"When you're getting lots of flack, it often means you're over the target."

Save your community: Cut greenhouse gas emissions 5% per year.

Plus, how many people who "only" eat meat from these "family farms" truly never eat meat otherwise? If you're at a friend's house and they serve meat, do you ask where it came from and refuse it if its not on your approved list of farms? If you're at a work potluck, do you ask each person to write the name of the farm their meat came from in front of the dish, and only eat the dishes made of meat from the smaller ones? I find this argument is used as a crutch to allow people to continue eating meat despite its major environmental, animal welfare and health problems.

As this author points out, going vegetarian is no inconvenience. sure, for the first few months or so you've got to try some new products to figure out which ones you like, and learn some new recipes....but for anyone who likes eating as much as I do, that's a GOOD thing.

the web site www.vegcooking.com is really helpful, and has thousands of free vegetarian recipes (for anyone interested).

But number 3 I have a problem with, and it too deserves to be expanded upon. It's far from given that the loudest voice in a crowded room is the most effective. That's one advertising strategy, but only one, and a somewhat discredited one at that. All advertising carry multiple messages: not just the "facts" but about the reliability and status of the messenger. A product that attracts the most attention can easily be flash-in-the-pan. Meanwhile, many more successful products market themselves quietly, to a small set of "early adopters" who turn out to be much better representatives for a product than anything the 40something ad execs can come up with.

Of course, these arre products, and the marketing of environmental messages will be somewhat different. But some of the same principles will apply. I think that playing the moralising, nagging environmentalist (a 'narrative' many people are all too happy to buy into) risks doing more harm than good. In this case you have distaste for both message and messenger. We've all seen the cognitive contortions performed by those who simply can't believe that enviros can be right, or non-alarmist, about science, let alone economic policy. A good number of other, more "ordinary" folks keep enviros at arm's length, having no interest in identifying with people with such "extreme" values. And yes, for many people, vegetarianism is an extreme value. This campaign, in which we sacrifice one of our own, will serve only to reinforce the notion that enviros are extreme, and extremely unpleasant.

Personally, I'm an environmentalist because it just makes sense. Try telling that to most people. It's a message you have to explain to people, not scream at them. Enviros are an alarmist bunch, because we've attracted the type of people who are attracted by screaming. Effective communication isn't defined by how many people hear your message today, but by what people will retain of it one year from now. For a "movement of conscience", it's important to make people think rather than react; to make people feel comfortable with you and not threatened by an overbearing presence; and unltimately to identify with you. I just don't think screaming and moralising achieves that.

Environmentalist should mean something...

www.GoVeg.com/eco:
Would you ever open your refrigerator, pull out 16 plates of pasta and toss them in the trash, and then eat just one plate of food? How about leveling 55 square feet of rain forest for a single meal or dumping 2,500 gallons of water down the drain? Of course you wouldn't. But if you're eating chicken, fish, turkey, pork, or beef, that's what you're doing--wasting resources and destroying our environment.

Animals raised for food expend the vast majority of the calories that they are fed simply existing, just as we do. We feed more than 70 percent of the grains and cereals we grow to farmed animals, and almost all of those calories go into simply keeping the animals alive, not making them grow. Only a small fraction of the calories consumed by farmed animals are actually converted into the meat that people eat.

A major 2006 report by the United Nations summarized the devastation caused by the meat industry. Raising animals for food, the report said, is "one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity. Livestock's contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale ...."

Click on the link for more.

www.GoVeg.com/eco

Check out www.Meat.org & www.GoVeg.com.

Question #2
I agree completely. There is too much tribalism and infighting. One of the things the right does very well is not infighting, not publicly at least. I also think that some on the left view the environmentalists as sacrificial lambs that they can offer to the republican noise machine to keep them off their own back. Infighting encourages this.

As long as the term environmentalist is not used to green-wash or cover up another agenda it should be used broadly. That being said PETA is first and foremost an animal-rights group. PETA shares many of the same goals as environmentalist groups, however PETA  has acted against environmentalists if they violated PETA's position on animal-rights.

Question #3
PETA is good at getting itself heard, but more substantive results are harder to come by.  For example a large majority of people in the US and Europe now considers wearing fur unacceptable. That has resulted in a temporary drop in fur sales, but sales increased over 30% in the past 5 years
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=604&id=175461 ...

Largely because of PETA, many food companies and restaurants use more humanely raised meat, and clothing companies use more humanely raised leather, but PETA has not caused  much of a dent in the consumption of these animals. One of the reasons why PETA was successful was because these where relatively small sacrifices. Getting a large part of the public to become vegetarians will be much harder, if its possible at all.

Why PETA's recent campaign against environmental groups is bad:
Infighting of any kind wastes time and resources.
Public infighting further damages the public image of environmentalists.
The things PETA is saying are reinforcing the right's stereotype of environmentalists as holier-than-thou and hypocritical and environmentalists as not smart enough or too emotional to understand the issue.
The way PETA is behaving reinforces the right's stereotype of environmentalists being fringe radicals who are hostile and want to force everyone else to live their extremist lifestyles.
It gives ammunition to the republican noise machine to set a negative public image of environmentalists that many in the general public accept.
Its these images that have influenced people to join the attacks on environmentalists, or decide not to work with or support environmentalist groups.
It increases infighting with groups that should be environmentalists natural allies.
Reinforcing these negative images makes it harder to create the broad coalition necessary to fight climate change.

