Vegetarianism and Environmentalism: On PETA's Latest Campaign
There's a huge brouhaha going on at the Grist mothership over PETA, vegetarianism, and environmentalism. I like poking the hornet's nest, so I thought I'd weigh in. As I see it, there are three core questions:
1. Should citizens of conscience become vegetarians?
To me, the answer to this question is pretty obviously yes. I don't see how it can be seriously argued.
Depending on your inclinations, you can heed the health arguments, the moral arguments, or the environmental arguments (regardless whether you agree with the UN study that meat production is the No. 1 contributor to global warming, it is obviously a very large contributor, never mind CAFOs' horrid effects on land, air, and water). Taken together, these arguments strike me as dispositive. It is not possible to participate in industrial animal farming with clean hands.
Add to all this the fact that unlike giving up a car, moving closer to work, or retrofitting a home to be more energy efficient, giving up meat involves virtually no cost or inconvenience. Eating meat is entirely an aesthetic choice, based on taste and habit. Taste and habit are not convincing counterweights to the arguments against meat.
So yes, you should eat less meat; ideally you should eat none. You ought to be a vegetarian.
Two additional notes:
- Yeah, yeah, the equation is different if you eat only humanely raised animals purchased from local farmers, or if you hunt and kill your own meat. But about 0.001% of Americans do that, and there could never be enough of that kind of meat to match current consumption levels, so it's a distraction from the real argument. At least for me, the argument for vegetarianism is not categorical; it's contingent on the actual state of industrial livestock farming.
- I'm not a vegetarian, so I'm a big fat hypocrite. I eat meat -- not nearly as much as the average American, but some. I choose local and humane when I can, but lots of times it isn't an option. My personal eating habits give me considerable incentive to justify meat consumption. But I'd rather acknowledge my hypocrisy than use a bunch of bullsh*t arguments.
2. Is it true that you cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist?
This is a deeply silly question. The term "environmentalist" is socially contingent and highly contested. Environmentalism has no metaphysical essence. "You aren't an environmentalist" is moral judgment masquerading as an assertion of fact.
Every discussion I've ever witnessed about who is or isn't an environmentalist, or what does or doesn't count as environmentalism -- and believe me, at this point I've seen plenty -- contains vastly more heat than light. Feelings are hurt, umbrage is taken, but nothing is ever learned, no consensus is ever reached. It's a peacock show through which everyone parades their biases and preconceptions.
What makes an environmentalist? Is it enough to care about (write about, advocate for) environmental policy, or must you also engage in activism? Must you take action to green your own life? If so, how much? Drive less, or not at all? Turn off lights, or go off grid? Eat less meat, or go vegetarian?
I don't know, or much care. There are lots and lots of things decent human beings should do. Nobody's able to do them all. We all do a little; we should all do more. Those of us on more or less the same side gain very little by furiously judging each other's personal choices in a futile attempt to define the tribal boundaries of environmentalism.
3. Is PETA's latest campaign counterproductive?
It's important when thinking about this question to disentangle your own response to the campaign from the question of its overall efficacy. I'll freely admit it bugs the crap out of me. Proclaiming who is and isn't an environmentalist bugs me. Using Al Gore as a foil bugs me. Using global warming opportunistically, as a convenient wedge, bugs me. The whole thing is irksome.
However, the campaign isn't designed to secure my moral or aesthetic approval, or yours. It's designed to spread awareness of something you and I already know: that eating meat is environmentally destructive and exacerbates global warming. A sober, fair-minded, carefully argued campaign would not achieve that goal. It would sink without a ripple.
As I've argued before (in connection to another PETA campaign), it's extremely difficult to make yourself heard over the din of pop culture and 24-hour media. There aren't many people looking around for information on the destructiveness of their most intimate habits. Virtually the only way advocacy campaigns can gain any traction is by generating some controversy. Despite what you may think, that's not all PETA does, but they do it a lot and they do it well. That's why you know who they are. That's why we're having a debate about vegetarianism and environmentalism.
As annoying as it is, I count the campaign a success, because of the hundreds of advocacy campaigns going on right now, this is the one we noticed. That's what PETA set out to achieve, and they achieved it.
