In the end, this effort will likely produce more confusion and disempowerment than it does new vegetarians. There are other ways to skin this carrot.

For more:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jcoifman/go_pluck_yours ...

Jon Coifman NRDC jcoifman@nrdc.org

Full story here:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=3536546& ...

Seems to me that the veg message is right in line with the direction our youth is going. And isn't the youth a huge and important demographic that we should be focusing on?

As a young woman myself, I don't have the fear that many older environmentalists have of being labeled as extreme or a crusty treehugging hippie for caring about the planet. Among my friends, trying to be green and veg is considered really cool.

However, in your post at switchboard, you point out that

And don't forget the heat-trapping carbon dioxide released clearing forest for pasture, or the supercharged greenhouse chemical methyl bromide, which is used to wipe out naturally occurring microbes in the soil so that we can grow eerily huge strawberries and tomatoes.

This is amusing in that as I recollect a former leading NRDC staffer Mary Nichols was point on weakening efforts to ban methyl bromide when she was at the Clinton EPA.  Ironically as I recollect, this was a matter that current Gore spokesperson Kalee Kreider was quite incensed about at the time when she was a campaigner at Ozone Action which I believe was created in part because the founder Passacantando didn't think the mainstream groups were doing enough about ozone depletion.   Considering that Nichols is married to a lawyer who defended Exxon, what can you expect.   Sadly, I don't recollect NRDC taking Clinton or Nichols to task on the matter -- an example of policy that contributed to disheartening the grassroots with Clinton/Gore.  But during the Bush years, the methyl bromide issue has been used as a cudgel against Bush by enviros and even by a Mary Nichols-associated group.  ( If you like, I'll dig up citations for these charges. )

Also, my guess is that most vegetarians folks would be very inclined to protect forests and stand up to timber folks, probably more so than NRDC has been, beyond the rhetoric and public relations.  

And besides, you ignore that a animal-based diet sadly contributes to far more clearing of forests in order to plant grains and legumes to feed to cattle, chickens, pigs, etc.

Cheerio

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Al Gore says he cares so much about global warming (and he does seem genuine), so how can he ignore the science from the U.N., the Univ. of Chicago, and every other report that's been done?

The U.N. report also says that eating meat is among the top three causes of every environmental problem, from the smallest to the largest, as detailed at GoVeg.com.

Al and his pals could do a ton of good by encouraging people to adopt a vegetarian diet; it's hard to understand how he can just keep ignoring this issue.

Check out www.Meat.org & www.GoVeg.com.

I can't say what NRDC was doing on methyl bromide during the Clinton years because I wasn't here. Nor have I ever met Mary. But I can tell you that we are working to keep a lid on the stuff, as a quick Google search will confirm.

A few of many items for background:

http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/061030a.asp

http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/ ...

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/2 ...


Jon Coifman NRDC jcoifman@nrdc.org

This is assuming the average for gas mileage of about 24 MPG, which means that trading in your Subaru Outback, (Eddie Bauer edition) for a Prius is equal to 20.8 vegans.

In other words, increasing mileage or reducing miles driven by 10% is equal to changing to a vegan lifestyle. So, I'm not sure where everybody is getting this idea that going vegan is better than reducing transport fuel use. Somebody check my numbers. I used the 18% number from the report. Also keep in mind that most of this is the result of deforestation, which of course, biofuels is exascerbating.

From "Livestocks long shadow:"

""...the livestock sector... employs 1.3 billion people and creates livelihoods for one billion of the world's poor. Livestock products provide one-third of humanity's protein intake, and are a contributing cause of obesity and and potential remedy for undernourishment.

70 percent of previous forest land in the Amazon is occupied by pastures...livestock are often the only source of livelihoods for the people living in these areas...

The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions...The largest share of this derives from land-use changes--especially deforestation--caused by expansion of pastures and arable land for feed crops."

Note: Veganism was not mentioned once in the entire 408 page report.


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

I compared the % of "US" car emissions to the % of "global" beef emissions. I changed that to compare the % US "global" contribution of car emissions to "global" beef (apples to apples). My bad. Anyone find other discrepancies let me know.

If I were to go vegan it would reduce my GHG footprint less than 1% (0.95 %). Going carless will reduce GHG 2.5%. In other words, going carless is equal to 2.5 vegans.

Assuming the average for gas mileage of about 24 MPG,  means trading in your Subaru Outback, (Eddie Bauer edition) for a Prius is also equal to 2.5 vegans.

In other words, increasing mileage or reducing miles driven by 40% is equal to changing to a vegan lifestyle.

I am aware that livestock includes more than cattle but cattle and grazing seem to be the main focus of the FAO report. Here in the States, we eat mostly beef and chicken, followed by pork and very little of anything else.

One depressing stat that came from that spreadsheet is that if everyone in the US were to go car free, we would only reduce global GHG emissions 2.5%, leaving 97.5%. :(

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Meanwhile, the people doing B note that "I like doing B; my not doing B contributes almost nothing to reducing greenhouse emissions compared to C (which includes A)  So I'm going to keep doing B as long a C continues."

On a recent thread we learn that jet travel is now a human need and that there's simply no point in curtailing it because it (currently) causes less emissions than light bulbs; in this thread we learn that there's certainly no point in avoiding meat or going car free and anyone who suggests either is simply a humorless buzzkill scold.

Apparently we can justify anything so long as we are careful not to ask the questions that help make an ethical choice clear, including that most telling one "What if everyone did what I'm proposing to do?"  

The world can support everyone having access to efficient lighting and efficient refrigerators; the world cannot support much meat consumption, jet travel, or auto usage.