Why is PETA doing this, to get environmentalists themselves to go vegetarian? Some motivated environmentalists will do it, but that will have little effect.
Do they want the environmental groups do push the message? This seems to be the case.
Why, because environmentalist groups have been more successful than PETA ? (yes they have been).  
Because environmentalists groups have a broader base of public support? (yes they do).
To capitalize on Al Gore's success increasing awareness about climate change without having to develop an effective campaign themselves? (this seems pretty likely, PETA is opportunistic).

Higher prices will stimulate more "environmentalism" as the realities of accomodating 9 billion people on earth come to fruition.  

It is sad, I might add, that environmentalists -- those that strive to give voice to our home -- would be the subjects of so much scorn and derision.  Only an alien culture promolgated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh could make such enemies.  Sad that so many authoritarian followers of this alien mindset take up the charge.  

JUST TRY TO TELL ME I AM WRONG.

Or the "industrialist" ;-)

It's just a standard ploy in human group dynamics to fight with a label.  Either you put a label upon someone ("liberal" worked for a few years) or try to take it away from them ("patriot" more recently).

So some of the people motivated to protect the environment want to use the label to advance their particular environmental focus.  That's human, but it should also be easy to see right through it.

People can be motivated to "help the environment" and be "helping" even when they are not perfect in ... perfect in everyone's eyes at once?  What a trick.

Neither the messenger nor the tactics used to convey the message have anything to do with the validity of the message itself.

Using these side-issues to divert attention from this accurate and valid message is just wrong. As environmentalists and progressives, we should be more open-minded to the fact that we may not all be perfect and could stand to change some simple things about how we personally live to make the world a better, kinder and more environmentally-healthy place to live.

If you don't like rainforest destruction, go vegetarian.
If you don't like wasting energy, go vegetarian.
If you are concerned about global poverty, go vegetarian.
If you are concerned about your health, go vegetarian.
If you are concerned about ocean and river pollution, go vegetarian.
If you are concerned about land degradation, go vegetarian.
If you are concerned about animals, go vegetarian.
If you are concerned about wasting water, go vegetarian.
If you are concerned with the state of the world and want to take a simple step that will make it better in many regards...go vegetarian.

Is it doing enough of that back-end "good work" to make up for poorly thought out ethanol policy?

B.  Two weeks ago, I made a pound of burgers out of a thing of ground venison.  I currently also have a big thing of frozen backstrap in my freezer waiting for the right moment.  Here in Michigan, where there are no natural deer predators left, human hunting fills that ecological niche.

This makes the role of human hunting a very necessary and important one, since we're now the top predator.  The results of no hunting are evident along the sides of roads and highways, in our auto insurance bills, in the amount of money that has to go to farmers to replace what is lost in crop damage, and in the spread of communicable diseases among the herd.  You might not like that predation is necessary, but that's just the way things are.

C.  I understand they're clearing rainforests in Brazil to grow soybeans for ethanol production.  If any of those soybeans are processed into tofu, then vegans are killing rainforests and baby jaguars.  For shame (disclaimer ... I have no idea where the soybeans for tofu comes from, and since I eat next to no tofu I couldn't care less, but if you want to lecture people on what to eat you better know where your tracks lead).

So, a citizen of conscience might not give money for meat raised in CAFOs; but there are alternatives, and it's better to be a smart citizen of conscience who thinks things through rather than one who issues blanket proclamations about what we should and shouldn't be doing.

Probably the biggest catch in it is the "health" line.  There a lot depends on the individual.  And let's face it, eating more (low mercury) fish would probably be good for most people.

That builds in a certain "tension" between individual good and social good.

If you want someone to go vegetarian, don't tell them to go vegetarian.

This statement may offend your a priori reasoning, but can you really say there's no truth in it? No amount of being right can make up for the fact that you're not effective.

Pardon me for being uncomfortable with moral clarity. But isn't it more useful, both philosophically and practically, to ask yourself why seemingly intelligent, intellectually honest people like David Roberts are willing to admit hypocrisy on this issue? Why people like me--at the very least, more engaged and better informed than most--actually find it easier to give up a car (and a home in the suburbs) than to give up meat?

Of course it may be that ultimately I'm a selfish prick who's not willing to go very far for my convictions. I'm reluctantly open to that possibility, and the fact that I've not been completely honest with myself in this respect. But I'm not sure that an explanation this simple would do justice my situation, and those of the millions of other omnivores on this planet, some of whom are like me, others not... the truth is more complicated, and more wonderful than all that. Am I selfish? it's fine for you to say "yes". But it'd only be interesting if you said why.

In the end, if you cared about all the things in Matt's list, you might consider ending your life, and take several others with you. Now, I know that's not fair to Matt's argument: I know that there's a fundamental difference between the two propositions. What I want to know is where the distinction lies

Or is that a good, practical, path to vegetarianism?

