Environment and Global Warming
Plant-Based Hunger Solutions: Feeding More With Less, Part 1
Published February 18, 2009 @ 05:58AM PT
Guest post time! Contributor Dawn Moncrief, executive director of FARM and Well-Fed World, will be sharing her wide-ranging knowledge and experience (see her bio in the post's sidebar) with us both today and tomorrow, writing on the connections between eating animals and environmental concerns and, especially, world hunger. Stay tuned for Part 2 tomorrow. -SE
Part 1: Let's Be Reasonable
Vegetarians and vegans are sometimes dismissed as being irrational and driven by our emotions, which is ironic, considering that we can claim both the scientific and the moral high ground.
We are very fortunate that "kicking the meat habit" is not only a better way to feed ourselves and the world more generally, but also the best choice for the environment and (of course) the animals, farm animals and wildlife in particular.
The benefits are so far-reaching that it's not an exaggeration to say that "going veg" is one of the best choices (if not the best choice) we can make to help solve the world's most pressing and stubborn problems. Huge benefits are available for an incredibly small price: a little effort to make the change and a little inconvenience while more restaurants and grocers continue to increase their options.
So why the resistance? Why are Americans the largest per capita meat consumers in the world (40% more than Europeans)? Eating meat is not motivated by our concern for health. Heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes are America's top killers in large part thanks to meat, which is fiber-less, vitamin-free, cholesterol-filled, and saturated with saturated fat.
It's not like we don't have other options. There's plenty to eat without eating meat. Look closely, and you will notice that it is meat-defenders who are quick to deny hard facts as if they were Jim Perdue with billions to lose. Eating meat is not only emotionally motivated and habit-driven; it is also irrational and less sustainable.
Want proof?
-Continue reading after the jump-
Millions of Animals Dead or Injured in Australia's Wildfires
Published February 11, 2009 @ 12:23PM PT
There's no easy reading here. If you are able to donate to Wildlife Victoria's emergency fund, to help the injured survivors, many of whom are also without habitat now and at risk of starvation, in addition to being at risk from their injuries, please click here.
"Australia's Animals Scorched in Wildfires" from the Associated Press, via Huffington Post:
SYDNEY — Kangaroo corpses lay scattered by the roadsides while wombats that survived the wildfire's onslaught emerged from their underground burrows to find blackened earth and nothing to eat.
Wildlife rescue officials on Wednesday worked frantically to help the animals that made it through Australia's worst-ever wildfires but they said millions of animals likely perished in the inferno.
Scores of kangaroos have been found around roads, where they were overwhelmed by flames and smoke while attempting to flee, said Jon Rowdon, president of the rescue group Wildlife Victoria.
Kangaroos that survived are suffering from burned feet, a result of their territorial behavior. After escaping the initial flames, the creatures - which prefer to stay in one area - likely circled back to their homes, singeing their feet on the smoldering ground.
"It's just horrific," said Neil Morgan, president of the Statewide Wildlife Rescue Emergency Service in Victoria, the state where the raging fires were still burning. "It's disaster all around for humans and animals as well."
Some wombats that hid in their burrows managed to survive the blazes, but those that are not rescued face a slow and certain death as they emerge to find their food supply gone, said Pat O'Brien, president of the Wildlife Protection Association of Australia.
The official human death toll stood at 181 from weekend's deadly fires and authorities said it would exceed 200. While the scope of the wildlife devastation was still unclear, it was likely to be enormous, Rowdon said.
"There's no doubt across that scale of landscape and given the intensity of the fires, millions of animals would have been killed," he said.
Read the rest at Huffington Post here.
In a short post titled "Apocalypse?" one Australian blogger wrote,
Australia is currently in a pretty bad state.
North Queensland is under water. 63% of the state has been declared a disaster zone--that's an area larger than the state of South Australia. It didn't rain yesterday, and it's dry today (except a little burst of rain just after sunrise), but more rain is predicted for tomorrow. We're fine, just a bit sick of gloomy weather and fighting a battle against the mold that's growing on every surface, and the ants who have moved indoors to get out of the rain. A lot of people are not okay, since their homes are flooded. A lot of cattle have been shot because they are stranded by rising flood waters. And a few people have drowned when their cars are flooded.
Much worse off are the Victorians, who not only have had to suffer unbearable heat--but are now either burnt out or at risk of fire. Nearly 200 people are confirmed dead so far, which apparently makes this Australia's worst recorded natural disaster.
TreeHugger reports on the likely climate-change link, as does the Associated Press in an article that begins, "Australia may be getting a glimpse of its globally warmed future." Remember when I noted in yesterday's post that global warming is an animal rights issue--because eating animals = global warming = destruction of habitat and death of even more animals? Well, here's a devastating example of how connected it all is.
Photos: AP
FOX News and Animal Advocates on Meat-Eating Environmentalists
Published February 10, 2009 @ 08:53AM PT
I'm not a fan of conservative commentator and Fox News host Glenn Beck. No surprises there--he has been offensive on more fronts and occasions than I can count, and one of his pastimes is trying (futilely) to show that the human activities we know are causing global warming aren't really. And I don't think for a second that in talking about the connections between global warming and a meat- and dairy-loving diet--and the prominent environmentalists who eat that diet--he's hoping to get people to rethink their eating habits. He's just looking for a way to show hypocrisy in his liberal foes (e.g., Al Gore and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.). However, in his efforts to do that, he has, on at least two occasions now, had Matt Prescott from PETA on his show to discuss the global warming impact of meat and dairy consumption and the problem with prominent environmentalists calling for immediate, important changes in the way we live and then refusing to make such an immediate, important change themselves.
