Speaking of the Amazon, I'm concerned about the example Brazil offers to folks who think we can produce enough ethanol to maintain our goofy driving habits.

Dave Sheridan

So yeah, your headline plays into the misconception most people have that most plant foods produced, including soy, go to feed people. That's simply not true. Vast amounts of soy and other grain go into meat production, resulting in far, far less protein than if it had been fed to people in the first place.

How is it that when standing up for the environment we vegetarians are told we lack irony and are overly touchy?
 

Maybe I would have more of a sense of humor about it if it were easier to get a vegetarian lunch, but because we're such a small percentage of the population, restaurants don't care about us.  If at least the people who care about the environment were to give up meat (which, by the way, is quite disgusting when you think about it), it would help a lot.

I don't eat much soy, but it so happened that while I was reading the article I was having a tofu lunch.  The article caught me off-guard, and I felt like maybe my promoting a vegetarian diet was not as helpful as I thought.  It would've been nice if somewhere in the write-up there would've been mention of the fact that livestock eat most of the soy.  It's great to be funny, but not when it causes misunderstanding of the issues.

I'm just saying.

While not being part of the editorial team, I do okay with grammar (though far from perfect). I'm perfectly aware that "maker funners" is not a commonly used phrase.

This is Grist, when we're not making fun of people, we're making up terms! Just read Daily Grist.

Meat is not "disgusting," and I think about it quite a bit (more than I eat it). "Disgusting" is not a description, it is an opinion. I think okra is "disgusting." A friend thinks pears are "disgusting." My cats (obligate carnivores*) think kibble is "disgusting"; raw meat is much healthier for them. Everything we eat used to be a living, breathing thing or inside a living, breathing thing. How far do you think organic agriculture would have come without manure?

We all make our choices. Some choose to be vegan, and some of those think that everyone else should. I choose not to own a car, teevee, cellphone (etc.) or buy meat that isn't local. How many vegans own cars? Cellphones? How many fly airplanes? If everyone in the world went vegan maybe we could save the planet (we'd have to find another source of organic fertilizer), but what if everyone ditched their car?

Besides, we like to make fun of anyone with poor grammar skills, whether omnivore or breathetarian. Breathetarians admittedly offer more making-fun-of opportunities.

* Maybe to save the planet we should kill all bicyclists and all carnivores and omnivores. "Sorry, kitties, I have to kill you for eating meat! And then myself for biking and eating the occasional grass-fed, local hamburger!"

But wait, Gristmill tells me that all that soy is really going to livestock, so...I guess there are some seriously grammar-compromised cows out there.

Dare I say "Cowbonics?"

Wow, that was bad. I apologize. Seriously. I think I need to lay off the edamame.

Kaela

In general, Grist has excellent editors. The occasional typo stands out. I especially liked Dave's use of "yolk" when he really wanted "yoke."

Reasonable, responsible journalists and editors informally accept as their mission "comforting the afflicted, and afflicting the comfortable."  In that light, there can never be enough of making fun of the wealthy, the powerful, the prestigious, the gorgeous.  But for journalists and editors to make fun of people in positions of actual or potential weakness or low regard is unethical.

And I do not think the Grist people have ever been truly guilty of that.

As it happens, I am a vegetarian.  (A 99% one, at least: no four-footed mammals whatsoever; but the annual holiday turkey dinner with my parents is tolerable; and, when we are on the road, a very very rare circumstance, a turkey-breast hero at Subway is far preferable to a Filet O'Fish at McDonald's.)  And I eat a fair amount of products made from soy, especially tofu.  Still, I at once saw that the headline of the Brazilian soy story was obviously absurd, and was not offended by it in the least.  It is indeed ironic that the legume that was praised so highly by Frances Moore Lappe in "Diet for a Small Planet" should be implicated in agricultural practices that imperil a precious ecosystem and contribute to global warming.

But I am fortunate to live in a part of the US where being vegetarian is neither difficult nor controversial.  On the other hand, I do indeed remember, when I was living in Montana, that my constancy in remaining vegetarian raised eyebrows everywhere, and several times caused problems.

So I feel great sympathy for Pandu and the other vegetarians who wrote to complain.  It would be a pity if the headline of the Cargill story were used against them somehow by their carnivorous neighbors.

I agree with Pandu that in general one might expect a random assortment of people who call themselves "environmentalists" to include a rather higher than average number of vegetarians.  The data of his workplace therefore surprise me.  And no doubt the last clause of the Grist editors' apology, above, "we've even let some of them [vegetarians] infiltrate our ranks," is meant facetiously.  Surely it is well established that the raising of animals for human consumption is more costly, energy-wise, than the raising of grains and legumes for human consumption.  And the Cargill story more or less illustrates that.

