The beginning of fall in 2018 saw one of the most powerful hurricanes in recent years, Florence, charge towards the Carolinas. At its peak, it was measured to be a Category 4 hurricane, exhibiting 140 mph winds during its most powerful state. By the time the storm reached the coastline of the United States, Florence had downgraded to a Category 1 but still caused destruction in North and South Carolina.

One of the most under-covered aspects of Hurricane Florence is the storm's environmental impact. As the wettest storm to ever hit the Carolinas, coverage on the subsequent flooding has not been ignored. Moving at a sluggish velocity of 2-3 mph, it dumped heavy rains and caused extensive flooding, which caused damage to property and hindered travel on I-95 and I-40. However, one thing that has been ignored by most mainstream outlets is the aftermath of the flooding, especially concerning animal agriculture in the Carolinas.

North Carolina is the second-largest producer of pig meat in the United States. In Duplin County alone, there are 45 hogs per person - the same county where two people died of flash flooding during Hurricane Florence. Additionally, North Carolina is also second in turkey production and is the third-largest poultry producer. All of this animal agriculture results in the production of 10 billion pounds of wet animal waste annually, which is oft disposed of via anaerobic lagoons. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, these lagoons are lined with clay to prevent ground leakage and provide an environment for microbes to break down sludge and waste for eventual use as fertilizer. They are usually about 6 meters deep and are a cost-efficient way to deal with animal waste. However, lagoons' effectiveness as an animal waste management method is only so efficient.

Following the onslaught of Hurricane Florence, concerns over the flooding have largely ignored the lagoons containing animal wastes, despite floodwaters "inundating or overtopping" manure pools in 22 areas. So far, utility companies in North Carolina have issued warnings to over 600,000 people to boil their water before consumption.

This instance is just one example of the external costs of animal agriculture. While it is a good idea to manage waste by turning it into fertilizer, heavy rain caused by storms like Florence can, at best, cause runoff to flow from farmlands and, at worst, contaminate vital drinking water for countless people.

In economics, there exists a principle of "negative externalities," or the concept that the production and purchase of a good can lead to negative impacts on others. Unfortunately, a lot of these unintended consequences of production are usually at the expense of the environment, which most people don't think about - until it becomes a problem. The meat industry has a lot of negative externalities that consumers don't usually think about day-to-day, such as methane production, bad odors, and in this case, lots and lots of poop. The true cost of meat production isn't fully reflected in the price tag at the supermarket; there are all sorts of environmental costs involved. Just because our society hasn't figured out a way to numerically account for damage to the earth doesn't mean that those costs don't exist and that they won't continue to affect everyone when emergencies arise in the future.

More than ever, people need to become more conscientious of their buying habits. One of the most effective (and easiest) ways to promote the welfare of the environment is to be actively involved in seeking alternatives for products that are partly responsible for the deterioration of the Earth. By incentivizing producers to create more meat and animal product alternatives, people can create a more sustainable world by voting with their most powerful tool - their wallets.

Reducing the supply of animals produced for meat would ultimately result in less waste and less of a chance that contamination the likes of what happened after Florence could occur again. The amount of substitutes for meat that are available has rapidly expanded over the years - if I am able to choose one over the other, why would I mindlessly choose the less sustainable option when better alternatives exist? By becoming more mindful of our power as consumers and taking action, people can take the world by storm, but for the better.