How can global warming activists accept and acknowledge that animal agriculture is responsible for roughly 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and that switching to a vegan diet does remarkably more to decrease a person's greenhouse gas contributions than, say, switching to a hybrid vehicle or CFLs and then not make that change, a change that is relatively easy to make, that is beneficial on multiple other levels, and that can be made immediately? When we are learning more every day about how dire the climate change situation is, when we are learning and reporting every day that we must pull out all the stops and make enormous changes now, and when we know that animal-based diets are a shockingly significant contributor to global warming, how is it possible that all serious global warming activists aren't making the transition to a plant-based diet and advocating that diet, immediately and often? These are the questions Beck asks, and for one bizarre moment, (conservative) Beck and (predominantly progressive) vegan activists are asking the same questions. (By the way, yes, this is a blog on animal rights, not climate change, but I'll say again what I have said before and will say again--I was an environmentalist before I was an animal rights advocate, and all these issues are, obviously, inextricably tied up together. Exploitation of animals for food is a cause of global warming, pollution, and other environmental destruction; global warming, pollution, and other environmental destruction destroy habitats and kill off other animal species; and on and on it goes.)
Whatever you or I think of some of PETA's tactics and campaigns, we have to give kudos to Prescott for his excellent handling of this interview and previous ones. Erik Marcus at Vegan.com says, "I often slam PETA for their counterproductive publicity efforts, but they do have some great people working for them. Prescott did an outstanding job on Beck’s show. In the last 30 seconds Beck just couldn’t hold out any longer and reverted back to his neocon reactionary schtick, but all in all this video is surprisingly great." Erik is right--it's an excellent interview (right up until Beck transforms back into a jerk by mocking his guest). Watch it below. There's a transcript here, but the video is better.
Image: Animal Aid
Among the many resources on this topic are "Diet and the Environment" at FARM and the "For Our Earth" section at ChooseVeg.com. See also (again) the great Audubon article "The Low-Carbon Diet."
For other global warming information and coverage, see Change.org's Global Warming blog.
Global Warming and What We Eat--Let's Act Now
Published February 03, 2009 @ 11:55AM PT
Thanks to an unlikely source, I today learned of the just-launched campaign Let's Act Now. I admit that I haven't read through the whole Web site yet, but given what I've seen so far, I'm sufficiently impressed to recommend checking it out, though I do wish (1) that it more clearly pointed out that meat consumption isn't the only issue--all animal agriculture, including dairy farming (especially) and egg farming, contributes to this problem--and (2) that it linked to some organizations or publications other than the ones to which it currently links (for the record, if you're looking for a veg magazine, I'd absolutely choose VegNews over Vegetarian Times, for a number of reasons). Read on after the jump for the press release:
The Bottom Line on Climate Change: It's What's For Dinner!
Global Warming and an Idiot
Published February 03, 2009 @ 11:25AM PT
Yes, despite my periodic requests in comment threads that commenters not resort to calling each other names, I am calling someone an idiot. But with good reason, I swear. The individual upon whom this dishonor is bestowed is, actually, the same individual who happily alerted us to "crop duster babes" a couple months ago. But this post from him involved even fewer brain cells than that one.
First, there is his well-researched, brilliant response to global warming: "Yeah, right." Wow. Now I'm convinced that global warming isn't real. Thank you, sir.
Next, there is his response to the well-established fact that animal agriculture is contributing massively to greenhouse gases, more than all the world's transportation combined: "It’s time to get these folks some straight jackets and get them back on their medication." And "these folks," of course, are world-renowned, super-intelligent scientists who've studied this stuff night and day. But I'm sure this dude knows more than they do.
Vegan, Eco-Friendly, Fair Trade Shoes
Published December 18, 2008 @ 04:48AM PT
Change.org's Fair Trade blogger Zarah Patriana has some remarkable timing. Just as a conversation was taking place in the comments of the Animal Rights post "Top Online Stores for Animal-Friendly Shopping" on Monday about the suspect manufacturing circumstances of certain vegan shoes and clothes, Zarah was over on the Fair Trade blog posting about--yes, you guessed it--vegan Fair Trade shoes:
People have been wanting to know if there is a Fair Trade shoe line out there. Each time, I excitedly mention Autonomie Project, a Fair Trade fashion and footwear company that makes 100% vegan, organic, eco-friendly and Fair Trade shoes.
Go check out Zarah's post for more info on this impressive company.
Really Want to Help People? Trash the Send-an-Animal Catalogs
Published December 17, 2008 @ 06:10AM PT
(And by "trash," I mean recycle, of course.)
I imagine many of you have received catalogs in the last month offering to send live animals to impoverished people in need, on your behalf, for what seem like bargain prices: $20 for a flock of geese or $120 for a goat or one of the "season's hottest gifts," a "farmer's flock" of one cow and two sheep for the low, low price of $150.
A bargain indeed, except not for the animals and, actually, not for the human recipients either. How this is not so great for the animals should be obvious. But read on to learn about what it means for the human recipients (and their environment and natural resources) too. If your goal is to sincerely help people, these animal-giving programs are not the way to achieve that goal.
