August 29, 2007
Omnivores: More Dangerous Than SUVsEnvironment
As someone who tries earnestly to be a better citizen of the planet (car-sharing, cloth grocery bags, no printing stuff unless it’s required, turning off faucet when brushing teeth/sudsing hands, obsessive recycling, impressive amounts of reusing, not so good on the “reducing”…sorry), I tend to fume at SUV-drivers and not bat an eyelash at my carnivorous and omnivorous peers, even though I am well aware of all the statistics which Esprit, Sting and other organizations drilled in to me in the 90s regarding how many acres or gallons of water beef requires blah blah blah.
Well, apparently I can’t give H3s dirty looks any more.
Via The New York Times:
EVER since “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore has been the darling of environmentalists, but that movie hardly endeared him to the animal rights folks. According to them, the most inconvenient truth of all is that raising animals for meat contributes more to global warming than all the sport utility vehicles combined.
The biggest animal rights groups do not always overlap in their missions, but now they have coalesced around a message that eating meat is worse for the environment than driving. They and smaller groups have started advertising campaigns that try to equate vegetarianism with curbing greenhouse gases.
Oy, I don’t see this going over well with the public at all. Amurricans love their flesh. They like to eat meat, too.
Some backlash against this position is inevitable, the groups acknowledge, but they do have scientific ammunition. In late November, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report stating that the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.
That sound you heard was my mind being blown. I knew raising animals was less than ideal, I never realized that it was worse than driving, let alone all types of transportation combined! SWEET. I can go back to having naughty dreams about the Veyron, sans shame or guilt. Anyone know how to type that sound Homer makes when he’s contemplating donuts or other yummy things? Because I’m totally doing that right now.
When that report came out, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and other groups expected their environmental counterparts to immediately hop on the “Go Veggie!” bandwagon, but that did not happen. “Environmentalists are still pointing their fingers at Hummers and S.U.V.’s when they should be pointing at the dinner plate,” said Matt A. Prescott, manager of vegan campaigns for PETA.
In a move which makes me feel confused and anxious, PETA has decided to drum up awareness by plastering a banner festooned with this new, urgent, “Meat is (Earth’s) Murder”-message on a Hummer, which will tool around my town, complete with a chicken in the cockpit. Well, it’s a driver in a chicken suit who will be in the cockpit, and not an actual specimen of poultry, but what I want to know is, why not a Rooster suit? Why don’t men get any respect?
“You just cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist,” said Mr. Prescott, whose group also plans to send billboard-toting trucks to the Colorado Convention Center in Denver when Mr. Gore lectures there on Oct. 2. The billboards will feature a cartoon image of Mr. Gore eating a drumstick next to the tagline: “Too Chicken to Go Vegetarian? Meat Is the No. 1 Cause of Global Warming.”
The Humane Society is also on board, since it worries about polar bears as well as puppies:
On its Web page and in its literature, the Humane Society has also been highlighting other scientific studies — notably, one that recently came out of the University of Chicago — that, in essence, show that “switching to a plant-based diet does more to curb global warming than switching from an S.U.V. to a Camry,” said Paul Shapiro, senior director of the factory farming campaign for the Humane Society…“Our mission is to protect animals, and global warming has become an animal welfare issue,” he said.
And switching from a Camry to a MINI will do more to curb boredom. Bow down before the mighty Cooper S, I say!
Let’s hear from a spokesperson for Gore:
Chris Song, his deputy press secretary, simply noted that a suggestion to “modify your diet to include less meat” appears on Page 317 of Mr. Gore’s book version of “An Inconvenient Truth.”
He did not address Mr. Gore’s personal food choices.
An activist quoted in the article rightly mentions that “it’s a lot easier to ask people to put in a fluorescent light bulb than to learn to cook with tofu”, and to that I say, uh…yeah. Tofu scares the Madagascar out of the picky and unadventurous (read: me). It IS easier to swap a bulb for a more energy-efficient one, take metro instead of a car or use one of the handy cloth bags which are now all over Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s, for groceries.
Aside: those of you who scored this are on my “I’m so jealous”-list. I will console myself by marinating in haterade, since the bags aren’t made of anything organic, weren’t fair trade and obviously used icky, poo-ey airline miles to get to us from China. Ha! You may have the bag, but I have my obnoxious, envy-tinged righteousness. ;)
Off-aside: food is very personal, and I’m not sure how successful these efforts will be, but I don’t think there’s any harm in educating people about the impact our diets have on our bodies and on the world.
anna on August 29, 2007 03:45 PM in Environment · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
[sticks fingers in ears] LALALALALA[/sticks fingers in ears]
I've even read John Robbins and Peter Singer and Michael Pollan and Vandana Shiva and Anuradha Mittal and the Lappes, so I have no excuse...but to paraphrase Homer, if God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them taste so good?
What about those tofu-farms? They create plenty of methane!
The article doesn't state exactly HOW raising livestock contributes to global warming. Is it the transportation industry? In which case, purchasing anything contributes to global warning. Distributing tofu by tractor-trailer also impacts the environment. It's also a favorite right-wing meme that pig farts (livestock-generated methane) generate more greenhouse gases than other industries. And the NYTimes article is filed under the heading "Media & Advertising," so it's about how animal-rights groups are attempting to promote the notion that eating meat is bad for the environment. It's not really a news item, but a story about spin. Don't chuck that cheeseburger just yet.
Apparently flatulent moose are worse than SUVs...
