Environment and Global Warming
-
Animal Ag Accounts for 51% of Greenhouse Gases
-
Illinois: Where Hog Farming Dollars Trump Environment and Human Health
-
Save the Animals, Save the Planet: Blog Action Day '09, Climate Change
Blog Action Day for Climate Change -- Tomorrow!
Published October 14, 2009 @ 09:50AM PT
Animal-friendly bloggers, may I have your attention for a moment? I promise it's important. If you haven't heard already, tomorrow is Blog Action Day 2009, and this year's issue is climate change.
I'm guilty of not pointing this out sooner, but better late than never, right? Thousands of bloggers from around the world are going to be writing on this single issue -- a single issue of monumental importance -- tomorrow. And animal rights advocates absolutely need to be among them, not only because of how climate change threatens our fellow animals and their habitats across the planet, but also because of how significantly our exploitation of animals (i.e., raising and killing them en masse for food, clothing, etc.) is contributing to climate change in the first place.
So whatever you normally write about, whether animal rights or yummy vegan food or whatever else, please take the time to quickly register here today, and then tomorrow, write a post related to climate change. And check out the below video for Blog Action Day while you're here (there's also much else to check out at the project's site).
And finally, kudos not only to the folks who originally founded Blog Action Day, but also to the folks who this year took over the task of running it: Change.org itself is now powering Blog Action Day, and the team working on it has been putting in a lot of time, energy, and excitement to make sure it's a success.
Agency's Disregard for Desert Species Ruled "Arbitrary and Capricious"
Published September 15, 2009 @ 07:12AM PT
Yesterday, the Center for Biological Diversity released some good news, courtesy of a federal court ruling against irresponsible, unethical, and illegal actions by a federal agency with regard to animals and environment in Arizona. Disregard for animals is the norm, not the exception, in government agencies, including the very ones set up to protect them, so it's good to hear judges loudly calling foul now and then:
Will Eating Less Meat Help Stop Climate Change? YES.
Published August 25, 2009 @ 05:50AM PT
Note: Michael submitted this post in response to a recent post and discussion at the Stop Global Warming blog. As I've noted on this blog before, global warming/climate change is an animal rights issue. Animal advocates oppose animal agriculture for ethical reasons, but it is also a major contributor to greenhouse gases, deforestation, habitat loss, pollution, and more--all of which endangers, harms, and kills even more animals. Free-living animals (aka wildlife) are, and will continue, dying off at alarming rates because of climate change and other environmental problems to which animal ag contributes significantly. Killing animals is killing more animals. Finally, I find Michael's arguments (including his numbers) compelling and am glad to present them here. -S. Ernst
Between the deliberate misinformation spread by folks like David Martosko of the Center for Consumer Freedom and the well-intentioned but incorrect claims made by some environmentalists, there is a lot of confusion about something that, frankly, there is no valid debate about.
The worst effects of global warming will not be effectively prevented without a significant reduction in animal product consumption. Period.
I will counter the two most common arguments I hear about this, and I hope the numbers and statistics are not overwhelming. If you are unfamiliar with the concepts of greenhouse gases, climate change, and CO2/CO2 equivalent, please read the Wikipedia article on global warming.
Killing Fishes for Fuel?
Published August 13, 2009 @ 01:53PM PT
As noted in the past, I have a love-hate relationship with TreeHugger when it comes to the site's animal-related coverage, and when I saw this headline this morning--"LiveFuels to Farm Fish to Make Biofuel = Bad Idea"--I initially groaned, not processing the "Bad Idea" part right away. But it turns out TreeHugger and I agree this time. Writer Matthew McDermott too thinks that the following is a preposterous and unethical proposal:
Bat Spirals and Wildlife High-Rises
Published August 05, 2009 @ 10:34AM PT
Emily over at the Stop Global Warming blog has an interesting post up titled "Architecture for Bats." Before beginning a brief discussion of the plight of bats--and the recently designed Bat Spiral habitat--Emily asks, "As we continue to transform the climate at a blistering pace, what responsibilities do we have to help other species adapt and thrive to the fast-warming world?"
And her post reminds me of another post I included in a mid-June roundup: "Building with Animals in Mind," from Glenn of Liberation BC, about proposed plans in England to build high rises for urban animals.
Glenn writes,
What I really like about it is that these people are thinking about building with animals in mind. And not just how to keep them out of our spaces or how to build to hold them, but rather building for the animals, so that they can have habitat within our habitat.
That architects and planners are thinking about this gives me hope that we might actually start planning our spaces so that the other inhabitants of the earth can exist here too.
Check out both posts. Interesting stuff.
Climate Change Reality Checks for Locavores and Omnivores
Published July 29, 2009 @ 02:59PM PT
It's possible that those of you not tapped into the world of Facebook and Twitter (yes, there are people who don't use Facebook and Twitter, my friends) have been missing a few stories here and there. So let me fill you in.
First, the Ezra Klein piece at Washington Post, which I've seen posted by no fewer than 15 people today: "Gut Check: The Meat of the Problem." It's unfortunate that after all this time and all this evidence, it's still news-worthy whenever someone in the mainstream makes the connection between eating animals and climate change. I don't expect Klein to go vegan anytime soon (if ever), and I've been periodically frustrated by the wall he always seems to hit while contemplating his food choices, but this article is circulating like mad, to the satisfaction of some and the displeasure of others (this panicking National Review writer not only tells us how aghast he is at Klein's reduce-your-meat-consumption commentary, but also proclaims veganism and vegetarianism both to be "immoral").
One aspect of Klein's piece that does annoy me still is his "livestock"=meat premise. A few articles on this topic, even in the mainstream, have done a good job of pointing out that it's not just a "meat" problem--that replacing flesh with cheese and cream dishes, for example, isn't the solution. Klein fails to make that point. But what does Klein do that I love? Call out mainstream enviro organizations (such as Natural Resources Defense Council--Klein mistakenly wrote "National," but this is the group he meant) that have irresponsibly refused to deal with and publicize this enormously important issue.
And on a similar topic, there's "The Locavore Myth" in Forbes by James E. McWilliams. The conclusion to his article? "If you want to make a statement, ride your bike to the farmer's market. If you want to reduce greenhouse gases, become a vegetarian." Or much better, of course, go vegan.
FoodWatch chart (featured previously in Researchers: Even "Organically Raised" Cows Are a "Climate Bomb"):
"Guilt-Free" Sushi Doesn't Include Bits of Fish
Published July 29, 2009 @ 08:21AM PT
Apparently, between yesterday's post and this one, we have a theme going: foods that require the killing of animals are not greed- and guilt-free just because they don't require the killing or exploitation of some other animals. Yesterday, I wrote about the problem of referring to Fair Trade milk chocolate as free of "greed" and as a win for the "socially conscious" when dairy consumption and "production" involve some of the greediest, cruelest human acts. And today, I'm writing in response to a Christian Science Monitor article titled "Guilt-Free Sushi."