Excerpt:

When corn prices spiked last fall, things looked dire for industrial meat processors.

These enormous companies thrive by confining (or contracting with farmers to confine) livestock into tightly packed quarters and stuffing them with corn. Pricier corn -- in this case, pushed up by the government-backed surge in ethanol production -- seemed to translate to lower profits for the industrial meat giants. On cue, Big Meat executives like Tyson's Richard Bond complained bitterly about the end of cheap corn.

I, for one, looked forward to a slowdown in one of the globe's most environmentally destructive industries. (As the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization pointed out last fall, feedlot meat production spews more greenhouse gases even than automobile use.)

If nothing else useful came out of the ethanol boom, I thought to myself, at least industrial meat would take a hard hit. But a funny thing has happened on the way to my industrial-meat schadenfreude: the meat titans are shaking off higher corn prices and thriving. And now I'm the one complaining bitterly.

Full article:

Hog Futures
How the meat industry thrives, even as costs rise
http://grist.org/comments/food/2007/09/13/index.html

it is never enough until your heart stops beating

back to the three rs

reduce

reuse

recycle

no more purity

purity kills

Veganism and vegetarianism are just options among many. Obviously, most people find it to be an unpalatable option. Vegetarianism has been promoted for decades. I was a vegetarian for several years while in college decades ago. Like many others, I gave it up as being both futile and a pain in the ass (a sacrifice I didn't want to bother with any longer).

If it were so simple, we would all be vegetarians by default, because people tend to do what brings them the most pleasure. Food is pleasure. Vegetarian diets are less pleasurable. If that were not so, we would all be vegetarians by now and the poor of the world would not be eating more and more meat now that they can afford it.

Placing ourselves on pedestals just drives yet another wedge between those who identify themselves as environmentalists and the rest of the world. The problem with words like vegan and vegetarian is that they create a clearly defined boundary between groups of people. The words are devisive.

"If you don't like rainforest destruction, go vegetarian."

Better yet support an effective conservation organization and never buy tropical lumber. Only 10% of the beef consumed in America in 2002 was  imported. 90% came from Australia and Canada. Only 1% came from South America. Becoming a vegetarian will have no measurable impact.

"If you don't like wasting energy, go vegetarian."

Better yet, invest in a Prius instead of a bigger home and find ways to use less energy in general, curly bulbs are a painless way to do that.

"If you are concerned about global poverty, go vegetarian.""

Better yet, get rid of your pets. U.S. consumers spend more than $11 billion a year on cat and dog food last year. Give to an international women's reproductive rights organization. According to the FAO report, the livestock sector creates livelihoods for one billion of the world's poor.

"If you are concerned about your health, go vegetarian.""

Better yet, eat less and exercise more. A little meat in your diet is actually good for you. An excess of meat, or eggs or cheese or anything for that matter is not.

"If you are concerned about ocean and river pollution, go vegetarian.""

Better yet, have fewer children, support a women's reproductive rights organization and get rid of your pet cats and dogs. They are the main cause of urban coliform bacteria in urban lakes and streams. Cat feces when flushed down toilets also spreads toxoplasmosis to marine mammals. Moderation in meat consumption is also fine of course.

"If you are concerned about land degradation, go vegetarian."

You can also simply eat less beef, have fewer children, support women's reproductive rights...

"If you are concerned about animals, go vegetarian."

Not concerned about prolonging the life of domesticated animals. All animals die. Humane treatment of them while they are alive is worthwhile.

"If you are concerned about wasting water, go vegetarian."

Growing crops and processing them into food takes energy and water, be it bread, pasta, or meat. Some processes are less efficient than others. Cattle process plants into protein. So do chickens. Eating less meat, especially beef is a good idea. Going vegetarian is unnecessary.  

"If you are concerned with the state of the world and want to take a simple step that will make it better in many regards...go vegetarian."

Your doing so will make no meaningful difference in world poverty or the extinction event. The world is becoming less vegetarian every minute of everyday. Promoting this as a serious answer is naive.

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

The problem isn't meat, per se. It's the word industry in meat industry.

Eating meat from pastured livestock is healthful (in moderation) and environmentally benign (when done properly). Who says sustainably-scaled, pastured livestock is not possible? Why not?

Also, as Jon Rynn pointed out in the original PETA post, the largest (only?) source of greenhouse gasses is fossil fuels. Locally raised, slaughtered, and marketed meat; raised on pasture; has a much, much lower fossil carbon footprint. As I have posted several times previously, so far without refutation, if no fossil fuels are used in raising an animal for slaughter, then no carbon is added to the system. Methane produced during animals' metabolism of forage; forage which requires no fossil fuel inputs; is NOT adding carbon to the system. It is simply cycling extant carbon. Our ancestors raised livestock prior to the advent of fossil fuels. So too can we.

As BioD alluded to, the vegetarian imperative makes a black-and-white issue of it. Which, of course, makes for easier theatre when you've got a few unused chicken suits kicking around.... Reality, if we recall, encompasses the full spectrum. And it puts a premium on thoughtful consideration of all the colors.

Weren't we all just deriding the binary mindset on another post? So are there two kinds of people...vegetarians and those with no conscience?