The fact that meat causes a negative effect on the environment stems from the assumption that eating meat is bad/undesirable/wrong. By the same logic, how much water goes into producing grain? vegetables? etc. A man/woman's gotta eat right?
I am still not clear on the mechanism of the increase in greenhouse gases? Refrigeration? Then what about our frozen veggies?
Hey! My ironic formatting got lost...That was supposed to read [sticks fingers in ears] lalalalala [/sticks fingers in ears] What happened to my faux html?
You used real brackets. :) Fixed.
PETA, as usual, is being reductionist. Three points:
1. It is not meat consumption per se that is damaging to the environment. It is how the meat is raised and the costs of production, etc.
2. Most food production in the U.S., veggies included, is not necessarily good for the environment, either. Tons of waste comes from transport, including the transport of veggies. [NYT]
3. From a land-use perspective, we have huge swathes of arid land being irrigated (e.g. the San Fernando Valley), and a large amount of waste also comes from non-indigenous "locally grown produce" raised in usually inhospitable land.
I'd also be curious to see how much damage our (U.S.) ag subsidies do environmentally.
You're wrong about "the assumption." The assumption that "eating meat is wrong" is not necessary to arrive at the conclusion that meat causes a negative effect on the environment, although it would probably me more accurate to say that factory farming causes more damage than it's worth. Everything involves a trade-off, a balancing of the costs vs. the benefits. If we define our "selves" as a small part of a larger whole, the cost/benefit ratio favors veganism.
We check our assumptions at the door and still dispassionately arrive at the conclusion that meat production requires more water than grain production, as meat is a secondary product that requires large inputs of grain. Instead of wasting grain on the cow, people could eat the grain and the grain and water would go much farther.
Factory farming is gross and wrong (says the hypocritical omnivore who doesn't usually have much use for dualistic morality.) Wrong. And gross.
thanks, ANNA - yet another reason for me to feel guilty about eating meat :( but as camille suggested, since farming methods are likely at fault, do non-conventional methods - e.g. organic - satisfy this environmental shortcoming?
on another note, what about human-emitted methane that results from eating certain staples in a vegeterian diet - does that not offset to some extent :)
i don't see how this is so if they're just looking at bare statistics re greenhouse gas emissions, unless those numbers are skewed in some way motivated by a bias against meat-eating.Harbeer, that analysis, however, totally ignores the other environmentally detrimental impacts of non-meat food production. I'm not trying to be an instigator, I just think PETA in particular glosses over the environmental negatives of veganism/vegetarianism in favor of a "eating meat is morally repugnant." The environment is popular right now, so framing it as an environmental issue is repugnant. I think there are completely valid moral, ethical, etc., reasons for people to choose veganism/vegetarianism, but it's not wholly accurate to say that they are environmentally less destructive than meat production. One of the most environmentally friendly ways to get your food would be to only eat plants and animals that grow indigenously in your area... which kind of puts us back to the hunter/gatherer diet. A lot of people live in areas that, without the advent of technology, would normally be totally inhospitable to large human settlements, and yet we do it anyway.
As a vegetarian who promotes vegetarianism through discourse, I'm not so sure that I would draw the conclusion that meat-eating promotes global warming. Meat eating certainly causes waste of more energy, but its effect on global warming is not quantifiable, since global warming itself may be a bit of a myth.
Just today, the WSJ reported that NASA tried to fudge data to hide the fact that the warmest recent years were in the 1930's, and not in the 1990's as Gore's convinient lie states.
M. Nam
Sorry my last post was unclear. I think PETA is trying to frame this as an environmental issue couched in their standard "meat is immoral" argument. And, by extension, because environmentalism is becoming a sexier topic, they're trying to broaden the appeal of their campaign. Sorry if that came out disjointed or confusing.
Does it matter that it's not just PETA? I respect the Humane Society, though I'm sure one of you will read this comment and immediately post a link which will convince me why I shouldn't. From the same NYT article:
And what about the bolded part?
>>that U.N. report is an impartial, unimpeachable source of statements...
If it's a U.N. report, it must be partial and impeachable.
M. Nam
I don't mean to come off as dismissive just because PETA is one of the organizations promoting this finding. I'm not surprised by the argument, and in general I think meat production, specifically in the U.S., is detrimental from a health and environmental standpoint. I just wanted to acknowledge that "regular" agrarian production can be super harmful, also, especially if you take the U.S. food system in isolation. ANNA, do you know if this is the report NYT is citing? Or is it this one?
I think one can come to a similar global warming conclusion for a plant/vegetarian diet, if one went ahead and tried to study it from that perspective (as in energy/resources required to grow plants and Camille gave some good examples). Give me ethics and morals about eating animals, but this kind of article which does not even explain how that conclusion was reached does nothing for me.
Actually, as I understand it, it's less to do with raising the cows and more to do with eating them. Indian cows in particular are pretty bad because they eat mainly grass. So the rest of you veggies, especially the ovo-lacto types, but also even the vegans who don't want to commit bovinicide are not off the hook ...
Camille, I think it's your middle/second/"this" link. :)
The methane produced by livestock a giant contributor to greenhouse gases and India is at top of the class with most cattle in the world. A large volume of cattle (the root cause), if I'm interpreting this correctly, is the problem. This would include uses for eating meat and dairy product, right? What's the difference between cattle produced for meat or for dairy? Do the ones destined for the chop house fart more?
If everyone was vegan now, THEN you'd have the desired effect of 'reducing' greenhouse emissions. I don't think that's happening anytime soon.
Of the UN report, the Times says only this (and doesn't provide a link): "In late November, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report stating that the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined."
