Comments jscorse has made

This is awesome!!

The hypocrisy on display here is mind-boggling and this is just the type of blight on the environmental movement that the rightwing loves. Thanks to all of those who now have helped to solidify the stereotype that environmentalists are all rich white people who are NIMBYs and elitists. After 20 years of reversing this trend great work!!!!

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

What we are currently doing to the oceans

will no doubt be viewed in horror by future generations. It is ecocide pure and simple.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

I have never said...

that vegan or vegetarian is by default healthy- coca cola and white bread is a vegan diet.

However, to call veganism extreme is such a cop-out- another easy smear by those who don't want to look at facts.

Veganism includes 99% of all food and vegans probably eat the most varied diets of all. What is extreme is the junk food, animal-laden diets of most of the U.S.

As to obesity, anyone who thinks the ranks of the obese in the world are filled with vegetarians and vegans or the ranks of those with heart disease, cancer, and diabetes is simply in denial. And once you add the environmental impact this denial has global implications that are devastating.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

At least your honest....

and that counts for a lot. While it would be better for large numbers of people to go vegetarian simply a reduction in animal consumption is a great step. And like the adage goes, one step at a time...

As for veganism for kids, your pediatrician doesn't have a clue and doesn't deserve to be a medical practitioner. It's relatively easy and healthy and advocated by some of the top doctors and pediatricians in the world. Doesn't mean anyone has to do it, but for a doctor to tell you it's impossible is unbelievable. I have friends with vegan kids that are some of the healthiest kids in the world.

http://www.newsobserver.com/105/story/603236.html

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

The best way to get the right onboard....

is to speak market economics- they want free markets, good- no more coal, oil, gas, agriculture, fishing, or nuclear subsidies. They believe in responsibility, good, then polluters pay for ALL of their pollution. They believe in empowering individuals, good, then make available detailed pollution data on all industries to the public.

You get the point. The list goes on.....

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

Of course Slow Food is elitist....

but so is taking international vacations, driving fancy brand new cars, sending kids to private schools....but so what? People are free to do what they want and there is no objective definition of the "right" amount of consumption so it's a fool's errand going down this path.

Instead, let's focus on policies to increase everyone's income and standard of living so what is now elitist becomes mainstream, while at the same time improving efficiency and the environment. A tremendous challenge? Of course....it's not called the environmental movement for nothing.

J.S.On Ruminations on food, class, and Carlo Petrini posted 2 years, 5 months ago 17 Responses

Sam....

eat whatever you want- just as long as you understand the implications. A vegan diet is the best for the environment, your body, and the animals, but we all do plenty of things that harm all three so do whatever you feel is best. My main issue is to make sure people pay for the FULL ecological costs of their actions and to increase awareness of the pain and suffering that humans inflict on animals so that maybe people will voluntarily choose not to kill so many of them.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

Although I think...

there is no doubt that having less children can be a good thing from an environmental standpoint, I think it's better if environmentally conscious people who value human rights and peace and justice have more kids and instill these values into their children. That's probably the best thing for our future.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

good comments

I generally agree- trees provide so much ecosystem services- clean air, clean water, habitat, and of course their natural beauty that anytime we look at them as simply carbon sequestration machines they will be highly undervalued. My hunch is that if we attributed the true comprehensive value to forests there would be very few worth cutting down at all.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

I'm really glad that Grist is consistently

educating people about the ills of biofuels- it is a perfect example of subsidies gone awry and awful economic policy- biofuels have the potential to decimate the remaining biodiversity so let's continue to speak out about this, while also keeping on the lookout for any promising developments.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

Gov funding for R&D...

basic research is typically a good use of public funds since much basic science wouldn't get done without it (since it's a public good)- the key is making sure that it remains a public good- that is, that it is not patented by private interests or if it's a public/private partnership that the government gets part of the revenue. For example, gov research into new seed varieties or medicines or carbon sequestration that is then available to everyone is commonly a great use of public money and is defensible on solid economic grounds.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

Market distortions and...

incorrect pricing of natural resources & polluting goods are VERY precise terms- I will explain shortly- and are 100% at the heart of most environmental problems. Without addressing them environmental policy will be completely ineffective.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

Dave- I think your misrepresenting this issue

and doing a huge disservice to the debate. Yes, there are some people who want us to throw our hands in the air and say CC is a done deal, but NOT most of those you cite nor most responsible commentators. What they say is that SOME CC is inevitable and that we had better have a strategy to deal with it along with a long-term reduction strategy.