Is the eating of meat "disgusting"?  I can easily understand how Pandu, and many many others, think that.  But I would not go so far myself.  Every act of meat-eating is attended by sorrow, to be sure; but it is not clear that that sorrow should dominate the experience.

On the other hand, ignorance is disgusting.  Thoughtlessness is disgusting.  That many millions of people should carry on with their carnivory with never a thought or qualm about what they are doing is -- well, disgusting is perhaps too harsh -- let us say, dismaying.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

It's sort of silly to think that animal slaughter is necessary for getting manure.  Live animals pass dung, not dead ones.  I keep a cow, 4 sheep, two goats, and a variety of fowl, but I have no intention of killing any of them.  They're good for companionship, excrement, grazing, bug-eating, etc.  They're worth a lot more than their meat.

I also keep 5 cats, a dog, and several other pets, and they do fine without slaughterhouse food.  It's fine that the catch catch mice; in fact that's why we got them.  Obviously it's in some animals' nature to kill and eat weaker animals, but I as a human I prefer to cultivate my nature to be more compassionate.

I was just trying (and failing, apparently) to point out that there are many ways of reducing our impact on the planet, and that we all make choices. I assume that with all you animal friends you must have at least one vehicle with an internal combustion engine. That is your choice. Some people choose to have many kids which "necessitates" a minivan. Some just can't forgo well-travelled foods like bananas and coffee. Please respectfully allow me (and other thoughtful omnivores who occasionally eat meat) my choice.

Just wanted to chime in on the effects of morningstar (Altrea owned i believe) v. local farmer.

I, on the other hand, will continue to criticize the choice you make on environmental grounds since so far I seem to be ahead in saving resources by my choice of diet.

All nose-rubbing aside, it really is an incredibly easy choice to make, giving up meat as opposed to all the other more minor things we can do to save the environment. With all the excellent meat substitutes available it makes no sense to continue to eat flesh, unless one is attached to the eating of flesh for reasons other than taste and texture. Which, from my conversations with omnivores, I suspect is the real truth.

   Grist can make fun as it pleases (it will anyway), but should expect howls when it hits a nerve....

   Now, if it spent time making fun of white folks who work for small eco-friendly non-profits in the very bourgie NW,  oh wait, it does, sometimes at least!

   If we can put rancor aside, can I reccommend trying a veggie diet for a while, seeing how it feels?  It's not a life long committment...

   And, some of us have neither cars nor eat meat, (doing my worst three stooges imitation), but really don't feel morally superior to those who do, just feel happy.

   (And have test results that say I'm happy, though I sort of already knew it!) (grin).

   Go carless!!  Go Veggie!!  If you like it, keep on doing it!!

patrick

• Some people choose to own and drive cars.
  
• According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, it takes about 4 tons of carbon to produce (let alone drive) a car.
  
• If you do have a AIt's better to drive a hybrid than, say, a 1980 Oldsmobile Delta 88.
  
• It's better to drive less.

• Some people choose to eat meat.
  
• Meat protein takes more energy to produce than vegetable protein (though chicken and eggs are comparable, according to the UCS).
  
• It's better to eat locally-produced meat.
  
• It's better to eat less meat.

Also note that "making fun of" is not the same as disrespect. Many people (including me) regard "making fun of" a sign of endearment, and that's not just because I was a loser in grade school. Calling something I do "disgusting" or suggesting that I am a bad person for making that choice is disrespect.

I'll be gone for a while,

I wanted to ask Patrick if he's read Ruth Reichl's latest book, Garlic and Sapphires, which has an incredibly sensual chapter on Japanese noodles. Oh! It made me so hungry. And now I'm hungry thinking about it.

    No, I haven't read the book (there is a limited amount of Western literature available in China, not censorship, but lack of demand, there is only so much I can create on my own!).

    But I will be in England and look for it!! Thanks, sounds yummy....

    I will only say that most of the tofu and veggies stuff I eat is made locally (fresh, really fresh tofu is delicious!!!).

    People wanna drive, they'll drive.  They wanna eat meat, they'll eat it.

    I used to do both.  Now I rarely do the former (haven't actually driven in two years), and never do the latter (accidental exposure not counting).

    But I'm not interested in preaching (okay, maybe just a teensy weensy bit, come on, try it, you know you want to get out of that nasty old car and walk and ride, get exercise and meet your fellow creatures; and don't those veggies look lovely, imagine free flowing arteries, less sickness, better energy and more!).

