Eating vegan is better for the enviorment than omnivoire.

First, some clarificationsI think I should start off by saying what I am arguing against. According to Merriam-Webster, vegan is defined as: a person who does not eat any food that comes from animals and who often also does not use animal products (such as leather).So pro has the burden of proof to prove that not eating meat at all, or even using any animal products for any means is inherently better for the environment. And since he did not say who specifically is eating vegan, I will also argue that it isn't for entire communities everywhere, but for specific people. I will also include myself in that category.My thesis says it is neither better nor worse, depending on how you handle the process of growing the food. While bad farming practices can lead to damaging environmental side effects; a person can be concious of that enough to choose to eat meat in a way that is good for the environment, and not damaging at all.Some rebuttals:Cows are ruining our forest coverPro has stated that deforestation is a problem inherent to meat supplies. While this can be true, it isn't necessarily a thing that can't be handled. The problem with deforestation is not planting enough trees to replace them in time. In fact, most of the heavily forested are making a comeback[1][2]. Places with plenty of agriculture like the United States have now have much more forest area by acerage than we had even a decade ago[3]. This is attributed to the much slow on the rate of deforestation of rain forest considerably, as well as the planting of huge swaths of forest due to conservation efforts[1]. This rapid growth of the forests, tied with really bad forest planning has actually contributed a lot to the forest fire concerns[4].Since many nations who happened to have big increased in cattle have also had big increases in forestation in the same nation, I don't think deforestation is necessarily a problem that cannot be planned around and avoided all together... And thus the oxygen supply is safe.Grain stores for cowsPro made bad comparison to grain enough to feed 9 billion people. The number isn't relevant if it can be done sustainably, and it wasn't linked to an actual finite number of how much we can support.But I want to go beyond just that. Can 9 million people really live off that grain alone? The problem with the comparison is that to live the vegan lifestyle, grain would not give you near enough protein, etc for that. You need a wide variety of fruits and vegetables to get the nutrients you need to live off of. So no, 9 billion people could not live off that. It could certainly help give 9 billion people a staple meal in the world, but they would still be malnourished.Water SuppliesPro has also stated we cannot support the plants we need to also support a meat industry. This is under the faulty assumption we can't fix our water issue seperately. For instance, Israel, someone who exports massive amounts of produce to places like europe and Russia[5], gets a huge amount of water from the mediterranean, and is a pioneer in desalination plants [6]. They use drip methods to give just the right amount of water to their farm plants, without being wasteful[7].If the proper motivation and funding went into forging sustainable water supplies for the world, we have so much water in the world where we can more than sustain everyone many times over. This is a case of mismanagement and going full steam ahead, but not something that cannot be addressed for the population who may want to eat meat, and have enough water supplies in the future.Cattle/Grain EffiencyThis is an irrelevant thing to add to the discussion when we have clear up the idea of space (more on that later), and water. Because then it just doesn't matter as much. When you address those sustainably, you can then sustainably increase it to whatever levels you want to feed your cattle sustainably...Running out of Fish/Fish FarmingAgain, it isn't a problem when you make a sustainable system. Have you heard of aquaponics? A fish/plant/water system where they all sort of symbiotically benefit eachother, in a closed, perfectaly self-sustaining loop[8]. Now I know full well not all fish can handle that kind of diet, but many can. So if you switch to eating fish of that sort, that still isn't eating vegan. Overhunting has wiped out and driven many land species to the endangered list, or extinction. Same with overfishing. But sustainable practices and laws put in place to protect them - and many of them rebounding to the point where they were taken off the endangered species list and protection of it. This is about smart fishing practices, better practices for growing them in sustainable ways. That doesn't mean not eating them all together. Or never fishng. Just stop shooting the environment past a point where it is unsustainable, or where you are putting enough into it to become more than sustainable (ex: reforestation).Arguments For Con:Killings of Some Animals to Help Environment:We have hunted the natural enemies of the deer in North America to critical levels, and in many cases to extinction (varietes of wolf that used to exist in the eastern US, where no wolfs are anymore) have caused the deer population to explode. Like, past sustainable levels explosion, without enemies hunting them; even outside the US[9][10].It used to be offset by human hunting, but now not as many people are hunting anymore. Deer already kill more humans than any other animal in the US. In many places it has gotten waaay to far out of hand. Cities are turning to hunters[9][10] to get rid of them.This puts food on the table, and helps the environment.Food production systems that incorporate symbiotic meat production (like chickens)There are several ways to to this, like the aquoponics earlier. But a really good one is how what I would like to call the 'adam and eve' system they demonstrate in the documentary Dirt[10], where people set up a set of legumes over the years, that eventually became a managed forest. For every problem that occurs, they simply introduce something else to the enviroment that naturally offsets it. And one of the things they even demonstrated was the introduction to the system that gave certain edible vegetables/fruits at various times of the year with little management things like chickens. They ate off stuff in the enviroment, and helped the plants grow. In turn, more of them also means more chickens/eggs to eat.So again, sustainable practices - that can go beyond veganism.Lifestyle choices of the Single ConsumerA person can only choose to eat meat from farms they know they can trust, visit themselves to make sure they are doing things the right way. As someone who grew up in part on them, and been around plenty of them - I know they can be done well. I hve never been on a factory farm, so the stories I keep hearing still sound strange to my ears. There are good ones a person can choose to eat from that are not bad for the environment at all. It all depends on location, who, what, why?In conclusion:Veganism is a drastic and unnecessary chagnge, and not inherently better for the environment by itself.Sources:[1]http://www.theglobeandmail.com...[2]https://www.currentresults.com...[3]http://www.tradingeconomics.com...[4]http://ww2.kqed.org...[5]http://agro.mashovgroup.net...[6]https://www.technologyreview.com...[7]http://www.timesofisrael.com...[8]http://www.theaquaponicsource.com...[9]http://www.japantimes.co.jp...