Stakeholders on Meat Production, Meat Consumption and Mitigation of Climate Change: Sweden as a Case [Book Review]
Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (3):663-678 (2013)
|Abstract||In this paper we analyse and discuss the views of Swedish stakeholders on how to mitigate climate change to the extent it is caused by meat production. The stakeholders include meat producer organisations, governmental agencies with direct influence on meat production, political parties as well as non-governmental organisations. Representatives of twelve organisations were interviewed. Several organisations argued against the mitigation option of reducing beef production despite the higher greenhouse gas intensity of beef compared to pork and chicken meat (according to life cycle analysis). Regarding feed production some organisations proposed use of the best available industrial fertilizers, others were against all use of such fertilizers. Several organizations suggested domestic production of more protein-rich fodder and use of manure for biogas production. Regarding meat consumption the focus was on throwing away less food as waste and on eating less meat but the best (most climate friendly) meat, which was considered to be Swedish meat in contrast to imported meat. There was agreement on many issues. Most disagreement was found regarding political steering. We find many of the stakeholders’ mitigation proposals regarding meat production and consumption acceptable. However, we are to some extent critical to their defence of Swedish beef production. We also point out certain problems with the suggestion to reduce consumption of imported meat but not of domestically produced meat|
|Keywords||Climate change Mitigation Meat production Meat consumption Stakeholders Sweden|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Anders Nordgren (2012). Ethical Issues in Mitigation of Climate Change: The Option of Reduced Meat Production and Consumption. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (4):563-584.
William O. Stephens (1994). Five Arguments for Vegetarianism. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 1 (4):25-39.
William Stephens, Home | Archives | Announcements | About the Journal | Submission Information | Contact Us.
Sibyl Anwander Phan-Huy & Ruth Badertscher Fawaz (2003). Swiss Market for Meat From Animal-Friendly Production – Responses of Public and Private Actors in Switzerland. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 (2):119-136.
Evelyn B. Pluhar (2010). Meat and Morality: Alternatives to Factory Farming. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (5):455-468.
Erik de Bakker & Hans Dagevos (2012). Reducing Meat Consumption in Today's Consumer Society: Questioning the Citizen-Consumer Gap. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (6):877-894.
Patrick D. Hopkins & Austin Dacey (2008). Vegetarian Meat: Could Technology Save Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (6):579-596.
Richard Hanley (2004). A Modest Proposal. Public Affairs Quarterly 18.
Wim A. J. Verbeke & Jacques Viaene (2000). Ethical Challenges for Livestock Production:Meeting Consumer Concerns About Meat Safety and Animalwelfare. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12 (2):141-151.
Richard Twine (2010). Animals as Biotechnology: Ethics, Sustainability, and Critical Animal Studies. Earthscan.
Christopher Michaelson (2011). Morally Differentiating Responsibility for Climate Change Mitigation. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 30 (1-2):113-136.
Erin McKenna (1996). Women, Power, and Meat: Comparing the Sexual Contract and the Sexual Politics of Meat. Journal of Social Philosophy 27 (1):47-64.
Sarah McGrath (2009). The Puzzle of Pure Moral Deference1. Philosophical Perspectives 23 (1):321-344.
Added to index2012-08-12
Total downloads4 ( #188,971 of 722,937 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,937 )
How can I increase my downloads?