    (grin)

    I prefer "disgusting" for American Iraq policy, and dropping dispersed Uranium all over the place, and refusing to sign Kyoto.  Not for my friends (smile).

pace,

patrick

Clearly, we are also supposed to eat vegetables and fruit, since that is much easier to catch than those pesky deer that tend to run away at the slightest smell or sight of a human.

Besides, most 'vegetarian' animals will eat some animal protein, from insects to eggs, even deer.

   Dear ATreyger,

      Please eat what you will!  (And of course, you will, without needing my permission (grin)).

      It is true that humans have evolved to be able to process many different types of food, including all animals.  This includes not only other animals, but our own species.

      Just because we have evolved to be able to eat our fellow human beings, does not mean that it is a socially useful or friendly thing to do.

      If people want to eat meat, they should do so, but please, let's not use the evolved argument, or if you truly believe in it, never invite me for dinner!!  (crouching in fear)

patrick

"But chew on this: inadvertently helping to destroy even 20 percent of these vast Amazonian tracts is still helping to destroy the planet, is it not?"

Nope, it's not. No I won't "chew" on that.  Sorry this kind of bait is just too dated.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

1 acre =2.47 hectare
1kg = 2.2 lbs.
[200 kg beef / hec] x [2.47 hec / acre] x [2.2lbs / kg] = 1068lbs beef /acre for cattle in Brazil.

It takes about 24 months for Brazilian beef to get to market

One soy crop is grown per 12 months
About 0.55 percent of a Brazilian cow becomes beef.

[1068lbs beef /acre] x [12 months / 24 months] x 0.55 = 293.7lbs dressed beef /acre

[70lbs beef] / [293.7lbs beef / acre] = 0.24 acres dedicated per American to feed them their 70lbs of beef.

Biodiesel = 11.5 acres per year
Beef = 0.24 acres per year

Anyone who uses B100 made from soybeans usurps 11.5/0.24 = 48 times as much land as a beef eater

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

When I became a vegetarian, the transition was pretty easy.  First I heard the issues related to the environmental impact of eating meat, which made me feel this was a moral imperative.  At first I was a little bewildered about what to eat, so I read up on that for a few months.  Then I stopped eating meat and started eating more non-meat foods.  I had to face some additional inconvenience because of the fact that vegetarians are so terribly outnumbered by meat-eaters, but it's not really that hard.  It's also much easier for anyone who doesn't mind a little meat contamination in their food, because they could, for instance, get a veggie burger cooked on the same grill as a hamburger.

Giving up cars, on the other hand, would be incredibly hard for a person not living in a city.  I happen to live on a small farm but work (enforcing environmental laws) in the city.  I keep pushing for telecommuting (which would be easy, but I'm told will never happen, though I have my doubts about that), but for now I commute 50 miles each way.  Neither quitting my job or moving to the city is even slightly realistic.  My car gets pretty good gas mileage (35 mpg), and my salary won't allow me to even dream of looking for anything better.  There's really very little I can do to change this situation.

I can understand that there are farmers who raised animals for meat, and slaughterhouse people who kill the animals; but apart from them, I don't see how people would be so inconveninenced by giving up meat.  People could even give up meat several days a week, or only eat what they hunt, or whatever, and that would make a proportionate difference; but when they don't consider it at all, it seems to me like people just don't care.

Give it a rest already.  We all make choices and we all have to look ourselves in the mirror each day.

I know many vegetarians;  only a few would list the 'environment' among the reasons for that choice.  I also know many people who are committed to "treading lightly upon the planet" and yet they take full advantage of man's omnivore status.

We all have environmental vices.  The trick is to be knowledgeable enough to recognize a vice as a vice, and to be compassionate enough to compensate for our vices in other areas, so that the balance is a healthy Earth.

    I am an environmental vegetarian.  When I speak on vegetarianism, I do so primarily in terms of it's environmental impacts.  I add health to it.  I sympathize with spiritual and animal rights vegetarians, but I am not one.  Sigh.

    Anyway, you should eat what you're going to eat.  But, there are environmental vegetarians.  Not enough of us maybe (grin), but we do exist!

thanks,

patrick

This may be "well established" for factory farm, grainfed livestock raising, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe that it's "well established" or even true that raising animals on pasture is more energy-intensive than soy, grain, or produce farming.  (How much black plastic do organic produce farmers use?  Where do they get all that rock phosphate and fish and bone meal?  Can live animals provide the bone meal?)  It's worth doing the actual assessments, but I'm assuming the UCS book (effective environmental choices) and all the other major studies on energy use and livestock farming are focused on confinement grainfed operations, which admittedly are the bulk of meat production in this country.