From this, we infer that it is trucking and other internal-combustion engines in the livestock industry that are bad for the environment. But again, if all the farms that raised cows and chickens were suddenly given over to soybean/tofu production, the net drop in greenhouse gases wouldn't be huge.
Of course, the livestock business generates more emissions than other forms of transportation--it's a huge industry.
It's a really silly and lightweight article in the Times, which doesn't investigate the claims made by PETA and other groups beyond referencing (but not actually quoting) the UN study. It would fail Journo 101 at any decent j-school. It's little more than "some people say" . . .
it's not just Peta, i think. meat production, in its current form - with the sheer size and means of production, is far more energy intensive at that scale (not to mention cruel in many cases). land is diverted to grow the grain etc. to just feed the animals. they use more water. if i remember correctly from reading a Worldwatch paper, the meat industry contributes heavily to depletion of the water table in some areas. isn't this what's happening in brazil - the rainforest is being cut down in huge swathes to expand large-scale cattle farms, a source of tension between indigenous tribes there and land-hungry cattle ranches. it would be hard for any form of food production to be 100 percent carbon neutral, but i do think the evidence so far shows that meat production outstrips other food production. the effect of thousands of animals on the actual earth is also a factor. this author, who was on jon stewart, says that the increasing appetite for cashmere from china, has resulted in hordes of goats being kept there, and their hooves have now led to increasing desertification. and don't some form of lentils/pulses have more protein per ounce than some meats?
I think its the classic food pyramid argument behind why meat is bad. More calories get wasted in feeding higher ups in the food chain.
Err, you don't need Tofu to be vegetarian. Veggies by themselves taste quite good actually.
Unfortunately, I love my meat much and I say we just spend all the money we thinking of using for Global Warming technologies to instead head to Mars
"but again, if all the farms that raised cows and chickens were suddenly given over to soybean/tofu production, the net drop in greenhouse gases wouldn't be huge."
true, any monoculture is bad. however, i think meat production in its current incarnation is still more wasteful because of the energy inputs just to raise, say, one beef cattle as opposed to growing one soybean plant. i don't think this should be approached purely in terms of greenhouse gases.
Isn't part of the problem also the animal waste products, hormones, antibiotics and chemicals? The pesticides which are needed for the extra grain, to feed the cows...?
Soybeans don't get hormones or antibiotics pumped in to them, right?
I can recommend two excellent books that I've read recently on food issues.
1. The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan
2. The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter by Peter Singer
The first one has an excellent chapter devoted to Polyface Farm and how they raise cows, poultry which in my opinion is very enlightening (at least it was for me).
Peter Singer's book explores (among other things) some common slogans like "buy locally" and actually comes up with some surprising results in some cases, where it may take more energy to produce out-of-season foods locally than transporting them from another state.
Check out your local library for these books - good summer reading.
then again, you can eat organic berries/flowers flown in from thousands of miles away - great to have the choice but also wasteful in its own way.
Not sure about the environmental aspects but it has become a big bone of contention between the developed and developing nations trade wise. For eg. a contention is that US grown cotton is much cheaper due to subsidies and is dumped into the international market and thus cotton grown sans subsidies is unable to compete and thus farmers from developing countries suffer. While the US advocates the free markets paradigm, local politics has so far not allowed politicians here to do away with these subsidies which are contrary to free market global trade.
Camille sez:
I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to argue. You're right that there are no doubt many factors that go into how environmentally damaging different types of food production can be. For example, organic beef from a nearby farm may be less harmful to the environment than veggies that have been flown in from across the world. But the argument the animal rights folks are making is that all other variables being equal, meat production consumes more resources/is worse for the environment than the production of a comparable amount of vegetarian food.
I'm quite sure that is exactly what they are doing -- I doubt anyone would deny that. There are different moral arguments -- if harm to and siffering of sentient beings doesn't concern people as much as climate change and harm to the environment, then of course they will use that angle to promote their cause.
Correct, if the goal is to eliminate waste. At best, we can only strive to reduce it by the choices (individual/society) we make.
Also, I think in this discussion we are all taking the scientific facts too seriously (which is a good thing, but is it that important?). To think of it, how many people would debate this as seriously? It will just add to the guilt factor and put a lot more people over the tipping point. I think this is a very clever move on the part of animal rights groups to exploit the current cool fad of 'saving the planet from green house effects' to further it's own objectives for making people turn to vegetarianism. Even if there are enough doubts around their claims, a clever marketing campaign will help them get a lot more people thinking about going meatless and since there wont be any counter advocacy groups which would be pro meat except the actual meat raisers (who are not well liked anyways for their practices), I think these animal rights groups will meet some of their objectives.
Ardy, a corporate PR firm urgently needs you. ;)
"Correct, if the goal is to eliminate waste. At best, we can only strive to reduce it by the choices (individual/society) we make."
exactly. and it's not so easy to make those choices either. we're already buying things imported from various parts of the globe, so why should food/flowers/tea be any different, especially when they come from poorer areas that benefit from growing these things? it's a conundrum.
I don't know. Rational and scientific thinking seems to be all the vogue these days, as seen in many comments here. ;)
True. But buying locally usually serves the purpose of buying in-season produce that is usually suited to that particular region's climate. Obviously, with this method, you'll get far different (and far more) produce in the pacific northwest as opposed to the southwest or the mid-atlantic region.
