Tuesday November 24th, 2009
 |  |
 |
Environmentalists can eat meat?
Posted by madamerebellion on April 4, 2007 - 12:46pm.
...PETA points out the following:
· The effect that our meat addiction is having on the climate is truly staggering. In fact, in its recent report "Livestock’s Long Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options," the United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.
· Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius.
Intrestingly enough... here's a letter PETA had on the the site...
"The single best thing that any of us can do to for our health, for animals, and for the environment is to go vegetarian," says PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk. "The best and easiest way for (a famous "environmentalist") to show his critics that he’s truly committed to fighting global warming is to kick his meat habit immediately."
PETA’s letter to (a famous "environmentalist") is available upon request. For more information, please visit PETA’s Web site GoVeg.com.
for futher reading;
http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=9579
http://goveg.com/environment.asp
This is a previous discussion I came upon a while back and as I was clearing my bookmarks these sites suddenly popped up.
Many, many people, myself included, consider themselves environmentally conscious and still eat meat. (Let's keep this conversation completely separate from the ethical dilemma, for those who see it as one, of eating animals).
Ultimately, I think, PETA is doing one of the things they do best—and in no way is this a knock on them—they're using sensational language and a somewhat shocking tone to make sure that their message is heard. And that's important.
But from my point of view, if somebody considers the effects their actions take on the environment in daily decision making, is willing to make some sacrifices in their lifestyle, and works to make themself aware of the ongoing planetary crises, indulging in an occasional (non-factory farmed, hopefully) burger, or organic steak (let alone, say, a wild rabbit or organic free range chicken), the person doesn't become an enemy of the planet ipso facto.
If in the last forty-five years most people (in the United States) had viewed "enviornmentalists" not as crazy nutjobs who smell funny, but as people who made some small personal decisions in their own lives based partially on the state of the world around them, the "movement" would be much, much larger. i.e., we'd be no where near the mess we are in today.
Exactly, ethical dogma should be disregarded.
Something very important to consider though is that the problem isn't eating meat, the problem is factory farming, as you previously mentioned.
Quite frankly I'm not very fond of PETA and its' work, yes, I admire their intentions to an extent but sometimes I feel they go overboard and off topic.
What gets to me is the fact that they try to warp and or manipulate the truth, and it's a common trait in organizations, I understand.
So in one of those articles they condemn owners of cars like the hybrid or the prius who are carnivorous. Pointing out that the environmental damage decrease resulting when transitioning from a standard car to a prius is minimal.
Surely the theory is agreed because batteries are responsible for a TON of water pollution, which is something the prius relies on.
However, transportation is still a very important aspect to change yet and it does indeed have a big impact in the environment. You can drive a car and get 25-35mpg, OR, buy an SUV and get 10-18mpg. There is a MASSIVE difference between the two.
So while the difference between a prius and a normal car is not so great, especially when you factor in the environmental cost of battery production, replacement every few years, and disposal/recycling. It is better for the earth to use a regular internal combustion engine'd car that gets 'good' mpg, and use it more effectively (less often).
It's completely understood here that PETA is simply trying to make a comparison in hopes that meat eaters realize that switching transportation methods is not enough to help the environment.. But I just can't appreciate their method of bringing awareness, and that's more of a personal opinion.
I mean if you have more information regarding this please feel free to comment back with links, or perhaps your personal opinion, I welcome contrasting opinions.
post script: regarding your last paragraph, I sincerely agree with your opinion, but it will always be hard for people to see past their media influenced culture.
It appears we agree on just about everything here.
Except that I don't even think:
"PETA is simply trying to make a comparison in hopes that meat eaters realize that switching transportation methods is not enough to help the environment."
I think, quite simply, PETA saw an opportunity to get some media attention and get people to pay more attention specifically about their own political causes (ie, kindness to animals and vegetarian/veganism) through trying to make meat-eating environmentalists feel guilty. Their actual interest in the environment is surely only peripheral.
Again though, I'm not sure I begrudge them that. They feel a burning need to have their voices heard, and, bearing in mind our media-influenced culture, it's hard for a "fringe" group to get a message out there without resorting to border-line absurdist tactics.