The 5% Project

Some people seem intent on proving that there is no reason to take any action to reduce greenhouse emissions because, when compared to the total, the result of making better choices is, at most, a trivial contribution.

My post uses some simple math, mixed with some basic data, to question the validity of claims being made by those who invariably show up and say stupid things like "You can't call yourself an environmentalist if you eat meat, drive cars, travel by air bla bla bla."

I like doing B; my not doing B contributes almost nothing to reducing greenhouse emissions compared to C (which includes A)  So I'm going to keep doing B as long a C continues.

Are you suggesting that by not, not doing B, you can do A but not C? Be careful how you answer that, there is a slight chance I'm jerking your chain.

Strawman #2 and 3:

On a recent thread we learn that jet travel is now a human need and that there's simply no point in curtailing it because it (currently) causes less emissions than light bulbs; in this thread we learn that there's certainly no point in avoiding meat or going car free and anyone who suggests either is simply a humorless buzzkill scold.

You learned no such things. Strawmen aside, by "avoiding" you mean "no" meat, not just moderation, and by "car free," you mean "no" car, not just moderation in miles driven or use of a high mileage car. Good luck. May hundreds of millions envy and therefore emulate your lifestyle, joining you on your bus ride.

"What if everyone did what I'm proposing to do?"

The missing link in your whole argument. What if everyone in America rode a hybrid electric bike and drove a Prius? Since when is what you or I do, the right thing to do? The best we can do is lay out options for people and try to steer them away from greenwashing.

The world can support everyone having access to efficient lighting and efficient refrigerators; the world cannot support much meat consumption, jet travel, or auto usage.

The key adjectives are "efficient," and "much."

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Also, a recent Japanese study reporte that eating two lbs. of beef creates as many GHGs as driving nonstop for 3 hours
See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007 ...

My calcs show the same thing. Going Vegan will save 1.72%, a Prius 1.25%. Not much difference and seriously, driving a Prius is a lot "easier" for me. This is based on the average American meat consumption. I eat a quarter of the American average of meat and drive a Prius, so my lifestyle trumps the Vegan one by a mile.

The Japanese study also shows that Veganism can easily be trumped by less driving:  http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0718-beef.html

A kilogram (2.2 lbs) of beef is responsible for the equivalent of the amount of CO2 emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometres (155 miles). Average in Europe =40 MPG

155 miles/40 MPG=3.875 gallons

3.875 gallons/2.2 pounds beef = 1.76 gallons per pound beef

Average American eats about 100 pounds beef per year so that is equal to about 176 gallons.

Average American uses about 746 (1) gallons of gas per year so going car free will remove 4.2 times more greenhouse gas  than giving up beef. Doubling your mileage will remove twice as much greenhouse gas  than giving up beef.

(1) http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_s ...

"Su Taylor, the press officer for the Vegetarian Society, told New Scientist: "Everybody is trying to come up with different ways to reduce carbon footprints, but one of the easiest things you can do is to stop eating meat."

Actually, there are "easier" ways. For example, not having a pet or children. Reducing your meat consumption to half the national average and switching to a Prius. How many of you out there would rather do that than go Vegan? Raise your hand.


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

First of all, I hate the tactics of bullying and blackmail used by PETA; and I have little doubt that many promoters of animal welfare and animal rights associated with other organizations winced at the quoted remark of the PETA spokesman, rather in the style of George W. Bush's "You're either with us or against us."

Also, I agree with the green-advertising expert quoted toward the end of the NYTimes article, that there is something fishy about promoting vegetarianism by appealing to our concerns about global warming.  But PETA (and NOT the HSUS, I think) has regularly done the equivalent.  There are a few reasons why people choose to become vegetarian, which have nothing to do with any interest in animals or animal welfare, e.g. considerations of personal health, and PETA has not been slow to exploit them.

In fact that demonstrates that the PETA people are not true to their name.  If they were truly concerned about the ethical treatment of animals, then they must be interested in not only what happens to animals at the hands of human beings, but also how human beings come to develop their attitudes toward animals.  But what we actually see, when they pontificate that "If you hate global warming you will become vegetarian," is that they do not care at all what environmentalists might think about animals; the environmentalists can continue totally disregarding animals and their interests; all they care about is the cold utilitarian end that certain animals not be exploited for their meat.

The HSUS's ad, with the car key and the fork, is more subtle, and should not be misinterpreted as though it were just another expression of the PETA rant.  The point of the ad, I think, is that while many people nowadays are aware that our driving habits cause serious GHG emissions, and that changing those habits, e.g. by driving a more fuel-efficient vehicle, will have a positive environmental effect, very few people by contrast are yet aware that a meat-based diet also is causally associated with serious GHG emissions.

Also, the HSUS does well to remain focused on how the effects of global warming endanger (and have already endangered) many wild animals.

And so, the counsel to become vegetarian, or at least to reduce one's carnivory, is in itself unimpeachable.  And it was not at all helpful of the PETA spokesman to urge vegetarianism upon us in so belligerent a way.  What possible good result could come of asking, "Which of these activities is better?," implying that those people who have committed themselves to the runner-up are fools?

And I think that is all JMG was saying, in his own way.

BioD, just so you know, I am a promoter of animal rights and a vegetarian, and I do not condemn you or despise you at all for continuing to eat a little bit of meat.  Au contraire, I consider you a hero, a good example and a model citizen.

But I cannot open your "calculations," so I do not know what you are calculating.  GMUnger is right to point out, in the earlier thread, that all the GHG emissions related to the beef industry, from growing feed and producing new baby cows all the way to preparing a steak or a hamburger, must be included in any reasonable set of calculations, and not just the GHG emitted by the live cattle.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.