By: Mehak Kang
Veganism: the new, quirky, craze embraced by part-time quasi-environmentalists, part-time Californian Instagram influencers. The eccentric lifestyle that promotes sustainability to ultimately save humanity from the imminent threat of climate change. But is veganism really going to save us all? Is veganism our holy grail, the North Star that we should have been following all along? Or has our focus been skewed by a semi-recent dietary aesthetic that blinds us from the real perpetrators of climate change? Of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with adopting veganism, but if you are vegan and you insinuate that meat-eaters are the sole perpetrators in the death of our planet, that indirectly protects multimillion dollar industries that have been killing the Earth for decades. According to a study done by Vox, a common misconception is that going vegetarian will cut your carbon footprint in half. On the surface, that sounds great! However, this is extremely deceiving. This statistic only considers our food intake, actually ignoring four-fifths of our total emissions, indicating the effect of cutting out meat products is five times lower than projected. Well, what happens when you make changes beyond food, going for a completely non-animal lifestyle? Emissions cut figures may portray positive effects, but often neglect the “rebound effect”, in which the money saved from going vegan will be spent on other goods, products, and services that actually cause even more greenhouse gas emissions. Essentially, while vegetarians are able to save at least $750 on their food budgets every year in America, the extra spending will produce more carbon dioxide emissions, effectively negating and canceling half the saved carbon emissions. Veganism is often a lifestyle that can be adopted exclusively by middle to upper-class individuals. Because of this elitist luxury, vegan Westerners often consume more amounts of foreign foods, such as mangoes from India, avocados and quinoa from South America, or goji berries from China to maintain their exotic, trendy dietary regimen. Popular foods vegan Westerners consume leave a massive carbon footprint, not from the foods themselves but more by their means of production and shipping. This is not to say veganism and vegetarianism are entirely in vain. Livestock disproportionately takes up valuable farmland and emits dangerous amounts of methane that magnifies the greenhouse effect. However, we shouldn’t be placing the blame for climate change on our individual diets and lifestyles. Living meat-less lives should not take the burden of fixing this massive threat to our planet when we need to hold big companies and corporations accountable. One of the reasons veganism might not be enough to save the planet entirely is the gargantuan oil and emission industry and all their ties to our modern society. According to a report by The Guardian, only 100 companies have been the source of over 70% of Earth’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. After 1988, that number dropped to 25 private corporations. Pressuring meat-eaters to give up their carnivorous tendencies is not going to save the world; it distracts us from the fact that these big corporations are overwhelmingly responsible for climate change. It’s time to stop thinking a fashionable lifestyle that’s only affordable to the elite is the hero we need to combat climate change, because that thought process is, by and large, misleading and ignorant. While veganism won’t save the planet alone, it’s time we start focusing less on what others are not doing, and more on actively pursuing the changes and working together as we continue to fight for mother Earth. Sources: https://www.vox.com/2014/7/2/5865109/study-going-vegetarian-could-cut-your-food-carbon-footprint-in-half https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912418300361 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/feb/22/rebound-effect-climate-change https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/10/18/veganism-wont-save-the-planet/ https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
0 Comments
By Mehak Kang As springtime rolls around, bringing its customary blooms, it is always accompanied by its unwelcome counterpart: allergy season. But what the fifty million Americans that suffer from allergies don’t know, is that allergies aren’t just an annual annoyance. They have been accidentally exacerbated by years of botanical sexism by humans [1]. Plant biology is not a simple binary of female and male. Some plant species are dioecious, meaning “each plant is distinctly female or male,” whereas others are monoecious, meaning “they have male and female flowers on the same plant[2].” Examples of dioecious plants are cedars, mulberry, and ash trees and examples of monoecious plants are birch, hazelnut, and oak trees. According to Tom Ogren, who coined the term “botanical sexism,” our pollen allergies are primarily due to the male dioecious trees [3]. In the 1950s, the USDA Yearbook of Agriculture, which was a “reference tool