The Importance of Rearing Animals in Climate Change

Reading through the article on CNN, the writer wonders if it is possible for people to stop eating meat for the benefit of saving the planet. The writer looks at several occasions in which Americans are the biggest consumer of beef making it hard for them to stop consuming meat. A majority of the Americans are of the opinion that it is not easy to stop consuming meat as it is in most types of food that they consume. From sausages, samosas to                                                                                                    barbeque, it is unheard for Americans not to consume meat which may make it hard for their survival (Sutter 5). The author is supportive of not eating beef as there is a belief that meat is a significant contributor when it comes to climate change. An excellent example of how it is burned.

The author has a strong opinion when it comes to Americans consuming beef. The writer is of the opinion that consumption of meat on a large scale leads to climate change. A good example is given when the author says that there are farmers within America that have kept cows for slaughter. Such amount of meat will get to butcheries, and it will be consumed which means that there is a tendency of the meet leading to climate change within the country. The author holds the opinion that perhaps it’s time the consumption of meat was regulated to save the planet and at the same time make it ideal for the environment to be safe (Arcari 70). The writer, therefore, calls for a proper understanding of how met is consumed within America to save the environment.

In the article, the author is against the consumption of beef because of the problems that are brought to the environment. The author is of the idea and opinion that with a large portion of animals within America, then there is a likelihood of having a country that suffers from greenhouse gas pollution. The writer presents a strong argument when it comes to why animals are not that ideal for a country. This is done when the writer cites a report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), where the reports say that a lot of livestock to a country has the likelihood of leading to greenhouse gas population (Sutter 7). According to the report that has been raised by FAO, 65 per cent of the greenhouse gas pollution is attributed to the fact that there is the raising of dairy cattle and beef animals. This is the proportion that goes to the abattoirs and which is burned down.

The author has utilized rhetorical appeals in his article. One of the appeals that is used by the author is Logos. This is when the author says that there are statistics from FAO that say that too much animal keeping is disastrous to the environment. The author puts more logic when there is support by the percentage that seems to lead to distraction to the environment. When the writer puts the figure at 65 per cent, there is no doubt that there is strong evidence of research that shows how it is bad to keep too many animals in a country as they will lead to global warming which is disastrous to the environment. With the statistics and figures that are given by the writer, no doubt that they may make an individual shy away from rearing too many beef or dairy animals.

Pathos is well utilized within the article as the writer gives an example of a 70-mile meal that he ate. He was not able to finish the meal which he ended up giving away. After calculating what he had consumed, he found out that it was about 29 kilograms equivalent to carbon dioxide gas. The writer with no doubt wants to play with feelings of people. There is a form of humor where it gets to be laughable when it is said that people take food and the carbon iv oxide that they give gets to be harmful to the environment (Arcari 83). Through such an appeal, there is no doubt that there are those that may keep off from eating meat since the effects are disastrous to th                                                                                                e earth. The writer for that reason can keep people from eating and consuming meat.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there is no doubt that the author preaches against the consumption of meat. That is why the author comes out clearly to give information concerning meet and why people should keep off from consuming or rearing animals. A good reason a seen from the article is that rearing of meat leads to 65 per cent of gaseous imitations to the earth. The author also uses appeals to make it difficult for Americans to engage in the consumption of meat. The article has looked logos and pathos which have been addressed. On logos, the author talks of gases that are emitted to the earth which are about 65 per cent. Pathos has also been used, and the writer gives an example of a heavy meal that leads to a lot of CO2 which is harmful to the earth. No doubt that the author wants to get rid of climate change.

Work Cited

Arcari, Paula. “Normalised, human-centric discourses of meat and animals in climate change,

            sustainability and food security literature.” Agriculture and human values 34.1 (2017):

            69-86.