If the environmentalist position is simply a binary- zero CC or catastrophic CC- I think that gravely simplifies the issue and may do real harm. We need serious policies for mitigation, disaster relief, resettling of large populations, etc. that are likely to be needed EVEN IF we have a successful long-term framework.

I hope you and others can take a moment to realize this.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

Let's get a few facts straight...

1. Starbucks is one of the most progressive corporations in the world- with full health benefits even for part-time employees- the biggest and most influential corporations- Microsoft, Google, etc.- are doing some amazing work- some corporations are bad but so are some people- again, show me evidence that the larger a corporation gets the worse its environmental performace- you won't be able to- I'll bet on that

2. Atreyger- I said few farmers, not zero farmers- we have less than 2% of the population working in agriculture and produce more food than ever in our history- maybe you want a future where large majorities still slave away doing back breaking work in fields but I don't- I don't romanticize hard manual labor from behind a keyboard- those who want to stay in farming fine, but I bet if they had a choice they would love to have more economic opportunities that got them out of the fields- and where does that choice come from? A market economy

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

This is pretty hilarious I must say..

let's discuss a meaningless study with zero applicability to anything...it seems like David you have picked the perfect "circle jerk" my friend- congrats.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

great point Sam...

moderation is the key- but now is the religious right going to go on a crusade against midwestern soy farmers? better yet, how about soy subsidies?

J.S.

P.S. there must be a lot of gay cows

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

Great stuff....

this shows how markets do factor environmental externalities in the pricing system and this is huge- this will do more to change policy than any amount of Inconvenient Truth showings- and it's exactly how it should be- if global warming makes storms more likely or draughts then people need to factor that into their decisions....

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

Thank You!!!

This subsidy game is madness and must be opposed!!! It is the antithesis of good environmental planning and good stewardship and a good use of markets.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

A couple quick points...

1. I just want to be on record as saying that I am not trying to deem which organizations are on the environmentalist list versus not- I don't see it as a black and white issue- just as I only believe in moral or immoral acts, not immoral or moral people, I think there is a spectrum here- is someone who owns an SUV but works to preserve open space an environmentalist? Is someone who bikes everywhere but loves McDonald's? You can't answer this is a simple yes and no manner- what I am trying to underline is basic principles that underly the movement as a whole, even if not every group and every individual will have a perfect record on every detail- I will post on this further soon

2. Perhaps I need to rephrase my general position: while I don't think that everyone who is an environmentalist must accept basic principles of animal welfare, I do think that animal welfare is as integral to environmentalism as many other issues and that environmentalists SHOULD accept some minimal ethical standards with regards to animals

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

jjwfmme....

not yet, but I'll get to ask him in person on Thursday when he comes to speak at my school- anyone near Monterey, CA is invited- Amory Lovins at 7PM in the Irvine Auditorium on Pierce St. and Jefferson at the Monterey Institute of International Studies December 7th- please come!!! And email me at jason.scorse@miis.edu if you need directions or further info.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

Aside from my general comments above...

I must take issue with a couple of other points that are both explicit and implict:

1. It's easy to caricature PETA and other groups but this actually proves my point about environmentalism- why are we letting PETA speak for animal welfare issues? If only environmentalists could put porth a justifiable and reasonable position we could take the spotlight away from the extremists. It is the same thing with religious extremism- if moderates don't step up ,the vacuum is filled by the extremists- I want us in the mainstream of environmentalism to define the issues and set the stage so that the legitimate interests of animals are well-represent. It seems Robert that you would rather not address these hard issues and thereby cede the ground to the groups you dislike.