that [offered] information about U.S. Agriculture”, advised its readers to plant only “male trees… to avoid nuisance from the seed [3, 4].” The thought behind this was that female trees aren’t “litter free” because they produce fruit and large seed pods that would need to be cleaned from the streets. Male trees, on the other hand, only produce pollen which would be dispersed by wind and wouldn’t require human intervention to tidy up [2]. Not long after the yearbook’s publication, the USDA manufactured and introduced one hundred male maple hybrids into the market. Through methods of cutting, grafting, and budding, it was straightforward to create clones of trees, ensuring they would all be males. In no time at all, commercial growers produced a plethora of all-male “shrubs, junipers, yew pines, fern pines, wax myrtles, alpine currants, plum yews, yews and more[3].” But along with the pretty sight of an all-male hanging begonia basket came an increased amount of pollen due to the male gametophyte of pollen grains [3]. Figure 1. A yellow hanging begonia basket. Source: Flickr, Mike Sutton In addition to the USDA’s urging, an increased demand for new trees to line the streets of America came in the 1980s after the Dutch elm disease wiped out millions of city trees [3]. And what better replacement than the “litter free” clonal males? However, with these new genetically modified trees, came an “epidemic of allergy and asthma” within cities, as the larger the trees grew, the more pollen they shed [3]. This is because an allergic reaction is only triggered when one is exposed to a large amount of the allergen; “they are initiated by an overdose” of allergen [2]. Small amounts of allergens are needed so that the body can build immunity, however persistent overexposure to the allergen results in an allergic response. The use of clonal male plants in urban landscaping efforts has unintentionally resulted in increased exposure to elevated urban pollen levels, and therefore the accompanying increase in allergies and asthma.
While some may argue that large trees are crucial in cities because they help clean the air by removing toxic pollutants, it is essential to realize that these pollutants and toxins only get recycled back into the air through the pollen of clonal males.With harmful pollutants circulating in the air, children tend to be especially at risk as schools and playgrounds tend to have the greatest quantity of allergenic trees. Additionally, the planting of male clonal trees is not only botanically sexist, but it also puts women who have airborne allergies at higher risk of developing leukemia, ovarian cancer, and breast cancer compared to their male counterparts [5]. However, it should be emphasized that the term “botanical sexism” isn’t a biological one because “ascribing a real-life human problem to the botanical world might seem like we’re trivializing what humans, particularly women, face [2].” With the American allergy problem only worsening, it is imperative to stop the sale of clonal males and the planting of allergenic trees in urban landscapes. Instead, it would behoove us to plant female trees which serve to actively remove pollen from the air, converting the harmful allergen into seeds. If efforts were made to plant more female trees than males, there wouldn’t be a tremendous amount of littering due to overripe fruit or seed pods because females need male pollen to be fertilized and produce fruit [6]. By reducing dependency on clonal males in urban landscaping, we might all be able to breathe better one day. Cited From: http://thatslifesci.com/2020-5-25-how-botanical-sexism-is-making-your-allergies-worse-mkang/ References [1] “Allergy Facts.” ACAAI Public Website, 9 Jan. 2018, acaai.org/news/facts-statistics/allergies. [2] Imbler, Sabrina. “America’s Love of Male Trees Could Be Why You’re Sneezing Right Now.” Atlas Obscura, Atlas Obscura, 6 Jan. 2020, www.atlasobscura.com/articles/seasonal-allergies-blame-male-trees. [3] Ogren, Thomas Leo. “Botanical Sexism Cultivates Home-Grown Allergies.” Scientific American Blog Network, Scientific American, 29 Apr. 2015, blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/botanical-sexism-cultivates-home-grown-allergies/. [4] The Victory Seed Company - www.victoryseeds.com. Welcome to the Victory Horticultural Library - A Portal for Historical Research, www.saveseeds.org/library/holdings/yoa.html. [5] Osterweil, Neil. “Allergies and Hematologic Cancer Risk: Is There a Link?” Medscape, 27 Nov. 2013, www.medscape.com/viewarticle/815109. [6] Henry, Heather. “Importance of the Allergy Friendly Landscape: The Plantium.” The Plantium- Find. Organize. Evaluate., 11 July 2017, theplantium.com/2017/06/14/allergy-friendly-landscape/. One of our very own members Waverly Lau, an audio editor for the podcast, recently finished her senior year at UMass Amherst and published her final project. Her project, Marsh The Tides, details why marshes are important for our ecosystems, sheds light on their function, and highlights the effects of human impact and intervention on marsh health. |
|