Definition Argument- notcilantro

Global demand

As demand for meat increases on a global scale, the environment suffers the consequences. The products in agriculture increases when demand is high but when it’s not, production still continues and causes damage to the market. It all started when the need of ending poverty arised and the economy decided that the demand for meat was greater and cheaper to produce than crops. The overproduction of meat releases toxic chemicals like methane and carbon oxide. These chemicals are harmful and effect global warming. Economic success in the rising of social classes increase the demand of meat to end poverty causes ecological disasters.

In 2016, the pork demand in China was a driving force for the global production to feed lower social classes. The “ global demand” made Chinese hog farmers earn record breaking profits due to the rise of prices the consumer would pay. As this need for meat rises the social classes increase therefore decreasing poverty yet the high price makes it harder for lower classes to buy. Due to this demand, it causes ecological disasters but little efforts are made to decrease overproduction because it’s all about the economic success. The writer Austin Alonzo said “in the long run animal agriculture, and the pork industry, will shine due to the growing global population and rising middle class.” (Alonzo 2016) This further examines how animal agriculture will continue to exist as the global population increases and the market produces profits for farmers.

Yet if expansion increases at an exponential rate then farmers must adjust prices to meet demand. This problem can cause the market to crash and meat will no longer be viewed as a “rich only” product. When a person’s income is greater than others then their able to afford meat while others don’t have the necessary income to afford it, making meat more rarer to get. Not really rare, since social classes are becoming richer and richer as the economy grows. The concept of global demand is viewed differently from the market and consumer point of view. The market adjusts it’s value and consumers create the demand. As the pork industry increases the price of corn is decreasing. Depending on the market and demand the production in crop and agriculture needs. The production necessary for livestock is greater than what the crop yield can feed the poor. Resources are not being assigned correctly and all the crops goes into animal agriculture, leading an overproduction and waste.

In the World Bank article, the consumer and the market are evaluated. For example, if a farmer loses some of their livestock then they are forced into selling whatever they have at a low price due to the low economy, just to survive that day. That will affect them in the long run when the profits they could’ve had were made from their thriving livestock production and now will remain poor. Making poverty harder to come out of if the market delinces. As interventions to end poverty and help climate change arises the economy will stabilize.

Due to the climate change caused by the production in animal production, the lower social classes suffer the most. They have limited resources and can’t adapt if the economy declines or a ecological disaster occurs. It’s counterintuitive that the helping the poor and the rise of social classes causes ecological problems as well as the economy causes the original problem in a never ending cycle, making all the efforts to end poverty just increases the numbers and causes pollution. New climate policies are being formed to help reduce emissions and help the poor to climb up the social ladder. “When British Columbia created its carbon tax, it used the revenue to lower income and business taxes and to create a low-income climate action tax credit that provides quarterly support to the poor to help with energy costs.” (World Bank 2015) This carbon pricing used the revenue to stream money to help energy costs to help the poor and decrease greenhouse emissions. With some countries, like Indonesia, creating subsidy reforms it changes the increase of energy prices with aid for healthcare and cash for low-income households and students. Creating these “social safety nets” it will prevent the poor into falling even further in the social class ladder. Animal agriculture will should have a net zero to lower emissions caused by the overproduction of the global demand.

References

Alonzo, Austin. “China Hogs World’s Pig Market in 2016.” WATTAgNet, WATTAgNet, 24 June 2016, http://www.wattagnet.com/articles/27386-china-hogs-worlds-pig-market-in-2016

“Climate Change Complicates Efforts to End Poverty.” World Bank, 6 Feb. 2015, http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/02/06/climate-change-complicates-efforts-end-poverty

2 thoughts on “Definition Argument- notcilantro”

  1. I’m having a hard time understanding a lot of your sentences, NotC. I’ll try to ignore much of that difficulty and focus instead on the strength of your arguments, but if your writing style truly reflects difficulty making coherent English sentences, we’ll have to address that shortcoming eventually. The first step might be to simplify your sentence structure.

    I’m going ahead to do feedback for today’s Causal arguments, so I may not get back here soon, but I wanted to acknowledge that I’m looking at your work.

    One thing that seems obvious to me already is that most of the claims you’re making here in your Definition argument are Causal claims. All your observations about the effects of agriculture on the environment, and those about the effects on the economy of a rising middle class, would be completely at home in your Causal Argument.

    Not to despair. All claims are good, and the separation into shorter arguments is somewhat artificial. Still, you’re probably missing opportunities to make categorical arguments that would be more at home in this essay.

    Like

  2. There’s a lot of causal language in your argument here, NC, but most times your reader can’t tell what’s causing what. In your first paragraph you seem to be saying, quite understandably, that meat production is very costly to the environment, and that economic success somehow drives that engine, but the rest is pretty murky. Why production continues without demand is unclear, who decided poverty “needed to end,” is uncertain, and how in the world anybody figured meat was cheaper to produce than any other crop is a complete mystery. We could work together to clarify your claims first before putting them together into paragraphs if you like. I think it would help.

    Your second paragraph begins with a similar problem.

    In 2016, the pork demand in China was a driving force for the global production to feed lower social classes. The “ global demand” made Chinese hog farmers earn record breaking profits due to the rise of prices the consumer would pay. As this need for meat rises the social classes increase therefore decreasing poverty yet the high price makes it harder for lower classes to buy. Due to this demand, it causes ecological disasters but little efforts are made to decrease overproduction because it’s all about the economic success.

    Let’s unpack those claims sentence by sentence.

    In 2016, the pork demand in China was a driving force for the global production to feed lower social classes.

    I think your research has indicated so far that the movement of a large part of the Chinese population OUT OF THE LOWER SOCIAL CLASSES has been driving the demand for pork as more of the formerly poor want and can afford to have meat in their meals. Your sentence here puts the demand in the “lower social classes,” which confuses the case.

    The “global demand” made Chinese hog farmers earn record breaking profits due to the rise of prices the consumer would pay.

    There’s been an increase in global demand, it’s true, but most of that increase comes from the new Chinese middle class, so it’s odd to look outside China for the increase as “global demand” asks your readers to do.

    As this need for meat rises the social classes increase therefore decreasing poverty yet the high price makes it harder for lower classes to buy.

    This gets the emphasis backwards, NC. You mean as the social classes shift and more people achieve middle-class status, the demand for meat rises. We need to get that straight before adding an additional argument (rising pork prices push poor people out of the pork market) that doesn’t serve our primary purposes here. Our emphasis in this paragraph should be on “more demand” and “rising prices.”

    Due to this demand, it causes ecological disasters but little efforts are made to decrease overproduction because it’s all about the economic success.

    Here you’re back on solid footing. Higher demand puts great strain on the ecology for reasons you haven’t clearly specified yet, but yes, it’s disastrous.

    It’s for YOU to demand a reduction in livestock production, NC. Make that YOUR territory instead of remarking that nobody seems to be doing it. You’re right. As long as the demand is there, and as long as pork producers are making good money filling the demand, nobody has much interest in slowing down that economic engine.

    That was pretty dense critique, NC. I hope you were following it with some comfort and that it was helpful. If one-on-one makes more sense to you, I’d be happy to spend some time helping you craft some smooth model paragraphs that follow a logical chain.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s