And by the way, it's people like this guy who love seeing the animal welfare movement wither- people who due to religious conviction think that caring about animal welfare debases human beings, when it is actually the opposite- it is cruelty towards animals that debases us!

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjcxY2FlYzJmY2UxZDFj...=

2. The notion that somehow we are on the verge of eliminating animal testing in the U.S. and Europe is crazy- here's some of the latest figures from the Humane Society- a very mainstream org.

http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

We have more mobility abroad to work...

because we're richer- it's that simple- countries are happy to have rich educated people come and spend money in their countries that don't pose any threat of overwhelming their society and are net benefits by a long shot in terms of input- I'm not saying it's completely fair but it's no different than any other inequity between rich and poor.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

Good points Gar....but...

who says that the energy future is going to require massive new infrastructure? maybe it's going to be electric cars that we plug in at home- maybe solar cells- are you sure that the wave of the future is centralized? I'm not. And I don't want the government betting on that either. But I don't disagree with your general point that price signals alone are always sufficient.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

ethanol subsidies are a huge waste...

of money and trash the environment- all environmentalists should oppose them

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

I agree with David...

to be honest I find all of the Walmart bashing terribly elitist- 80% of Americans shop at Walmart- are you implying that they're all insensitive destroyers of the environment? Walmart is doing some amazing things and on the scale that they operate it will have a lot more effect than a few of us buying from farmers markets-sorry, but it's the truth.

Also, I'm a little tired of the "local=good" mantra- there are plenty of local producers who exploit their workers, trash the environment, and produce crappy products.

How about we work on national policies that address the roots causes of environmental destruction- subsidized fossil fuel, not taking into account environmental services in resources, etc- instead of believing that somehow if people bought more organic broccoli from mom and pops we'd solve our problems.

And by the way, with all due respect to Bill Mckibben, he is simply wrong- it matters in a huge way whether Walmart buys organic or not- I'm surprised he doesn't realize this.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

whiskerfish...

i am in full agreement that much, not all, of foreign aid is bad policy and wasteful, but for CO2 reduction it may be necessary because china and india aren't going to do it by themselves

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

A few comments:

1. Whiskerfish- i don't pity developing countries at all- but when the minister of india has a limited budget and doesn't choose to use that money to decrease CO2 reductions that makes sense to me- that's all i'm saying- and since rich countries are responsible for most of the carbon load seems reasonable that they should be the most to reduce them

2. sunflower- civilization isn't going to collapse because of global warming- when are environmentalists going to drop the doom and gloom rhetoric that discredits the movement? it's really tired and played out

3. jjwfmme- of course renewables are becoming cheaper and more competitive and that's a beautiful thing but the cheapest fuel sources (without accounting for externalities) will be fossil fuels for a while so this is where the heavy lifting is

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

i agree- he was an enabler..

and the gop needs to redefine itself entirely and ditch the religious right- until that happens i'm happy for them to be a permanent minority

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

putting aside...

your point about the economic disaster of the global food system, what type of regulations do you want? i admit some federal regulations may be bad and onerous but don't we want to protect consumers? or could it be that tom, you're more on the milton friedman school than you realize and actually are in favor of letting consumers choose the standards they want and let the market work instead of having big government impose regulations on them- so where do you stand?

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

i too disagree with samuelson here..

but he's actually a decent economist- he's just a cynical old curmudgeon that's all

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

Just fine...

the French would be even healthier without cheese and the Japanese even healthier without fish- nothing contradictory at all. And of course ecosystems would be MUCH healthier.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

A couple responses...

1. Yes, environmentalism at its core cares about humans- the movement started because of air and water pollution and the affects of toxins on human health- also, we (mostly) don't care about species just for their own sake but how they affect our well-being

2. With all due respect, bringing up examples of rural people who live in areas where it's impossible to be vegetarian (or at least very difficult) is a straw man for so many reasons I don't have the space to list them- that has close to zero to do with this discussion

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

Biodiversity..you couldn't be more wrong...

we are absolutely not omnivores- that is wrong. We can be and can choose not to be very easily. The science is quite clear that nutritionally a vegetarian or vegan diet is in almost all cases superior to an omnivorous diet. In addition, children can be raised vegan completely healthy- I have many friends whose children are vegan are examples of perfect health- drinking cow's milk is an anachronism that will so go the way of other bad customs. Dr. Spock, the preeminent pediatrician recommeded a 100% vegan diet for children right before his death after a lifetime of study. Diebetes is rampant in children and partly due to high animal product + sugar diets.

If you choose to eat whatever you do that's fine but we are in the 21st century and I am surprised that people still cling to the myth that vegetarianism/veganism is unhealthy- this is like saying the Earth is flat. Don't believe the hype! Educate yourself!

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

A few responses....

1. First off, while I strongly disagree with davidintokyo, I respect him because he is civil and backs up his case. The issues where I disagree with him are on core values that I cannot "prove"- but I know that it is people like him who I (we) eventually need to persuade. And since he is open to reason he is persuadable. Also, I have learned a lot from his responses so those who think these conversations are simply akin two intractable camps are wrong.

2. As to property rights as the solution I strongly disagree. I am all for property rights for CO2, sulfur dioxide, even forests and fisheries, but not for individual sentient creatures if those rights give people the right to do anything they want with those animals. The whole point of my argument is that some advanced animals deserve rights that are inviolate- that can't be bought and sold- that are not subject to a cost-benefit framework.

3. atreyger- with all due respect- I think your views don't make sense- to say that we can't care about individual animals because that then makes us separate from them and then that makes us apart from nature is bizarre and circular- are you telling pet owners that they can't care about their dogs and cats? Humans have certain capacities, which include empathy, compassion, and reason- I say that we MUST employ them in thinking about our roles and responsibilities in dealing with the natural world. To argue for anything else is in my view to deny what makes us who we are.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

One last thing...

the greatest acrimony in this country- even greater than from the religious to the non-religious- is reserved for the different christian factions who all fight with each other over who has the "true" understanding of the bible- christianity is far from a monolothic entity in this country- and to see how all of these factions treat each other would make anyone cringe. Finally, a fact:

Since all of the religions of the world hold mutually exclusive claims to the truth, by definition 99% of them must be wrong.

*Although of course it is likely that 100% of them are wrong, but we don't even need a discussion about religion to arrive at the 99% figure- it is simply definitional.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

Just for the record...

the greatest prejudice in American society is reserved for atheists- to not believe in a fairy tale earns one incredible rebuke in our society and almost automatically disqualifies that person from holding higher office- but people can be on the record talking about how god speaks to them, how gays are going to hell, how we are a christian nation, how we need to question evolution, and be our leaders. Let's keep things in perspective- christians are the dominant class in america and their sense of victimization is a ploy to keep in that way since they cannot persuade the masses with reason, only fear and blind faith, and occasionally a few cherry-picked phrases from the new testament.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

I'm with you John....

I think courting evangelicals is basically a very bad idea and by default legitimates an anti-science, anti-liberty, reactionary movement that should be fought, not embraced. Sorry, Jesus ain't gonna come out of the sky and save us- our ability to reason, however, just might, along with our commitment to science.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

A few quick comments...

I too love food and wish others appreciated it as much and would pay a little more for it. And I am glad that most of you discussed efforts that involve education and didn't suggest heavy-handed government policy. On the issue of school lunches, I think huge improvements could be made if we simply took all of the ridiculous subsidies for the meat and dairy industry out of the equation (another area where subsidies are terrible) and gave much more freedom for schools to choose the types of food they want. I don't advocate indoctrinating children with anything, but certainly exposing them to healthy tasty food is a good start. What I like so much about this discussion is that most of it comes down to people expressing their preferences in the market, which is how it should be. I have no desire to force people to eat well, it should come from their own volition.

However, here's a novel idea: higher health premiums for people who don't eat well, which would reflect the cost to society- this might make people think a little more about eating Big Macs- we all pay different amounts for car insurance depending on where we live, our age, and how much we drive, so no reason that people who eat like crap and impose huge costs on society shouldn't pay more for health insurance. Maybe eating badly should be viewed just like smoking cigarettes.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info