"Who says sustainably-scaled, pastured livestock is not possible?"

I think it is possible, to some degree. But it's not realistic the expect that this type of small-scale agriculture can feed billions of meat eaters, hence we need to reduce demand, which is what many environmental and animal advocacy groups are calling for. To think that demand can stay static and we can meet this demand through only grass-fed beef is fantasy.  

I take issue with Biodiversist's statement that "vegetarian diets are less pleasurable."  I think that's a stereotype that we need to move away from. Sounds like you were vegetarian a long time ago before many of the popular vegetarian products, companies and restaurants were born.

Many vegetarian restaurants have become much more sophisticated in recent years as the number of vegetarians have increased.  Take Millenium in San Francisco for example.  There are also loads of fantastic vegetarian restaurants in New York City, London, Washington DC, Portland, and other major cities, each one with a different approach and style. I've even read cooking articles in which omni-vorous chefs praise the virtues of tofu.  I can honestly say that I've never missed meat in my almost 9 years of being vegetarian and 5 years of being vegan.  I experiment with different foods, cookbooks and try to find new restaurants. I would guess that I find as much pleasure in my diet as the average meat eater, maybe more so.

I've noticed that people comment that the world cannot support 6 billion carnivores, the world can't accomodate everyone driving enormous SUVs, the world is too small for everyone to live in a McMansion, et cetera.

Carnivory:

Europeans are as affluent as Americans, but do not insist on eating enormous quantities of meat.

The six billion people on the planet include 376 million Buddhists and 900 million Hindus. The majority of them are not supposed to be eating meat. So there's over a billion people you don't have to freak out about... and their numbers are growing.

I'm an American addicted to meat, but I never consume more than 2 or 3 burgers worth of meat -- beef, chicken, turkey, or fish, no others -- each week. My spouse consumes even less. So not all Americans are interested in consuming vast piles of meat.

SUVS:

Believe it or not, not everyone actually wants a large SUV. I have a small one. It is not always the most convenient vehicle to drive. I have enough trouble parallel parking a small car. And I don't appreciate the lower gas mileage. I drive the SUV when it suits my purposes and I might replace it with a car in a few years if I can find a decent one with AWD. Surely I'm not the only human being on the planet not interested in a large SUV as soon as it is affordable, and perhaps not even interested in clinging to my small SUV.

McMansions:

Is there any evidence that people across the globe immediately and continuously move "up" to a larger house as soon as they can afford it? I'm happy with my 1100-1200 sf home. Am I the only person on the planet not interested in more space for my stuff. There are better things to spend money on.

It would be interesting to see a survey of people from different countries: what sort of lifestyle -- diet, transportation, housing, et cetera -- would they adopt given sufficient means? Does anyone have numbers for this?

I think it is possible, to some degree. But it's not realistic the expect that this type of small-scale agriculture can feed billions of meat eaters, hence we need to reduce demand, which is what many environmental and animal advocacy groups are calling for. To think that demand can stay static and we can meet this demand through only grass-fed beef is fantasy.

I agree that burgerdom as we know it is not sustainable. But I don't agree we need to abolish meat eating. Similarly, I don't think human population growth is sustainable, but I don't agree with forced sterilization.

As for the economics of sustainable agriculture within the larger context of our unsustainable society.....it's also a fantasy to think we can maintain most of our current land use practices given the impending twin calamaties of climate change and peak oil. But that doesn't mean we should chastise folks for driving a Prius vs. riding a bicycle. I'm simply suggesting that sustainable livestock production is possible. I don't know precisely at what scale it is possible, but I think most folks haven't bothered to envision it.

It does seem likely that if meat were priced according to its true costs it would be more expensive. And therein lies your demand reduction. But it won't happen by donning chicken suits and calling names.

amc89,

That argument is at least a couple of decades old (that is how long I've been hearing it). The statistical anecdotal evidence is the fact that very few people are vegetarian, and many who try it eventually abandon it. I eat very little meat but a sandwich with lettuce, onions, tomatoes, mayo missing that 0.05 think piece of ham just isn't the same, this is especially so with a BLT. Now I'm hungry.

gmunger,

The FAO report agrees with you on carbon intensity. They say that the fossil fuel impact in the cattle industry is small compared to the problem of land use change caused by livestock (deforestation and usurping grasslands). Raising and eating beef in a sustainable manner on existing natural grassland would be a pretty carbon neutral exercise. Of course, there is more at stake than just carbon neutrality.

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

To recap:  The U.N. identifies livestock as a major cause of global warming, much more than automobiles.  Sierra Club points to climate change as the crisis of our time.  Carl Pope says that the Club doesn't even tell people not to drive SUVS, let alone forsake meat.  The Club doesn't want to ruffle feathers. Instead, says Pope, the Club will work with SUV manufacturers.

(Let's hope this turns out better than Pope's recent alliance with gun manufacturers.  Sierra founder Muir called hunting "the murder business." Now, Sierra encourages its members -especially women and children, the demographic targeted by gun makers for future sales -- to shoot wildlife.)

