Thursday, July 24, 2008

Absurd Link/Story of the week

http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/07/al_gore_to_the.php

In a recent post on PETA’s blog, a blogger condemned Al Gore for admitting that he likes eating meat.

Al Gore admitted to an audience at a political blogger conference that he may, indeed, be bad for the environment and guilty of contributing to global warming. Why? Because he just can't seem to stop eating meat, which is more harmful to the global warming crisis (which Gore is known for being a teeny bit fanatical about) than all of the world's cars, trucks, SUVs, and planes combined!
According to Ezra Klein at Prospect.org, Gore said, "It is true that it would be healthier for us as individuals and as a planet if we consumed less meat. I acknowledge that. … I myself am a meat eater and maybe that's had some effect" (emphasis mine). How did he go from acknowledging that vegetarianism is better for individuals and the planet to saying that maybe his choice to eat animals has some negative effect?
Without committing to any changes in the present, Al Gore explains that he "plead[s] guilty" and that we must "walk before we can run." Seriously? He doesn't know how to walk the walk on this issue? Have we not been clear enough with this guy? We'd love to love you, Al, but please stop clinging to the one thing that is so devastating for the world while asking everyone else to drop their bad habits.
What's next, M.A.D.D. beer cozies sized to fit in your car's cup holder? Ugh.


There’s no doubt that the biggest polluter in this world is the meat industry. However, I think it’s difficult to take PETA seriously with regards to this situation for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, we shouldn’t forget that PETA’s reason for being is. According to their FAQ/Mission statement page on their website, they believe that “animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation.” With that said, their goal is to create a society in which animals are free from being eaten, tortured, enslaved, etc. Admittedly, this is a noble if somewhat misguided cause. Unfortunately, their political/philosophical agenda is such that anything or anyone with a divergent opinion is vilified, such as say, Al Gore.

Secondly, I think it’s hypocritical to demonize Al Gore for eating meat when PETA ignores the fact that soy (which, if I’m not mistaken, plays a large role in a vegetarian and vegan diet) is at the present moment, the biggest factor behind deforestation in the Amazon. According to this 2003 NY Times article the production of soybeans has lead to a huge increase in deforestation. According to the article, the rise in soybean production can be attributed to the rise in demand, particularly in China.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/international/americas/17BRAZ.html)

Economists say that the main spur to the soybean boom is the emergence of a middle class in China, much of whose newly disposable income has been spent on a richer, more varied diet. During the past decade, China has been transformed from a net exporter of soybeans to the world's largest importer in some years of whole soybeans as well as oil and meal byproducts.

Along with more of the Amazonian forest being cut down to increase its output, soy production has had the following negative effects, according to a press release by Friends of the Earth International (http://www.foei.org/en/publications/pdfs/FoEI-RTRS.pdf/):

Conversion of forests and savannahs and related loss of biodiversity, climate change
through land-use changes, fertiliser use and NOx emissions, disruption of surface and
ground water and rainfall patterns.

Social problems such as land conflicts and human rights violations, loss of livelihoods,
poisoning and expulsion of rural communities, small farmers and indigenous peoples.

Forced displacement of the local population into cities and undisturbed natural areas,
increasing concentration of land, and related rural unemployment, poverty and
malnutrition.

Displacement of existing agriculture (particularly cattle ranching and small holder
agriculture) to unexploited and vulnerable primary forests and savannahs.


With that said, there is at least some culpability in the destruction of the planet by those people who consume soy. I think that there definitely needs to be an effort in curbing the environmental damage that the meat industry have, but I don’t think that the best way to go about it is to try to convince people to stop eating meat and switch to vegetarianism/veganism. I, an avid meat eater, have recently made a concerted effort to buy meat locally and make sure that the meat is usually grass-fed. This is a personal choice based on my desire to have less of an environmental impact and ensure that the animals that I consume are treated humanely. It’s mostly because I want to hold my actions accountable. Plus, grass-fed beef just tastes SO much better.

I don’t think that anyone should be taking their environmental advice from PETA. That’s not what they’re about. Instead of trying to make me feel guilty for eating meat, they should stick to what they do best, which is throwing red paint at people who wear fur coats.

1 comment:

teeney said...

There is an article on zombies in the Chronicle this week, posing the question of "Why don't zombies eat zombies?" I think the answer is simple. Human meat, similar to beef, tastes better when it's not human-fed. I mean, I imagine animals with balanced and appropriate diets taste better. Very few would argue that humans are supposed to eat humans (isn't that what makes zombies so frightening?) and it makes sense that humans eating the variety of food that humans are supposed to eat taste much better than those who eat only human flesh--and those who eat only human flesh probably taste better than those who just eat brains.

But this is all only relevant in the slightest manner. I did thoroughly enjoy this post, though. Two thumbs up.