Again, true. A massive and sudden switch-over to short-track, light-rail intensive transportation of perishable/non-perishable goods is highly unlikely--the tyranny of long-haul trucking (and the consequent terrors of I-95, and I-81 in addition to many other high-volume trucking routes--believe me, i underwrite excess layers for many of these 3-7,000 unit trucking outfits and see their loss history in gory detail) is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
Agribusiness, in it's current incarnation, is unlikely to pull back it's armies of lobbyists if there ever was a congressional push to fundamentally change the way that livestock are raised, slaughtered and brought to market as it currently represents the most cost-effective option. The only thing that could drive this business the other way, is if massive amounts of consumers started to actively choose higher-priced grass-fed beef, free-range chickens (not always a reliable indicator of 'alternative' farming methods, but a start) or boutique bacon (yes, the varieties of pigs that have almost died out due to the dominance of one or two in agribusiness).
again, such a mass shift is highly unlikely. Veer shtuck!!!
Actually have done that with some non profits part time :-)
I recently posted something related to this on my blog, including:
I really don't care whether people go vegetarian, and I think animal welfare organizations make a terrible mistake putting diet first on their lists of "what can you do". That's not to dis vegetarianism and veganism, they're great, but they're not effective activism.
Is that so, though? I haven't thought of this issue specifically in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, but my understanding has been that raising cows/chickens/other animals consumes far more resources that growing plants, simply because it is far more efficient for humans to grow and eat plants vs. grow plants and eat the animals that feed on the plants. (Admittedly, I have no scientific data to back this up, I've generally taken this to be true since hearing about "Diet for a Small Planet" and it certainly makes sense to me.) And if it consumes more resources and energy to produce meat, it would seem to follow that meat production also produces more greenhouse gases ....
anna, you always post the best stuff, thanks............i've gotten sick of telling people that eating meat is the solution to so many of the world's pressing problems, ie. starvation, destruction of the environment, promotion of violence through de-sensitization to slaughter, not to mention dangerous excesses in testosterone levels.....these are the same people that protest michael vick, these animal eaters. at least he's got the balls to do his own killing.....i have been saying since this whole save-the-environment campaign began: eating meat is 1000 times more harmful to the environment than all the other destructive elements combined.....people need to remember, the earth and the environment and the planets will all be here long after we've destroyed ourselves. damage to the way the world is is just suicide......lastly, i laugh when fat girls complain that models are too thin and b.s. like that.....that, you fat skanks, is how normal people look. normal people don't ingest big macs and shit like that into their systems. if you're fat off of eating meat, ie the murder and consumption of innocent animals, you deserve to get laughed at. 90% of athletes and models, the cream of human physiology, do not eat meat. during his twelve year reign as middleweight champion bernard hopkins, one of the feircest gladiators in history, kept a vegetarian diet.
There's produce grown using green-houses which is considered local. When it comes to food choices, it's a complex issue and it's not my goal to convince anyone to become a vegetarian, other than to recommend books that I read and found useful. Read them (or not) and make your own decisions. Any argument will pretty soon devolve into the standard cheat-sheet reasons on both sides, which I'm least interested in participating. :)
Ardy, I knew it! :)
"I think its the classic food pyramid argument behind why meat is bad. More calories get wasted in feeding higher ups in the food chain"
Here's another way of looking at the classic food pyramid argument.
Has any vegan ever thought about cellulose?
The organic compound which makes up the cell wall in plant cells.
Isn't cellulose indigestible,hence the fiber.
Don't animals that live on a predominantly plant based diet have multiple chambers(stomachs) in their digestive systems to break down cellulose.
Don't a lot of them ruminate.?
Can a pound of lettuce disseminate more calories than a pound of animal fat?(Please know that Calories are a unit of measure of energy and not something evil)
If the classic food pyramid argument should work, shouldn't the lions, tigers,the bears and the snakes of this world just stop hunting abruptly and start munching on the flora around them .
They may not be as smart as you extremist "vegans" are but it shouldn't take even a dumb animal more than a few thousand years to figure out that eating grass is more efficient.And that is only if you believe the ridiculous Abrahamic relions' theory that the earth is only six to eight thousand years.
If you give some though to how humans(not man) must have evolved, can you not see that they survived and hence evolved only because they were oppurtunistic, that is omnivorous?
Doesn't that make veganism unnatural and unlike human beings?
But as someone who believes human morality which definitely and constantly evolves as unlike most people who look up to the great surveilance
camera in the sky for their dose of morality,factory farming is not something that makes me comfortable.
One last point ,I don't understand how people who just shut their eyes and ears when someone questions their illogical faith ,preach their morality so brazenly.
Veganism is nice ,please keep at it.I hope one day the whole world is vegan.But please don't be so smug abott something when hardly half the exaggerated health benefits and enviroment friendliness you claim is true.
Veganism is great ,but someone must put an end to the vegan hypocrisy.How many times have you come across a vegan ranting against animal slaughter when they themselves are sporting shoes made of cow hide or wearing leather belts or boasting of leather seats in their pimp rides or wearing make up tested on animals and last but the best, popping pill that have animal products in them in addition to them being tested on animals.
Eating flesh when you can eat veggies is anyway deplorable.
( I might not pester a theist to become an atheist but I'll always bite the non veggies )
Another thing that i don't quite get here is the way the public transport system is so bad, that alone
causes so many cars - with only one passenger inside - on the road, especially outside the cities.
i wonder how fish and other seafood factor into this, if at all.
ecology is complicated!
One thing that can help humans reduce carbon footprint is to reduce CONSUMPTION no matter what we consume. As for meat/fish/poultry etc., does the research account for how much is actually consumed and how much is wasted?
IMHO if meat eaters only consume what they need and not waste food, these numbers would look a lot better.
"at least he's got the balls to do his own killing."
i wouldn't be so charitable. what he did was despicable and cowardly and his insincere "apology", once it dawned on him that his lucrative career was in mortal danger (and only because of public pressure and not seemingly any real conscience on the part of some in the sports world), was revolting.
@camille,
peta is being simplistic about this, but as a rule of thumb they have a point. the lower in the food chain you eat, the less impact you have on the environment.
basically if you eat a cow, the cow eats corn. the cost of eating the cow also includes the corn the cow eats---this cost cannot be less than you eating the corn itself because energy cannot be created. usually if you want 1 calorie from eating your cow, the cow has to consume 10 calories. (10% of energy is transmitted each level in the food chain as a rule of thumb).
so organic farming etc. doesn't help---it is not inefficiency in farming, rather the inefficiency of animals converting what they eat into their meat that is standing in your way. it could be that it is impossible to raise food for human consumption in a particular area, which means you may land up going the animal route if you want to eat local. or you could trade with places that do grow food, in which case you add up costs of transport. now it is not 100% clear what is good.
on the other hand, if the meat industry were not subsidized so heavily, economics would take care of the environmental cost. that would be a sustainable option, but then you wouldn't be getting hamburgers for 99c either. meat would be expensive, and rightly so. as would lychees imported from china.
there is a point peta has here. just not as simple as make everyone vegetarian.
And exactly whom was this gem for?
Sorry to be joining party unfashionably late.
Some idiots have claimed that walking produces more greenhouse gases than driving. Yes, you read that right. Here's the quote:
"The argument favoring vegetarianism quoting the efficiency of the foody chain/food pyramid ."
Wouldn't PETA be better off with sticking CHLOROPHYLL on the skins of its volunteers so that they can photosynthesize their own energy and hence become more efficient.
Why do they even want to KILL plants?
Or is it that many of them feel that plants are not alive like so many so called vegetarians feel about fish?
What is more cruel ,chopping the limbs of a living being that can make some noise or munching on another living being that is mute.?
sorry, but i don't share your wish at all. I think i'm one of the few vegetarians who doesn't have compunctions about killing animals as long as it's to save a human life or to feed a hungry, human mouth.
We shouldn't give the impression that the vegetarian population in the US is mostly vegan--if so, we're a mostly sadomasochistic population and I find the very thought unbearable. ;) I used to work at a mostly-vegan cafe so if I ever have to suffer through another spelt cookie/bread or soy cheese-adorned pizza, I'll consider it an opportunity to attain mahasamadhi via the express route.
I think i ran into the practical limitations of even a lacto-veggie diet long ago, when I realized that muscle mass was going to be hard to come by with neither the genetic support nor the desire to consume wheel-barrows of sirloin, fowl breast and pig butt. It's no consolation that the methods use to produce these delicacies are inordinately wasteful.
I think it's been said above in the comments, but I feel like I need to put my two cents in and reiterate: WRONG.
My guess is the big issues are the mass farms, where many animals are concentrated in one spot, like a factory, and transportation. If one can eat locally-raised farm beef/chicken/pork/duck/goat/monkeybrains, etc., I don't think the environmental impact is that great.
The best advice always come from mothers and I have to fall back on what my mom always told me: everything in moderation. We can eat meat, we can raise animals for food and all that, but when it becomes out-of-control is where we run into problems.
I don't know the solution because it's impractical for people in the city to drive out to a local farm to pick up some beef, especially in large urban centers on the East Coast, but I soundly reject that you canNOT be a meat-eating environmentalist. Also, when did environmentalism become about extremes? Everything in moderation, little steps and do what you can. Simple.
And by simple I mean easy to talk the talk and much harder to walk the walk, especially when our own desires can sometimes be so confoundedly opposite about what we talk.
"One last point ,I don't understand how people who just shut their eyes and ears when someone questions their illogical faith ,preach their morality so brazenly.""
And exactly whom was this gem for?
"BANG"
"... munching on another living being that is mute.?
not according to roald dahl :)
basically if you eat a cow, the cow eats corn. the cost of eating the cow also includes the corn the cow eats---this cost cannot be less than you eating the corn itself because energy cannot be created.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
That's true--but I'm confused as to the relationship to gloal warming--doesn't growing corn absorb C02....
Maybe not as much as the alterative, though--grass....
And mechaized farming does use petro.
Can someone clear this up with more specifics, if you know....
I hope I am not feeding the trolls, but...
From 24/7, at comment #40
There is so much wrong in this I don't even know where to start. Models ARE underweight. Having your ribs sticking out or dying of anorexia because your body does not have enough to sustain you is NOT what normal people look like. There is a reason there are so few models--most people are NOT 6'5 and 105 pounds.
Also, do you have any proof for your 90 percent statistic? Could you please provide linkage? I'd be very interested to read that...you know that 75 percent of statistics are made-up? :-p
Bang? Thanks, that's helpful.
IF it was for me, you are sadly mistaken. I was reporting a news story I thought would be of interest, I wasn't preaching shit.
I agree... this is my main problem with vegetarianism as an ideology. It's great if that's what you feel is right (and I am moving more toward it for health reasons, personally) but one person not eating meat isn't going to make a difference. Meat production is happening on a massive scale. Personally, I think that in a rational world we'd produce meat only on the local level and most people would eat it rarely, but we're a long way from that.
I reviewed The Omnivore's Dilemma on my blog recently (plug! plug!) and, as I recall, it's agriculture as a whole industry that is the largest greenhouse-gas-producing industry (not just meat). Yes, there's the problem of growing grain to feed cows, but let's not forget that the food industry uses huge unnecessary amounts of grain. We're also growing that grain to provide the massive amounts of high fructose corn syrup and other corn-derived food additives that are increasing our rates of bowel disorders, obesity and diabetes. I'm not saying meat production isn't a problem, just that it's only one part of the bigger picture, and PETA and the like do a real disservice to the environmental cause by failing to acknowledge that.
Large urban centers on the East Coast are probably the places where it's easiest to get food from local farms. Most cities have farmers' markets in lots of neighborhoods; Philly certainly does, and I know New York does as well. Encouraging farmers' markets also makes fresh, healthy food accessible for people without cars and people who live in neighborhoods without grocery stores.
That's just hateful. Ever hear of the beauty myth?
Oh, and for the record, 59% of American adults eat at a fast food restaurant at least once a week. If we solve our food crisis, it'll be by making healthy food affordable and accessible, not by aiming this sort of vicious hatred and elitism at people. Way to convert to your cause, there, 24/7.
Bang? Thanks that's helpful.
IF it was for me, you are sadly mistaken. I was reporting a news story I thought would be of interest, I wasn't preaching shit.
Please don't get all riled up now.I realise that reason unsettles the best .
And this is not at all digressing from vegan hypocrisy.
You got any 'reason' to say that (in terms of instances, past comments, etc)?? My experience/impression based on her posts and comments has been quite different and so I am wondering why you are saying that, considering you claim it was based on some reason.
Ok, let me say this again:
Sometimes, but not always. I really think folks should just take a quick read at the NYT article I cited back in my first post. It talks all about the "hidden environmental costs" of local produce production. It's true that meat requires more resources/grain/water/waste management than plant life. That said, if you grow non-indigenous plants locally, which many people are trying to do in order to jump on the "buy local" bandwagon, it can be just as bad for the environment as a small meat farm in the area. And if you don't buy local, the greenhouse emissions associated with transportation are significant.DTK, I'm just arguing for nuance. Meat production is often bad, it's true. That said, meat consumption is not always bad everywhere, and some forms of non-meat food production are equally bad, if not worse, in terms of water/energy waste and greenhouse gas emission. I guess my larger point is that there's more to choosing an "ethical" or "environmental" food option than simple statements like, "Eating meat kills the earth."
Thanks, Camille, I feel like that thought really needs to be injected into this debate (both on SM and in the larger world).
On the 'local food' angle: Unless we're all living on sustainable non-monoculture farms, let's face it, transportation is always going to be an issue. My problem with this whole rash of stories is that they don't provide much of an alternative, except "it doesn't make a difference, so keep buying processed food!" If we invested in our nationwide rail infrastructure, instead of trucking food, that'd be a huge step. I don't think many people are arguing for an all-local diet, and that doesn't seem feasible; I mean, I live in Philadelphia and I have no intention of giving up rice! But there's certainly an argument for eating as much fresh, local food as is practical for you, and for supporting small farms that use healthy, sustainable methods.
Also, from the culinary standpoint, fresher tastes better. Local food eaten in-season is delicious.
"You got any 'reason' to say that (in terms of instances, past comments, etc)?? My experience/impression based on her posts and comments has been quite different and so I am wondering why you are saying that, considering you claim it was based on some reason."
I admire your chivalrous act of standing up for the lady.The lady got the message ,understood it but didn't like it.And I presume that she can stand up for herself.
let me shiver and cower into my den,until some verbal fascist injustice beckons me again.
Camille: I don't disagree with you in your analysis of contemporary US agriculture. (How's that for lawyer-speak?) You can read my thoughts on the subject in this thread. (Although Melbourne Desi, with his deep knowledge of agriculture as evidenced by his grandparents' vocation clearly put me, who can only trace farmers back to...my grandparents, in my proper place;-)
That does not negate (what's with teh double-negatives?) the compounded effect of meat production, though. If you acknowledge that meat production requires the production of more grain than if people did not filter their grain through animals, and you acknowledge that large-scale commercial grain production is a flawed process, then wouldn't it follow that the unnecessary excess grain production engendered by the luxury of meat production would yield an unnecessary excess of waste from the flawed process of large-scale commercial grain production?
Sorry if that didn't make any sense. Gotta run!
rob, the amount of energy that is devoted into the production of corn and soybeans, particularly in the U.S., does not offset any kind of CO2 mitigation you get from having plant life. This is because agricultural production in the U.S. uses all of the following: wasteful irrigation techniques (which often consume quite a bit of energy), transportation and trucking, the use of airplanes/mechanized parts for sowing, reaping, insecticide-spraying, etc. Also, sarah brought up a really excellent point (I think it was sarah?) re: the over-use of corn for things like high fructose corn syrup, etc. (and the same goes for soybean products). This is why the argument for switching from gasoline to corn-based ethanol is not a "sustainable" or even carbon-neutral solution.
I think that oftentimes people imply that because something is "earth-based" or "natural" it's somehow superior, but we forget that natural resource depletion is not just about fossil fuels; it's about water, it's about arable land, it's about distribution, etc. At the end of the day we're going to have to (in my opinion) restructure how we measure growth/wealth, because the best way to stave off environmental destruction is to significantly REDUCE CONSUMPTION, which is antithetical to how we currently measure economic health in capitalist economies.