The sad thing about it all? Well, acting like that, PETA will always remain a "fringe" group.
I think we all agree that PETA are a bunch of wackos, but your Prius example is a bit over the top. I would look into what it takes to make such an "evironmentally" friendly vehicle before I blast the good old American SUV.
Yes a Prius or other hybrid vehicles get better gas mileage than SUV's, but so do bicycles. In my humble opinion, people are far better off buying a fuel efficient fossil fuel vehicle like the Chevy Aveo rather than a Prius given the length of time value of money, i.e. cost recovery, it takes to pay off the hybrid vehicle . . . not to mention the enviromental cost to make and deliver a Prius or other hybrid vehicles.
Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than most fossil fuel vehicles. The Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery which Toyota purchases by the thousands of tons annually. The plant spreads sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.
The nickel produced by this plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip shipped by traditional fossil fuel transportation platforms required to produce a single Prius battery. Pretty environmentally friendly, eh?
Let's keep a rational line of thought folks. Fossil fuel vehicles (including SUV's), oil, gas and energy related products in general aren't the only "bad guys" here. I know it's easy to point the finger at these areas when looking for someone to blame, but be honest . . . please. All of us here are using fossil fuel related products everyday (PC's, mp3 players, cars, microwaves, cell phones, music CD's, clothes, shaving cream, tooth brushes, paint, home building materials, etc). The biggest culprit is all of you, us, the folks who complain about evil auto makers or oil&gas risk takers instead of looking in the mirror.
PETA are wackos, but please don't join them by pointing fingers ate others who sell you the conveniences you enjoy . . . and you pay for willingly.
Cheers.
I'm terribly sorry I barely got to this, I don't normally check my old posts but for some reason I wanted to check if there was more comments that I could respond to.
I definitely agree with you when you say that the difference between a hybrid and a fossil fuel car isn't much. I think that you may have misinterpreted what I was tyring to say though.
However, transportation is still a very important aspect to change yet and it does indeed have a big impact in the environment. You can drive a car and get 25-35mpg, OR, buy an SUV and get 10-18mpg. There is a MASSIVE difference between the two.
So while the difference between a prius and a normal car is not so great, especially when you factor in the environmental cost of battery production, replacement every few years, and disposal/recycling. It is better for the earth to use a regular internal combustion engine'd car that gets 'good' mpg, and use it more effectively (less often).
What I meant to say is that while, yes, a hybrid may help to reduce gas usage, some of its' features are equally damaging to the environment. My suggestion: buying a normal car with good mileage and use it more effectively (less often).
I don't feel that I was pointing fingers at anyone, but merely trying to defend my stance on the whole idea of PETA judging and attacking anyone that eats meat. PETA argues that trying to be more eco friendly in our transportation habits is almost irrelevant and basically titled any meat eaters who have a a hybrid hypocrites. I feel that any change is good and any type of eco friendly activity should be admired, not mocked and attacked.
You both bring to light many good points, especially being that PETA will always be a fringe group because they act like a fringe organization. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Changes take time and compromise and making people feel guilty about their decision to eat meat, when it could be organic meat and locally produced is just wrong.
Obviously changes need to be made to help our planet become more healthy, however I always agree that PETA's tactics are not my approach on how to do it.
I can only imagine what the film did to your mindset about eating meat out. I have never seen it, and probably won't. Sometimes there is just too much knowledge. Buying organic and local is the best way to make sure you stay healthy.
I think we all agree, PETA is out there, but look at all the comments they have generated here at Lime. I guess there tactics do provoke discussion.
PETA i think in general is always trying to get attention by either the right or bad way. i think Environmentalists can eat meat maybe not quite as often as other people. but other arising questions could be can they drive suvs i mean you see environmentalists complaining about it but look at the cars they drive. so yes i think they should practice what they preach before takeing a big bite of that meaty sandwitch they have once in a while!
"eating meat it serves as a fabulous source of high quality proteins, which a single vegetarian food is not able to provide. It contains all the essential amino acids that the body requires"