A few days ago, I came across a big, global organisation's post about how to minimise the effect of climate change. One of them is to eat less meat.
This campaign is very relevant because cattle ranch produces much methane, which in a big number is able to risen the earth's temperature significantly. This gas is one of the main component in greenhouse gas/effect.
Sounds good, right? To eat less meat to reduce greenhouse gas to minimise the effect of climate change?
Yes.
Except that it has been practiced in many countries already. Especially in developing countries. It is known that, in these nations, eating any kind of meat is a luxury. The price of beef and poultry is far higher than most people's daily wage. It is practically impossible for them to eat meat everyday. Well, even many of them cannot eat meat for a year round if it is not for their neighbour's charity or a given from a festival/holiday.
In my own country, there are many people like them. The best protein source they can obtain is egg or tofu or tempeh because they are far cheaper than meat. They consume meat only when Qurban holiday comes and it only happens once a year. They don't even buy the meat, the moslem charity does it. Yeah, the holiday which is widely misunderstood mostly by Westerners as cold-blooded-cruel-cattle massacre (which, is not cruel because there is a strict guidelines in how to swiftly end the animal's misery) actually feeds them protein they need.
"But plant-based protein is healthy!"
Yes, but humans do need animal-based protein too. And those people want to eat it. Once. A. Year.
If so, then who eat many meats?
Sorry to say, but it is the people in first world countries.
"But their country doesn't have big ranches!"
They imported it. Have you ever read that a big ranch opening in South America (which, of course, opened a virgin forest thus led to deforestation) is actually producing meat to be distributed to its northern continent? There is a supply and demand, my friend.
It does not stop here. Another campaigns are irrelevant for developing countries too. A saying that each country has to reduce its energy uses, for instance. It looks like that the 3rd world countries waste their energy etc etc. But, the calculation shows that the energy spent per capita is higher in 1st world countries. Let's say, European ones. It means that each person in Europe uses more energy than one person in developing countries. And which nation was it that told to cut their energy uses?
Another example is deforestation. They insist that forest-harbouring countries should stop deforestation at all. I agree with this, but with some points for consideration.
A friend once joked, "They did deforestation far earlier than us in 60s-70s and it pushed their economy to be better until now. Nowadays they forbid us to do it. Is it because they are afraid that we will catch up to their economy?"
Just so we know, many of Europe or Northern America's forest were cut down to open ranches, farms, lumbers, etc decades ago. Yes there are rehabilitation recently (and we have to admit that our own country's rehabilitation is slower anyway). But not all of them are rehabilitated. We may question some really good photos about expansively stretching farms. You know, those ones which is very wide, very uniform, and very instagrammable. Maybe most of them were forest or a natural local ecosystem. Oh, and do not forget that those massive monoculture farming is almost impossible to be organic. It means there are synthetic chemicals involved in massive numbers.
Not all of them, sure. But still, most of it.
I do not approve of deforestation. I do not approve of damaging the earth or nature. To prevent it, we all need to sacrifice some aspects of our convenient life. But it is hardly called a sacrifice if a country do not feel inconvenient and just inconveniencing another nation, is it not?
We developing countries need to grow too. It is impossible to have a hundred percent green economy for all country. There will always be a speck of brown economy. But every country can minimise the brown one depends on their situation. Sustainability is how to sustain best on their own. Every nation's condition is different so the methods will be different too.
These global campaigns are good, actually. They do it for the better earth for us and our descendants. Although, they can localise the action based on the location. For instance, if they are campaigning about less meats, they should add where it should be applicated. This organisation has 'local' ambassador for almost each country. These ambassadors should campaigning things that is relevant to their corresponding nation.
============================
Disclaimer: it is a personal thought and personal notes. Not even an opinion type-of-writing or essay. There is no data because I read/heard it a long time ago and I did not keep record of it.
============================
Tried my hands (and thoughts) writing in English again after a loooong time didn't do it properly. Feels a little bit stiff and it can be seen that my grammar and vocabulary are battered in every paragraph LOL. So ... feel free to correct me if you find wrong grammar or the likes.
============================
Pic credit: https://www.vecteezy.com/photo/2804733-raw-beef-meat-on-cutting-board
Tidak ada komentar: