The subjects of PETA and vegetarianism ... 15

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Matt G Posted 9:45 am
   14 Sep 2007

   IssuesI'm telling you, there is no brief discussion about vegitarianism.  There are dozens of issues mixed together that go as deep as religion, sustainability, overpopulation, compassion, big business, globilization... Besides, people feel very strongly about their food.

   Permalink

2. 

   wildleaf Posted 1:29 pm
   14 Sep 2007

   Agreed!Yay for both! But zealotry is not an appealing way of bringing people to your diet! It seems at times they work almost against themselves.
   
   The Black Car Project
   
   

   Permalink

3. 

   Pandu Posted 2:25 pm
   14 Sep 2007

   It's not the subject...It's Grist's position on the issue.
   It's not simply a matter of global warming.  It's the fact that the entire impact of agriculture could be reduced to a small fraction of its current effect simply by stopping the cruel practice of raising animals for slaughter.  
   Take water consumption, for example.  If my family (2 adults, 4 kids) were to eat the meat-based diet that I was raised on, the agricultural practices required to produce that would consume about one million gallons more water each year compared to our present lacto-vegetarian diets.  One vegetarian meal compared to a meat meal saves as much water as a low-flow showerhead saves in an entire year.  In spite of this, we almost never hear anything about avoiding meat to conserve water.  
   Or consider land use.  Vegatarians require about 10% of the agricultural land that meat eaters need.  Vegans are closer to 5%.  Wouldn't it be nice if the world could convert 90% of its land to other uses, maybe even letting much of it go wild?
   In addition to global warming, consider how much agriculture contributes to pollution, deforestation, desertification, and the loss of biodiversity.  Quit subsidizing cattle feed and grazing lands, etc., and the cost of meat would rise dramatically, making consumption drop remarkably.  The Big Mac would cost maybe $20, and with the more popular veggie wrap costing $1; and so much environmental abuse would be averted.
   (I just re-read a paper I wrote in 1993 for my environmental politics class in college describing this in more detail.  The professor, Lester Milbrath, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/002-5 ...
   
   gave an A, and said it would've been an A+ if I mentioned that meat eating is a dominator society and that changing it would require a paradigm shift.)  
   When will people learn?

   Permalink

4. 

   JMG Posted 5:03 pm
   14 Sep 2007

   UCS agreesThe book "A Consumer Guide to Effective Environmental Choices" by the Union of Concerned Scientists puts cutting back or eliminating meat in the top 3 things that we need to do.  Since Grist touts the book (rightfully), seems like this should count for something.
   
   Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

   Permalink

5. 

   egglady56 Posted 12:11 am
   15 Sep 2007

   Growing meat CAN be sustainableThere are many places where pasture is the best use of land, such as hilly terrain. Animals can be grown  on grass where it is not possible to grow crops without harming the environment. Just because it is accepted in the American agribiz that cattle need to be fattened on grain crops does not make it so. Grass fed beef and poultry is fine and a good use of resources in many places. It is the growing of the grains that takes so much energy and land. Growing corn for fuel is not environmentally sound either when there are people starving in the world.

   Permalink

6. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 1:19 am
   15 Sep 2007

   From The Union of Concerned ScientistsTRANSPORTATION
   
   
   Choose a place to live that reduces the need to drive.
   
   Think twice before purchasing another car.
   
   Choose a fuel-efficient, low-polluting car.
   
   Set concrete goals for reducing your travel.
   
   Whenever practical use alternative transportation.
   
   
   FOOD
   
   
   Eat less meat.
   
   Buy certified organic produce.
   
   
   HOUSEHOLD
   
   
   Choose your home carefully.
   
   Reduce the environmental costs of heating and hot water.
   
   Install efficient lighting and appliances.
   
   Choose an electricity supplier offering renewable energy.
   
   
   Item 6: Eat "less" meat, not "no" meat.
   Verbal debate is obsolete. It has been eclipsed by blog forums.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

7. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 1:49 am
   15 Sep 2007

   You can't have four kids and call yourselfan environmentalist, Pandu. Sorry. Everybody knows that the "easiest" thing to do to save the planet is to have no fewer kids. You have almost twice the national average. What is worse for the planet, eating twice the national average of meat, or having twice the national average of kids?
   
    
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

8. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 2:29 am
   15 Sep 2007

   I am being facetious, PanduI should have sprinkled that post with ; ) and : p. Anyone can call themselves an environmentalist, although I'm not sure why anybody would want to.
   But, how characteristically ironic that you happily usurp the surface of the planet to feed 4 kids, 1 cow, 3 sheep, 2 goats, 11 guinea fowl, 5 cats, a dog and a parrot.
   Also keep in mind:
   "The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?"
   
   
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

9. 

   JMG Posted 4:46 am
   15 Sep 2007

   SummarizingBiod, the UCS recommendations can be boiled down to this, which is often useful for presentations:
   
   
   Drive as little as you can
   
   Eat less factory food, especially meat.
   
   Reduce home energy consumption.
   
   
   I don't think that summary does violence to the concepts.
   
   Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

   Permalink

10. 

    gmunger Posted 7:59 am
    15 Sep 2007

    yikesIt would appear from all that noise over on the PETA post that the devil is in the details.

    Permalink

11. 

    vegaia Posted 8:06 am
    15 Sep 2007

    Meat Eating EnviromentalistsIf contributing to the number one cause of global warming isn't enough to discount someone as an enviromentalist then perhaps this will.
    Animal agriculture is at or near the top of the list for contributing to water usage, water pollution, topsoil loss, air pollution, tropical rainforest destruction, habitat destruction, desertification and species extinction!
    His article just goes to prove, anyone with a little time and a computer can write anything stupid.

    Permalink

12. 

