The article written by Shields and Orme-Evans focuses on the relevant problem of climate change from the aspect of greenhouse emissions from farm animals and their contribution to global warming. In order to resolve the ecological disaster, the experts proposed several mitigation strategies targeted at changes in agricultural practices. The study conducted by Shields and Orme-Evans reviews several proposed mitigation strategies and explains the potential consequences of their implementation on farming animals’ welfare. The study provides significant insights from professional knowledge in animal advocacy as both authors work in the Farm Animals Department of Humane Society International (HSI). The department specializes in advocacy for improving farming systems to reduce farm animal suffering. Thus, the article is written from the standpoint of animal protection, emphasizing the importance of understanding the implications of mitigation strategies on farming animals’ welfare. The authors defined that several mitigation strategies can be separated into different categories focusing on feed changes, genetic selection, biotechnology application in growth promotion, and species shift. However, they suggested that most mitigation strategies dismiss the negative consequences the implementation can have on animal welfare and the environment. The authors determined that in order to ensure the positive influence of mitigation strategies on animal welfare, the strategies should follow environmental protection policies. Thus, even though the article was published a relatively long time ago, it focuses on the relevant problem of global warming, which still has no solution. Furthermore, the article provides a valuable explanation of proposed mitigation strategies intelligibly with the credibility of professional expertise. The study was founded on extensive literature research about available mitigation strategies and the authors’ review of proposed strategies with the purpose of defining one that will also improve farming animals’ welfare.
The article features one prominent idea which can successfully be integrated into the final essay. The authors defined that most mitigation strategies focus on production-side measures, while the demand-side approach can offer more benefits (Shields and Omre-Evans 379). Changes sourced in people’s initiatives can potentially improve animal welfare and reduce greenhouse emissions. Throughout the course of history, society made a significant contribution to developments and improvements in agricultural practices by rejecting the worst practices. Furthermore, the introduction of the concept of social responsibility for businesses vastly influenced farming animals’ welfare. Multinational companies are becoming more aware of relevant ecological problems and farming animal suffering and contribute to the problem solving by demanding the use of improved farming equipment from suppliers. The idea of developing a mitigation strategy focused on the demand-side approach illustrates the complex connection between problems of global warming, animal welfare, greenhouse emissions, and mass production and consumption of animal-based food. Therefore, while the article defined that mitigation strategies should be developed in accordance with environmental protection policies, the authors also acknowledged the untapped potential of the demand-side approach to the problem. Furthermore, in order to ensure high efficiency of the strategy’s implementation, the climate change mitigation strategies can present a combination of legislative and voluntary policies for businesses and consumers. While most mitigation strategies prioritize production side changes, no strategies target the combination of production-side and demand-side approaches. In the final essay, I plan to use the concepts of production-side and demand-side approaches to demonstrate an example of a comprehensive mitigation strategy that acknowledges the impact of changes on animal welfare.
Work Cited
Shields, Sara, and Geoffrey Orme-Evans. “The Impacts of Climate Change Mitigation Strategies on Animal Welfare.” Animals, vol. 5, no. 2, 2015, pp. 361-394.