What always bugs me in these righteous either/or arguments is that the muddy middle gets ignored: there are better choices for meat-eaters.  Instead of acting all righteous and telling meat-eaters they are going to eco-hell unless they become vegetarian, environmentally-concerned folks (veggie or otherwise) should be encouraging meat eaters to find better sources of meat and dairy, i.e., local grassfed options.  Or eating less meat, (which becomes easier if you're paying for good local grassfed meat, which is often more expensive than the supermarket mass quantities).

Dave

Have you read anything by Wendell Berry or David Kline or deep ecologists or others who talk about the integral interconnection of humans and animals, as well as the cycle of life and death that we are all part of?  I'd highly recommend these authors for giving some perspective to your question.  I know of few people who are more appreciative and caring of the animals they live and work with, yet they don't see a problem with eating animals who have lived good, healthy lives.  I know Peter Singer wouldn't approve, but frankly, I find Berry much more compelling and environmentally and socially balanced than Singer.

Is it more exploitative to kill an animal than to force it to live with you and eat your bugs and mice?  Perhaps this is a semantic issue: isn't exploitation something that happens to the living?  Killing animals may be something that we don't want to do unnecessarily or excessively, and some may perceive it as downright wrong, but it doesn't seem to me like it can be characterized as "exploitative".

The whole question of what constitutes "environmental ethics" is a bit larger than we can tackle here.  But I do wonder which particular environmental ethic you would have in mind that would preclude eating animals, which has been going on for all of human history.

To turn your question around, what I fail to understand is how something as blatantly polluting as driving 100 miles a day (25,000 miles a year, just commuting) can possibly be consistent with an environmental ethic.  Isn't it interesting how easy it is to justify and/or overlook our own foibles and point out the perceived failures of others?

Dave

Another option would be for us to sell our house, abandon our certified backyard wildlife habitat to someone who will probably mow it, sell the animals of our sanctuary to the market for slaughter (which would necessitate abandoning our religion in the process), and buy a house in the city (which is beyond my financial means).

The main point I've been trying to make is that quitting meat simply requires eating non-meat foods, a mere change of taste, while giving up cars requires a huge lifestyle change for anyone not living in a big city.

On to the ethics...  I haven't read the authors you mention.  Of course we can make all sorts of philosophical arguments that killing is OK, but if someone puts a knife to your throat, you will probably be afraid and not want to die.  A cow feels the same fear, only worse because she has no access to any transcendental philosophies.  If you're going to argue that animal slaughter is OK, then I would ask if you would allow yourself to be slaughtered for someone's hamburger.  I suspect not.  It's a matter of might makes right, which is contrary to genuine civilization.  In general, I have to say that the slaughter of livestock is exploitative.  Obviously the factory farmed animals who go to the slaughter factory are exploited, but also the local farmer who has a personal relationship with the animal who trusts him is also exploiting when he kills it.  It may seem unfair, but imagine yourself in the animals place.  Would you rather be murdered by a stranger or someone you trust?

In the matter of the ethics of our family animals, of course I've carefully considered that too.  Your examples were the cats and guineas.  The cats come and go as they please and eat what they like.  The guineas love to eat bugs, and recently I built them a house for their protection.  They're free to leave if they want, and indeed some have wandered off.  Personally I believe that many animals can have beneficial relationships with people.  They provide a service and receive love and protection similar to the way I serve my employer and get paid for that.  Actually our animals are probably getting a better deal than I get at my job.

Consider our cow.  I have promised to protect her and any offspring she may have, to the very best of my ability.  She grazes the grass and provides manure.  (I have 5 acres and no power mower.  Either the animals eat it or I cut it with my scythe (ScytheSupply.com).)  We would like to breed her so she can have better companionship, and we can have her surplus ahimsa milk.  

What makes the eating of animals so unethical now, contrary to most of history, is the matter of necessity.  In aboriginal societies, animal killing is often a matter of survival.  Now it is a matter of taste.  There is a significant difference between killing for immediate survival and killing for pleasure.  

Also, the other major difference has to do with population.  Throughout most of history, the human population was very small compared to modern times, so the environmental impact was of no real consequence.  Meat eaters require roughly ten times the land to produce their food compared to vegetarians.  Their use of all kinds of resources pertaining to food production is magnified, some as much as two or three orders of magnitude.  With the way we are encroaching on each others' resources in the world today, meat-consuming societies are especially likely to have conflicts over food issues.  It may well be that those with the taste for blood will end up with a clear advantage in these wars; but since I'm going to die anyway, sooner or later, and I'd at least prefer go with a clear conscience.  

Less meat is good.  Hardly any vegetarian could deny it's a step in the right direction.