Eco...


Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters at www.brook.com/veg

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

1. The best life cycle analysis I could find (Toyota's--which admittedly has to be biased) shows the Prius reduces CO2 by about a third over a Corolla. Imagine how that would compare to a Hummer. Here is an article pointing out some flaws in the study you didn't give a link to. The Prius is no magic bullet, but it is clearly a radical move in a positive direction. The Prius is enjoying unprecedented success as a high status car. That will eventually end and hopefully will be replaced by products that are even more environmentally benign, as each consumer strives to one up their neighbor (at a subconcious level of course).

2. Striving to eat less meat in one's diet is analogous to eating less food in general. Both consume more energy than necessary. Obesity is growing all around the world as a result of poverty reduction. In any case, I would not call "eating less" any more radical than "eating less meat." Harping at people to eat less and exercise more would be just as effective as harping at them to eat less meat (not very). We should know by now that asking people to sacrifice does not work. In fact, it tends to be counterproductive. Good luck convincing billions of people to sit in a 55 deg house, go childless, walk to work, forgo a source of food that has been a critical part of the diet in our omnivore genetic lineage for hundreds of thousands of years.

3. Got any math to back up your suspicion that you could produce less CO2 by changing your diet than by driving a Prius? It is a moot point in my opinion because proposed solutions must be implementable. Human nature prods people to want to drive a car that others envy. The Prius is making huge reductions in CO2 on a life cycle basis, the calls for dietary sacrifice over the last thirty years, zip. Veganism is about as appealing to the masses as riding an electric bike. Both are nice personal choices, but neither hold any potential for significant change because neither will be embraced in large numbers.

However, having said that, posts like CyberBrook's miss several important points:

• The big CO2 number attached to meat (particularly beef) includes impacts from feeding, processing, and transportation
  
• thus, local meat has a much lower CO2 footprint
  
• grassfed beef likewise has a lower CO2 footprint
  
• backyard meat (chickens, rabbits, etc) eliminates 95% of all the carbon sources associated with meat production
  
• no meaningful comparison has been made (as far as I have seen) between the carbon impacts of a meat diet and the carbon impacts of a conventionally-grown vegetarian diet

Note that I'm not trying to pick on CyberBrook in particular, here.  I've seen this same broad-brush thinking expressed by lots of people.  It's a problem.  Things are not that simple.