By the way, I think we should be careful about moving from what this post is about (environmental arguments for vegetarianism) vs. moralistic arguments on vegetarianism. Not because I don't think the latter is interesting, but because it's kind of an argument that goes nowhere.
"one person not eating meat isn't going to make a difference"
Just as one person not voting doesn't give India any worse leaders. We have a choice, go vegetarian ! step by step if you wish :P
Theres another angle as well, there is no "mad okra disease" or "foot & rice disease" :)
The most hyped myth about vegetarianism is that it can't give you enough protein.
About 60% of India is vegetarian & a balanced Indian thali has the daily lentil supplement.
you don't have to be sportsman healthy to live good.
Which, by the way, is connected to the argument that starvation and famine are no longer a result of a food shortage at the macro level; in the global economy they are often a result of improper (or non-) distribution. (so for those who are arguing that eating meat causes others to starve, you are factually incorrect). Amartya Sen has done amazing work on this issue specifically.
Harbeer, my point is that meat consumption does not by itself result in an environmentally less favorable outcome than other food production. Here's a clear example: Let's say I live in semi-rural Kenya. Folks have got goats. They definitely don't have huge goat farms where they crowd tons of goats into a small space and then grow sukuma wiki to feed to said goats. The goats just wander about, foraging as per usual, at an environmentally stable rate (not like the goats raised for cashmere production with their little hooves creating deserts). Let's say someone takes that goat and slaughters the sucker. The production of that goat for consumption probably didn't do any more damage to the environment than a farmer's small farm crop cycle. So that's Kenya -- if someone did something similar here in the U.S., the meat probably wouldn't taste as "good" as our hormone-hopped up crazy meat, but it would probably be relatively environmentally neutral compared to growing non-meat things.
I'm not arguing that the U.S. system of meat production is somehow not environmentally damaging -- it is. I just think our larger system of agricultural production is wasteful as a whole, including our crop/veggie production.
@ak "I spent two years as vegetarian"
Thanks, atleast you tried.
Why would I like it? You are wrong about everything, and yet you persist with your foolishness.
I'm not preaching anything with this post; I'm offering a space for a discussion.
I'm not a vegan, either.
I don't appreciate your pathetic attempt to call me out as a hypocrite, as if I somehow use this forum as a pulpit for strong-arming dainty types like you in to conversion...to whatever it is you think I'm attempting to sermonize. Christianity? Veganism? Distaste for shitty automobiles?
I don't get in to debates about my faith on this site or anywhere else for that matter, so I'm not sure how or where you think I dodged your wet-dream of cross-examining me re: my illogical faith. If you have a problem with Christianity, don't use me as your proxy for a hate-fuck.
Perhaps it's just where I live, or the that I've actually worked on an organic farm that grew only produce that needed soil, compost and water, but 'buying local' 'round these parts doesn't mean you're shooting yourself in the foot. No hydroponics, no extra nutrients, and no fertilizer were needed--just good, old-fashioned, back-breaking manual labor to keep it clear of weeds and yes, the occasional application of herbicides to control the occasional insect outbreak--something you can't avoid whether you're growing native or non-native produce. It is actually not the case that growing non-indigenous plants contributes to hidden environmental costs but that growing any plants that require much more resources than are afforded by the local ecological system produces these hidden environmental costs.
I wonder what sources you could point to, to substantiate your claim that most of the 'grow local' branded produce is environmentally-damaging out-of-season, non-native crops.
Has anyone here, besides me and Melbourne Desi(?), ever actually worked on a farm and/or grown their own vegetables using no short-cuts?
Yes, a vegetarian diet can give you an adequate supply of proteins.
But let me debunk the "lentil myth".
Agreed lentils contain protein.But "dal" or lentil soup which essentially is a few ounces of lentil in a lot of water and that any sensible person can tell is a sorry excuse for proteins.
Now let's debunk the ("mad okra disease" or "foot & rice disease" ) "disease myth".
Haven't you heard of E.Coli in Spinach or Shigella in baby carrots.
Last of all ..ahem the statistics!!.
Í thought it was widely known that India has more malnourished children than the whole of Africa put together.
This might be an exaggeration,but India does have a sizeable population that is malnourished .
And this is not from someone who has visited India.I have lived in INdia for decades and know it inside out.
Vegan hypocrisy must go.
Coming to the statistics you furnished
Yes, if bringing water to my parents while they merrily toiled in their vegetable-patch/orchard on steroids counts. Chembu/arbi, kappa, cheeru (red spinach), paavaka/karela, three kinds of beans, okra, four kinds of peppers, velarika, padavalinga, two kinds of tomatoes, garlic, actual banana trees...and a whole bunch of other stuff. No chemicals, because they were feeding all of that to their two kids.
i worked on a ranch once. also, my fam is obsessed with gardening.
The lady got the message ,understood it but didn't like it.
Why would I like it? You are wrong about everything, and yet you persist with your foolishness.
I'm not preaching anything with this post; I'm offering a space for a discussion.
I'm not a vegan, either.
I don't appreciate your pathetic attempt to call me out as a hypocrite, as if I somehow use this forum as a pulpit for strong-arming dainty types like you in to conversion...to whatever it is you think I'm attempting to sermonize. Christianity? Veganism? Distaste for shitty automobiles?
I don't get in to debates about my faith on this site or anywhere else for that matter, so I'm not sure how or where you think I dodged your wet-dream of cross-examining me re: my illogical faith. If you have a problem with Christianity, don't use me as your proxy for a hate-fuck.
There you go!.I knew you could stand up for yourself.
