Part One of the Sustainable Choices Series

Imagine a Stage Two heatwave alert hitting your residence, with temperatures soaring between 37 to 40°Celsius for three consecutive days. The air conditioner seemed unable to cool effectively, so I had to take an ice cube from the fridge to cool myself. Imagine!

This phenomenon is El Nino, happening now in our backyard. This phenomenon is not just an imagination for Kedah folks in the Pokok Sena district. METMalaysia stated on 29 February 2024, categorising Pokok Sena, Kedah as having a Stage Two heatwave alert. Several other states and districts in Peninsular Malaysia recorded Stage One (temperatures soaring 35°Celsius to 37°Celsius for 3 consecutive days) heatwave alerts.

Not too long ago, we had a healthy humankind and a healthy planet; humanity is prospering, and the Earth is flourishing with rich biodiversity. Humanity advances in technology, but then the Earth’s flora and fauna are not keeping up with the progress of humankind and slowly diminish as humankind thrives.

Global warming is a familiar phrase or term used to describe the planet getting warmer. As described in an article by Asia Nikkei in 2024, global warming causes wildfires, and wildfires release more carbon dioxide (CO₂₎. Then CO₂ traps more heat in the atmosphere, causing further vicious cycles of warming and wildfires. Can people live a healthier life without our mother nature devastating? The answer is a resounding NO.

Seeing and knowing forests are destroyed, we need to stop this vicious cycle. Can we plant trees to regrow forests? Yes, but there is a catch. Trees For All, an international non-profit organisation for afforestation, explained that it took 40 to 60 years for a forest to grow into adulthood, where forests are considered stable where old trees die off, and new saplings can grow and compete with other adult trees. So, planting trees, or afforestation, takes a long time. How about stopping deforestation? How can an individual stop forest clearing so that Mother Earth can heal?

Please take a minute to consider why reducing 20% of beef consumption and substituting it with plant-based protein can have more than 20% of its equivalent benefit for the environment. Let’s drive this thinking from an agricultural perspective. The beef comes from the ranch; lower beef demand means less pasture expansion, that is given. When the number of cattle is reduced, farmers will require less food. People can, in turn, consume this food. We can also see it from a logistics perspective. More beef means the supermarkets need more refrigeration, which operates round the clock, consuming electricity and emitting greenhouse gases. Some trucks need to ship the beef from the slaughterhouses to the warehouses, then to the marts, and then customers must go out to buy the beef. That means transportation also accounts for the climate impact of beef consumption.

Continue reading in Part Two.