Planet Earth organizers served hamburgers at concerts.  Al Gore ignored  meat altogether in his documentary.  Gore prefers not to divulge his personal eating habits.  The corporate greens call PETA an "opportunist."

Last week's patently condescending and arrogant piece by Alex Roth embodies why corporate greens are losing the game. They've become bean counting inauthentics, greenwashing left and right.

Global warming is real.  I just wish so-called environmental leaders were.

"Last week's patently condescending and arrogant piece by Alex Roth embodies why corporate greens are losing the game. They've become bean counting inauthentics, greenwashing left and right."

Please present a precise definition of "corporate green".

Please present a precise definition of "non-corporate green".

Thank You.

However, this forward looking thinking just doesn't seem to happen in regards to human use of other animals, including for food. I presume that this is because some people regard eating meat as a moral issue, since it inevitably involves killing animals or at least eating those that die in less human deliberated fashion (i.e. road kills, scavenged carcasses). The extreme end of this philosophical strain rejects any human "exploitation" of animals, though I've never heard any of these people complain about the work bees and other invertebrates do for humans, wihtout which we'd all be dead.

How about if we approach this issue (animals in farming systems) the same way we approach these other "problems?" What do we want the  farming systems of the future to be like? Will they be industrialized production of Soylent Green (so much more efficient than feeding the algae to animals)? Will the surviviors of the collapse revert to traditional hunter/gatherer lifestyles? Will we live in structures made of geneticaly engineered materials that are alive and also provide food?

If none of these seem attractive to you, then what is your vision? Mine has animals integrated into the system for power, nutrient cycling, and provision of goods, including food. I simply don't see how a farming system can be sustainable without animals. If anyone knows of any farming system that is, please share your information. Please, no "how to grow more vegetables in a square foot than you can imagine." These extremely intensive systems all require importation of vast amounts of organic matter (usually including animal manure) from off-site.

Or can't people on this thread envision a farming system different than the existing system? That's a challenge.

Steve E. Whidbey Environmental Action Network

I've never heard of him before.

Perhaps Grist could add a list of key players in the environmental and anti-environmental movements to their website.

I'm having a heck of time trying to figure out who I'm supposed to like, who I'm supposed to hate (which appparently includes me), and exactly why.

Turn off.  Please.

KC

I've commented fairly extensively in the blog for Alex Roth's original article regarding the moral and health arguments so I won't repeat those here. I do want to address this statement or yours, though:

Eating meat is entirely an aesthetic choice, based on taste and habit.

You're going to have to produce some evidence to support this statement. Since it's well-established that humans are an omnivorous species and animal-eating has been found to be nearly universal among human cultures, how can you make this statement unequivocally? Have you considered the possibility that we have an innate nutritional wisdom, and that our tastes are indicators of that wisdom (with the caveat that evolution could not have prepared us for some of the novel conditions found in industrialized societies, such as the easy availability of large quantities of sugars and fats in processed foods)?

No, eating meat is a matter of taste, habit, culture--and nutrition. It's also the way of the world.

"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith

Why do environmentalists assume everyone on the planet will want to adopt the same unhealthy dietary and other bad habits of the average American as soon as they can afford to do so?

I can't speak for environmentalists--I don't even think of myself as one (I'm a community activist)--but I'd say the reason they assume everyone on the planet will adopt Americans' bad habits is that this is what we typically see when countries industrialize. Not that everyone in industrializing countries adopts these bad habits, but that's been the general trend. I think that's because people see nothing better to strive for, though, not because of human nature. If we're to become sustainable, we'll have to give them something better to strive for: community, real security and belonging, and a world getting healthier from generation to generation rather than every living system of the planet in decline, and the rate of decline accelerating (thanks to Paul Hawken for the idea I just paraphrased).

Regarding Hindus, Buddhists, and vegetarianism:

Many people mistakenly imagine India to be a country of vegetarians. According to Wikipedia, there are approximately 200 million vegetarians in India, including both Hindus and Buddhists. That's apparently a higher concentration than in any other country of the world, but it's still less than 20% of India's total estimated population of 1.12 billion people. Some estimates of the prevalence of vegetarianism in India are higher, however, the highest being 42%. Whether the correct figure is 20%, 42%, or something in between, it's still evidence that, despite the centuries of ubiquitous Hindu, Jain and Buddhist beliefs regarding the moral superiority of veg*n diets, most people--and possibly an overwhelming majority--in that part of the world don't find them persuasive enough to live by.

Also, again according to Wikipedia, "Buddhism in general does not prohibit meat eating, while Mahayana Buddhism encourages vegetarianism as beneficial for developing compassion."

"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith

In my little N. California city there are three "natural foods" markets as well as thrice weekly farmers markets. That's counting Trader Joe's in that pack. All three markets could be safely tucked into the floor space of the meat departments of our local Costco and Winco.

Is that clear enough for you?

In one of the most bicycle friendly, Prius driving, woo-woo towns in California the total vegetarian inclined retail space is smaller than the meat departments in the two largest markets. I should also add that one of those natural foods operations has an attatched butchers.

In fact the one market in the area that was attempting to be meat free, a natural foods co-op, is under risk of financial failure.