But you sure have a foul mouth which is typical of a bigot ,which I presumed you were not.
Yes,I am against organized religion of any kind not just Christianity.
Very so because I realise that they always foment bigotry and intolerance .
You can very well see this phenomenon from your vile retort to just a mention of your faith.
I believe that as any other among the billions of religious people in this world ,you will also seethe in anger,hiss,spit,block and ban when reason confronts the futility of your faith.
And then revel in self pity as to why I provide people with an even UNBIASED(cough!!) platform to debate and they turn nasty.
meat is like alcohol, there's a reason we like it. in moderation it's a great source of a lot of nutrients. most americans eat too much meat, and too much period. they could cut back. and if PETA is happy with that that's great. i think some people have with their argument is that they don't think PETA is arguing in good faith, they're just using an instrumental tack when their goal is to simply abolish what they perceive as murder. i think it is not coincidence that high status groups in india are the ones who are most likely to be vegetarian: their complementation of food items in their diet is much more likely to provide a well rounded diet that is meatless than lower status groups who are more on the margins of subsistence (similarly, mystical groups in other cultures, like the essenes i believe, were vegetarian). hunter-gatherers obviously had an omnivorous diet, and our dentition and metabolism shows it.
murali, I didn't say most local produce is non-indigenous. I just said that you can't always go buy the axiom "buy local" just like you can't go by the axiom "meat kills the earth." In my experience, it is not unusual to find non-indigenous crops on local farms in areas with less varied indigenous produce. It could be totally organic farming, but if you're rapidly depleting the water table or cobbling things together to force resource-intense crops to grow in a non-native climate, its "local-ness" doesn't make it inherently less environmentally damaging than other kinds of food production. The problem I have is when folks use environmental calculus to count specific costs but then chose not to apply these cost-structures in comparable scenarios.
And, to answer your second question, my whole fam is into growing their own vegetables, especially my grandparents. My parents have had to give their veggie garden recently because of their physical health, but my mom still has a little herb garden in her kitchen. I've grown up with fresh backyard produce for most of my life, actually, and love the fresh, amazing flavor of home-grown veggies & fruits :)
By the way, for those interested in urban and peri-urban farming, please see the awesome information provided by the Ecology Center.
Camille, is the word that you are trying to explain with your comments regarding raising meat & environmental impact "sustainable"? ;)
Amit, probably ;) I just shy away from using "sustainable" because it is used so broadly, and inaccurately, these days that it seems to lack context/meaning.
Also an aside: Freudian slip above, I meant "go by the axiom 'buy local'", not buy and buy. I swear, typing makes my command of the English language plummet to subterranean (homesick?) depths.
razib, not sure about your explanation regarding status groups in India and diet, but where I grew up, in my experience, meat was much more expensive than vegetables, hence it was a luxury food. And I'm pretty sure my parents/family are not high status.
i think this statement would resonate a bit more if it was region-specific--i.e. i can see it applying in the southwest but for the pacific northwest and my corner of VA, it doesn't really apply. "buying local' as an axiom does have real value in those regions, mainly because you can throw just about anything not grown in a tropical climate into the soil and watch it grow--part of the reason why the cops do so much kumbaya-ing around cannabis bonfires 'round here.
Is it that too much meat, prepared in any fashion, is not good? I think there's a fairly large difference between wolfing down cheese-steaks all year and suffering through roasted chicken breasts and dry turkey burgers...right? Is it the prep materials (saturated fats, salt, etc.) that matter or just the volume of meat consumed?
"Haven't you heard of E.Coli in Spinach or Shigella in baby carrots"
Maybe, because i didn't like spinach :). or maybe since all the spinach in
my area was mass *culled* to stem the disease.
What you consider healthy depends on your lifestyle which dictates the
amount of proteins & other nutrients you should consume.
Malnourished children don't stay like that because of vegetarianism, but for the
lack of balanced diet(or any at all) as is the case with Africa.
It's not about chivalry or whether she can stand up for herself or not (actually she very well can). It's about fairness and what seems to be baseless insinuations. For all the time I have been on this blog, I have never seen her speak derogatorily about any other faith or say her faith is the best. She has always been open to learn about other faiths and cultures and nor have I seen her have any issues about admitting she is wrong if and when she is. Thus if you start to accuse her of things which I have not observed, I think it is not too wrong or chivalrous of me or someone else to ask if you have anything more concrete to back up your claims or if you are just randomly blowing smoke. Questioning peoples claims and arguments is something a lot of people do here, and especially when you make it personal on another commenter/blogger there is more reason to do so. Thus sir/madam, I request you again to provide some instances to support your statements and give the lady a chance to defend herself if needed.
I will happily ban you, when you surely violate our comment policy-- I'd love to be proven wrong and have you stay. If you do get banned, it won't have anything to do with your "reason"s, it will be because you broke the rules.
My money is on "non-issue-focused flame".
"Maybe, because i didn't like spinach :). or maybe since all the spinach in
my area was mass *culled* to stem the disease."
That's not a rebuttal .Its called escaping.
"What you consider healthy depends on your lifestyle which dictates the
amount of proteins & other nutrients you should consume."
I am glad you understood that and it has not.Vegetarianism can be used to attain a balanced diet,but there is an easier way.
"Malnourished children don't stay like that because of vegetarianism, but for the
lack of balanced diet(or any at all) as is the case with Africa."
Well sir ,when you are malnourished ,being vegetarian adds to that .And I made my point about malnourished children in India because you came up with
a statistic that seemingly corroborated your claim to vegan divinity.