    KathyF Posted 5:14 pm
    15 Sep 2007

    EducationalI actually found the discussion educational. I learned that there are a lot of misconceptions about PETA out there, even among educated Grist users.
    I bet very few people realize that PETA doesn't rely on shock and awe when it comes to improving animals' lives. Their strategy is to first write a letter to the offending corporation/entity. Then they write another. Then they ask their supporters to write letters.
    Then, if none of this works (and almost always the letters DO work), they pull out the chicken suits.
    Obviously, meat eaters haven't responded to the letters.
    In all seriousness, I've been reading the PETA blog for a while now. That's done a lot to convince me that PETA is a worthwhile organization that doesn't deserve its bad press.
    Now, I'm going to write another letter.

    Permalink

13. 

    ebaerren Posted 8:46 pm
    15 Sep 2007

    Meat as number one cause of global warmingHi, this would be all well and good had not methane levels in the atmosphere slowed until last year when it leveled out.  That is, carbon dioxide is still increasing in concentration, methane ... not so much.
    This could change, and eating less meat certainly has its place.  But, the notion that you can't be an environmentalist and still eat meat is fantasy born from the animal rights movement (what if you get your meat from the right honorable tradition of hunting and fishing?), which is concerned with the ethics of how we treat animals (an honorable line of thinking) and not about the environment.
    Stick to your own issue, people, and stop trying to interject your agenda where it ain't wanted.

    Permalink

14. 

    Samantic Posted 11:43 am
    16 Sep 2007

    crunching numbers and delectablesA lot of infighting to protect our preferred positions, as I see it.  Ultimately statistics can be manipulated and, more often, simply misread and/or misinterpreted.  I also see a lot of "strict" vegetarians not willing to look more closely at the thoughtful side of sustainable ecosystems and their possible/likely meat component.
    On the validity of the initial claim about global warming and eating meat, here are some worthwhile comments I came across on the Sierra Club global warming listserv:
    SUV's 'Versus' Meat. By Charles Komanoff, Streetblog.org, August 31, 2007. In reference to the NY Times article above "I spotted one glaring error and one questionable assumption in the U of Chicago article (Diet, Energy, and Global Warming, PDF, 17 pages) that underlies the Humane Society's claim. First, the authors evidently used a figure of around 16 lb of CO2 emitted per gallon of gasoline burned. (They don't give their figure; I backed it out of their Table 1.) But the standard coefficient, easily derivable, is approximately 19.6 lb per gallon. Switching to the correct coefficient would add 22-23% to the 'SUV' side of their comparison. Second, the authors based their 'SUV' calculations on average US per capita miles driven (8,332 miles/yr). The appropriate basis, in my view, would be the number of miles a typical motor vehicle is driven, which is around 12,000 (that's the figure US EPA uses in its calculations of carbon impacts of driving). After all, switching from an SUV to a Camry would mean switching out 12,000 miles, not 8,332. Substituting the higher figure would add 44% to the 'SUV' side of the comparison. Making both changes simultaneously would increase the SUV emission figures by 75-77%, which pretty much invalidates the triumphalist statement by the Humane Society's guy. It wouldn't surprise me if there are similar errors undermining the 'food' side of the comparison. Maybe someone else will take a break from their seitan preparation and check it out. And maybe the Humane Society and their allies can find ways of advancing the worthy cause of vegetarianism that don't require belittling SUV damages and Al Gore."
    Further to that, I would point out that a lot of the furor seems to stem from people who equate fossil-fuel use with driving without really thinking about it.  Clearly fossil fuel use overall (for power generation, industrial production, etc. as well as transportation) outstrips meat production, but when you pull out transportation alone, suddenly it's in the same ballpark as the meat.
    And as to the comparison of the efficacy of eliminating meat from the diet to that of changing cars, again, the stats are obvious, but the spin and interpretation have been off.  Just changing the efficiency of the absurd vehicle we drive does far less than actually using it less, usually by a factor of about 5.  A more consistent parallel would be going from the typical (ridiculous) meat content of the average American diet to just eating chicken (still conventional).  There remain a lot of other significant impact-reducing steps available.  By way of comparison, the fact that my 4-person household drives its single car a third of the US average does a lot more to reduce our impact than its "hybrid synergy drive" does.
    Ultimately, I find this a really worthwhile topic, but don't get that much in the way of useful content out of it.  I would like to see a thoughtful and thorough consideration, by bioregion, of true carrying capacity and sustainable food system structure.  The further I get into all this, the clearer it is to me that pigs are incredibly useful, but I want to know if that means a pig for a neighborhood for a year, or a pig for the whole town, plus take into consideration the realities of husbandry... The same goes for poultry and, in some regions, beef, etc.  But I can't seem to find anyone who can talk about this reasonably, without getting totally defensive, aggressive and touchy (on both sides).
    I'm not ready to be definitive about it, but it does at least appear that absolute veganism is a luxury of modern life which we may not be able to afford in the long run.  Wouldn't it be better to think carefully about productive ways of shifting our food system towards sustainability?
    There was at least one early post that did start to talk about the health benefits, ecosystem benefits, and animal welfare benefits of local, organic, sustainable, pastured meat.  It's not as cut and dried as most of the vegetarians would have it.
    In the meantime, thanks for the reading material.
    
    

    Permalink

15. 

    Pandu Posted 2:39 pm
    17 Sep 2007

    actually, noThe easiest and most effective thing to do to reduce the burden on the planet is to have as many kids as possible who will teach people to live nicely.  
    I have no guilt at all about having kids.  I know they're going to help the world.  We'll probably have more.  
    It's a different paradigm, y'know.  It's not that the nature's resources are limited, the planet is simply offended by people's behavior.    
    The problem isn't the giving of life, it's the taking of it.

    Permalink