So getting on our web-based high horse and pronouncing that meat eating is the #1 cause of climate change is just stupidity. It's also patently NOT true. Every gram of carbon in meat has it's source as atmospheric gas. It originated in the atmosphere before it became beef or even manure.

Before industrial humans took over North America the ground shook with buffalo and the skies teemed with waterfowl in numbers our cattle and poultry production systems have not matched since. The natural processes that produced all of that meat also sequestered massive tonnages of carbon in peat bogs, prairie soils, swamps and woodlands. Areas that have since been drained and cleared for crop raising releasing the stored carbon.

Every gram of coal, oil or natural gas burned is added to the atmosphere from fossil stores. It represents millions of years of natural carbon sequestration that we are releasing in hundreds of years. This is the largest forcing factor in climate change.

I will believe that burning fossil carbon causes climate change. I will believe that plowing fossil soils and draining peat bogs causes climate change. I just cannot buy that eating meat causes climate change.

Put the Carbon Back

Faith-based environmentalism?

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

I think it's hard to examine the culture when you're immersed in it.  I mean, how can you argue with the constant message of "eat meat now and lots of it! your american!  it's your birthright!" until you step outside of it for a while and look at it for what it is.  Just "a way".  Not "THE way".  

I think I would challenge all animal product-eaters to just stop eating anything animal for a month.  No strings attached.  You can go back to eating animals if you want afterwards, but step outside for a moment and look in, if you will.  Read.  Think.  Ask yourself what exactly you have that is so tied up in the continuance of this habit that you could absolutely not stop it or at least reduce it drastically.  

Just take a look at who is shouting at you from the other side, the meat-eating side.  Do THEY have your best interests at heart?  

Maybe PETA's way of going about things is polarizing, but the message from the other side is pretty in-your-face, as well.  Like I said, try not eating anything animal for a month, and you'll see how other people treat you, how the meat-eating culture almost says that not eating meat is un-American.  Why?  And why does no one seem to question THAT message?

I don't know if we can make any real progress with regard to climate change unless we can honestly examine some of our deeply held beliefs about our consumption HABITS.  If PETA's polarizing ways get us to do that, then more power to them.      

To complicate matters even more, essentially all organically grown vegetable crops in the US are fertilized with animal manure.

Victual Reality

It seems to me however many of the environmental issues raised could usefully be addressed by taking a hack at producing a US farm bill that assisted ethical and environmentally sound food production. Corn and Soy aren't environmentally sound industrial products as currently grown by most farmers whether they go into fuel, tofu, beef steers or chickens. I have a hard time believing farmers who produce pastured products using the sort of skill sets people like Joel Salatin are pioneering are environmentally damaging (I suspect these few examples are environmentally positive) so why not support them and reform the food system rather than setting up 2 absolutes of veganism and everyone else? I accept veganism may be the best option but most people aren't going to accept it so why not accept the shades of grey in global diet and work to make the grey green?

Nutritional research confirms what is plainly evident from anatomy, biology
and physiology - humans are frugivores and are -not- naturally carnivorous.

"Have you considered the possibility that we have an innate nutritional
wisdom, and that our tastes are indicators of that wisdom ... sugars and fats"...

'The big problem we have before us in the meat industry is to how to reduce
the levels of fat in meat without leaving it dry and tasteless when we eat it.
Fat contributes a lot of taste to meat, particularly those flavours that allow us
to recognize one species from another. Without it, we may end up with just
a bland, general meaty taste. '
http://www.aps.uoguelph.ca/~swatland/ch2_4.htm

'Measuring Brain Activity In People Eating Chocolate Offers New Clues
About How The Body Becomes Addicted

CHICAGO --- Using positron emission tomography scans to measure
brain activity in people eating chocolate, a team of U.S. and Canadian
neuroscientists believe they have identified areas of the brain that may
underlie addiction and eating disorders.

Dana Small, assistant professor of neurology at Northwestern University
Medical School, and colleagues found that individuals' ratings of the
pleasantness of eating chocolate were associated with increased blood
flow in areas of the brain, particularly in the orbital frontal cortex and
midbrain, that are also activated by addictive drugs such as cocaine.
..
According to Small, a primary reinforcer is a stimulus that an individual
doesn't have to learn to like but, rather, is enjoyed from birth. Addictive
drugs can be viewed as primary reinforcers. Fat and sweet also are
primary reinforcers, and chocolate is chock full of fat and sweet, Small
said.
..
Small explained that studying the brain's response to eating a highly
rewarding food such as chocolate provides an effective "in-health" model
of addiction. "
..'
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010829082943.htm

....

"...the real issue I have with this whole Brouhaha is the lack of middle ground people are showing..."

There is apparently not room in the environmental movement for middle ground. Notice the hostility toward those who are trying to consume less meat or even trying to consume sustainable agricultural products. A drastic reduction in carnivory is not enough. There are clear parallels for other possibly environmentally destructive behavior.

It is like the situation in the Middle East. Extremists at each end of  the political spectrum reject those unwilling to embrace their full political agenda. The moderates give up and leave the debate or the region. The extremists continue to fight. A viable peace is never reached. No one will win this conflict.

