by the fossil fuels but rather the farming practices; this means that people have been drawn to the fossil fuels because they are not as harmful as initially believed.
The article uses images and data from Baring Head experts making the claim strong. The weak point is lack of scientific backing which makes the explanations a little theoretical.
Whitelaw, C. B. “Transgenic Livestock transgenic crop livestock for Food Production transgenic crop livestock food production , Introduction.” Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology, 2012, pp. 10812-10814, doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0851-3_926.
An account by Whitelaw (10813) suggests an increased genetic application of knowledge in the development of transgenic animals and plants. Although this technology is applied today in research tests, it provides a solution to green house gas emission in the case of livestock. This is due to increased rate of reduction in the carbon content in the organisms, which means that crops modified through the technology will create a good source of fossil fuels with little levels of hazardous gases.
The article strongly entails an analysis of how the transgenic concept helps to reduce the genetic characteristics of carbon content in the newly modified organisms. This is however weakened by lack of enough support to back these claims.