Tai Haku wrote:

"...the real issue I have with this whole Brouhaha is the lack of middle ground people are showing..."

The term "middle ground" is just as subjective as "extreme" or "radical".

Is industrial civilization neutral? Is it "extreme" in comparison to healthy, functioning ecosystems?

If so, how can you complain about a lack of middle ground when the context of the argument is not a middle ground in itself.

This type of argument is useless and only delays the change that is crucially needed, and makes excuses to continue destructive behavior.

Nutritional research confirms what is plainly evident from anatomy, biology
and physiology - humans are frugivores and are -not- naturally carnivorous.

Huh. You say we're frugivores, yet I can't think of a single frugivorous culture. Can you?

Even the Vegetarian Resource Group recognizes that we're an omnivorous species. Their conclusion: "Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits."

Lots more about the evidence we're omnivores can be found here.

Why do you think we're so attracted to sweet tastes and fatty textures? Do you think it's an accident? No, with something as important as food, it surely must be for a good reason.

"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith

practice what you preach, please.

I do. Who are you to assume any of us does not?

"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith

I fail to see the logic, since no matter how much you wave your arms, some people will love to eat wild salmon, natural grass-fed beef, acorn-fed pigs, wild game, and all kinds of wonders that the Lord made possible.  If that disgusts you, just move over and get out of the way.  It has nothing to do with being an "environmentalist."  In fact some of the true successes here in Texas was to save former ranchland by getting rid of invasive species to allow more deer, turkey, doves, and quail - which are eaten with great relish, sometimes fifty or a hundred bucks a plate (try Hudson's west of Austin, Texas). Only the excess animals over the "carrying capacity" of the land are culled.  

That is true environmentalism.  You work to manage the land so it is sustainable, to prevent pollution or clean up old spills, to get rid of invasive species, and to protect the land so it is sustainable.  At times, this might involve prescribed burns, a practice known to help bring back endangered species.  Sometimes it involves shooting wild pigs that are ruining the ranch and crops.  You don't leave the feral pig there to die, if you kill it there is a moral obligation to eat it.  Think about it.  

I see a bunch of urban white folks here who don't know a thing about food, other than what comes from the corner store.  How disappointing.  
sammie

Onward through the fog

"To complicate matters even more, essentially all organically grown vegetable crops in the US are fertilized with animal manure."

I wouldn't have any problem with using animal manure as fertilizer if it weren't for the fact that so many animals go through our current system that manure gets dumped in excess of what the land can handle, and this "load" becomes as much of a problem as synthetic chemical fertilizers--they become a pollutant.  

One interesting thing that I read recently, though, and it might have come from Diet For a Small Planet, was that the United States currently imports around 80-90% of our fertilizers, making our dependence on foreign fertilizers just about as bad as our dependence on foreign oil.  

I haven't verified that information, but if it's true, it's an interesting little kink in the current agricultural system--and even, perhaps, a  question of national security...  

I eat mostly game meat that I kill and butcher myself. Most of the rest of my meat consumption comes from small, local farms and is processed and sold locally. I have a small flock of hens for eggs, and plan to expand the flock next year to include some birds for meat. All of this is done with humility. I don't preach to others, but I gladly share my sustenence and what knowledge I have gained with any and all who express interest. I also grow a great deal of the rest of my food, am working to increase my production, and buy the rest as locally and sustainably as is reasonably possible.

Although I constantly consider how I can live in a more thoughtful, sustainable manner, I am relatively content with my lifestyle. I don't need self-righteous vitriol from PETA and their followers to set me on a "truer" path. Perhaps you would do well to put away your broad brushes and paint a more realistic picture. Can you not see that by separating strictly vegan from everything else, you are simply isolating yourselves? I am finished acknowledging your insults now.

(1) I agree it is morally or ethically questionable practice. This warrants discussion, but not on the Grist website, in my opinion.

(2) There is also a dispute regarding whether it is environmentally acceptable. Industrial farming... bad. Sustainable harvest of wild game or free-range beef... good. Michael Pollan recently pointed out on a WPR program that consuming limited amounts of beef raised on grass can be good for one's health, good for the farmers, and good for the environment.

#1 should be discussed elsewhere,

#2 should be discussed here... can it be done sustainably and to what extent? Whether there is enough for everyone on the planet to consume several pounds per week is another matter.

I foresee that environmentalists are going to get conflicted about aquaculture and even free-range animals.  That's more because people tend to shout, be vindictive, and if you don't see it their way, you are a "denier."  In terms of logic, debate, and rhetoric, as usual it is the person who sounds the most shrill that is the worst offender.  It's not a freaking religion, it's called eating, man!

Onward through the fog

is an excellent point. A website like this should be about sharing ideas, and not touting one's actions or judging another's.

Maybe that's a more useful piece of information than all the moral vitriol. I wouldn't normally say this, but maybe what Gristers should be concentrating on is making the US (and Canada and Mexico) more British.

If you had to choose which ones are the worst, which would they be?   Beef 2.4 times worse than chicken, pork 1.8 times worse than turkey, what are the numbers?

or french or italian. As usual big agriculture is the issue here, funded by the US taxpayer courtesy of their elected representatives.

The Ethicurian is an excellent source on this as, as has already been pointed out, is Michael Pollan

"Huh. You say we're frugivores, "

'One of the most famous anatomists, Baron Cuvier, wrote:
"The natural food of man, judging from his structure, appears to
consist principally of the fruits, roots, and other succulent parts
of vegetables. His hands afford every facility for gathering them;
his short but moderately strong jaws on the other hand, and his
canines being equal only in length to the other teeth, together with
his tuberculated molars on the other, would scarcely permit him
either to masticate herbage, or to devour flesh, were these
condiments not previously prepared by cooking."
..
Linneaus, who introduced binomial nomenclature (naming plants
and animals according to their physical structure) wrote: "Man's
structure, external and internal, compared with that of other animals
shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food."

Dr. F.A. Pouchet, 19th century author of The Universe, wrote in his
Pluralite' de la Race Humaine: "It has been truly said that Man is
frugivorous. All the details of his intestinal canal, and above all his
dentition, prove it in the most decided manner."

Professor William Lawrence, FRS, in his lectures delivered at the
Royal College of Surgeons in 1822, said:
"The teeth of man have not the slightest resemblance to those of
the carnivorous animals, excepting that their enamel is confined
to the external surface. He possesses, indeed, teeth called canine;
but they do not exceed the level of others, and are obviously
unsuited to the purposes which the corresponding teeth execute
in carnivorous animals. Thus we find, whether we consider the
teeth and jaws, or the immediate instruments of digestion, that the
human structure closely resembles that of the apes, all of whom,
in their natural state, are completely herbivorous (frugivorous)."

Professor Charles Bell, FRS, wrote in his 1829 work, Anatomy,
Physiology, and Diseases of the Teeth: "It is, I think, not going too
far to say that every fact connected with the human organisation
goes to prove that man was originally formed a frugivorous animal.
This opinion is derived principally from the formation of his teeth
and digestive organs, as well as from the character of his skin and
the general structure of his limbs."

Professor Richard Owen, FRS, in his elaborate 1845 work,
Odontography, wrote: "The apes and monkeys, whom man nearly
resembles in his dentition, derive their staple food from fruits, grain,
the kernels of nuts, and other forms in which the most sapid and
nutritious tissues of the vegetable kingdom are elaborated; and the
close resemblance between the quadrumanous and the human
dentition shows that man was, from the beginning, adapted to eat
the fruit of the tree of the garden."
..
"Man, by nature, was never made to be a carnivorous animal," wrote
John Ray, FRS, "nor is he armed for prey or rapine, with jagged and
pointed teeth, and claws to rend and tear; but with gentle hands to
gather fruit and vegetables, and with teeth to chew and eat them."

According to Dr. Spenser Thompson, "No physiologist would dispute
with those who maintain that men ought to have a vegetable diet."

Dr. S.M. Whitaker, MRCS, LRCP, in Man's Natural Food: An
Enquiry, concluded, "Comparative anatomy and physiology indicate
fresh fruits and vegetables as the main food of man."

More recently, William S. Collens and Gerald B. Dobkens concluded:
"Examination of the dental structure of modern man reveals that he
possesses all the features of a strictly herbivorous animal. While
designed to subsist on vegetarian foods, he has perverted his dietary
habits to accept food of the carnivore. It is postulated that man
cannot handle carnivorous foods like the carnivore. Herein may lie
the basis for the high incidence of arteriosclerotic disease."
..'
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html

'Furthermore, William C. Roberts, M.D., Professor and Director
of the Baylor University Medical Center, and Editor in Chief of the
American Journal of Cardiology, stated in this peer-reviewed journal,
Thus, although we think we are one and we act as if we are one,
human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to
eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains
cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings,
who are natural herbivores.[11]
..
[11] Roberts, William C. American Journal of Cardiology.
Volume 66, P. 896. 1 Oct, 1990 .
..'
http://animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Morality/exam ...

"yet I can't think of a single frugivorous culture. Can you?"

'Although writing in 1923, Dr. Kellogg's words confirm a recent
statement by the American Dietetic Association, that, "most of
mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or
near vegetarian diets."

"The human race in general has never really adopted flesh as a
staple food," explains Dr. Kellogg. "The Anglo-Saxons and a few
savage tribes are about the only flesh-eating people. The people
of other nations use meat only as a luxury or an emergency diet.
...............'
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html

"Even the Vegetarian Resource Group recognizes that we're an
omnivorous species. Their conclusion: "Humans are classic examples
of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits."

A very poor article indeed.  And your author continues:

"For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet
remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns."

health concerns???  

Why would a 'naturally carnivorous omnivore' have health concerns?

"Lots more about the evidence we're omnivores can be found here."

Such as?

"Why do you think we're so attracted to sweet tastes and fatty textures?
Do you think it's an accident? No, with something as important as food,
it surely must be for a good reason."

Sweet represents sugar, which is fuel/energy, as is fat.  Of course.

"Snowshoe hares occasionally scavenge meat from the carcasses of other animals. Most small herbivores, including mice, voles, and rabbits, will eat meat o