Follow David Roberts on Twitter: www.twitter.com/david_h_roberts
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A few years ago when people thought cars were the main vice associated with global warming, Dick Cheney said energy conservation was a personal virtue.
Now that the public is finding out that eating meat is the main vice, Grist says being a vegetarian is a personal virtue.
Why should I continue to trust Grist?
I think most of PETA's views are valid.
However, their methods leave a lot to be desired. I have no inkling to be a part of an organization that tries to bully people into seeing their point of view.
They are zealots and zealots by nature are dangerous, no matter what the message.
ummm.... if everyone is a vegan why would animals be kept alive? No one will raise cows, if no one uses cows. If everyone eats veggies, wouldn't more forests need to be cut down for agriculture? will that not lead to more pesticides etc... and don't those kill animals?
Flicka, Your analysis is completely wrong.
I've been a vegetarian for 15 years. Since four years ago, in addition to my environmental law enforcement career, I operate a small farm with a variety of livestock. All the animals contribute in various ways according to their natural functions, and I intend to protect them to my best ability until the natural end of their lives. It's a very happy and wholesome living arrangement.
In terms of agricultural use, the principles of ecology demand ten times more impact from eating meat compared to a vegetarian, twenty times compared to a vegan. Basically, energy and nutrients are used by the animals, and only parts of what has become the animal's body can be taken as meat after the animal is slaughtered.
I guess my problem with this is pretty straight forward. Many have stated that if you eat meat you cannot be an environmentalist. You have to drive the small call and cut back on fuel consumption and have 1 kid. What I would like to know from these people is do you put your money where your mouth is. Ok I can drive a smaller car and maybe cut down on the meat although I agree that to consider all animals sentient is beyond debatable, but what do you do that helps the environment. Have you saved any forest and any grass lands and water areas? Hunters and Anglers donate tens of millions of dollars a year to keep up and add to pristine environments. What do you do? They feed hundreds at food banks with hunters for the hungry. They purchase lands and reclaim them watersheds and grasslands are repopulated with quail and duck. Yes they are used to hunt on but thousands of acres have been reclaimed and brought back to wildlife habitat by people many of you despise. You might want to think about that before protesting your next hunt for PETA. Hunters are enviromentalists.
It's just as easy to eat vegetables and grains as it is to eat meat, although eating meat causes astonishing environmental harm.
If red cars got 10 miles per gallon, and almost identical green cars got 100 miles per gallon, but almost everyone, including so-called environmentalists, prefers the red cars as a matter of 'taste,' then I'd have to say the so-called environmentalists are completely fake.
I work for an evironmental regulatory agency, where in an office of about 200, I don't know of any other vegetarians. PETA isn't frustrated by a few meat-eating vegetarians. They're heads are exploding because this is such a big deal but almost no one is listening, and the so-called environmentalists do not have the integrity to do the needful and quit eating meat.
With this issue, Grist has revealed itself undeniably as a phony environmental group. Coming out on the wrong side of this critical issue undermines whatever good work they may do. Shame on Grist.
Compliments for absorbing the real lesson of PETA's strategy. They aren't out to make friends but to change minds. Only the most depraved would seek out MORE factory-raised chickens after seeing the blood and filth and hearing the screams of birds boiled alive. The rest of us may hate PETA for shoving that in our faces, but we get it. We get it.
The "You're not a --- if" argument is always silly. "You're not a Christian if you don't eat your beans." "You're not a scientist if you think animals think." "You're not a philosopher if you don't use logic." "You're not a football fan if you despise Mike Vick." Whatever.
They've got some environmentalists making productive examinations of their navels. What IS the relationship of your eating habits to your "love" of Nature? Good will come of it. My cheers to the sinner eaters. We hate them; they make us better.
Vegetarianism is only an option for people in the middle latitudes on earth. For those farther away from the equator where you have a shorter growing season, meat is essential. As peak oil comes to an end, and we are forced to eat more locally, we will also be forced to eat whatever is available. I find that people whose ancestors came from the northern latitudes don't do well on vegetarian diets. Every body is different, and I am tired of people making moral judgments of what people eat.
"Every body is different, and I am tired of people making moral judgments of what people eat."
YES! My body, my mouth, my choice. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
What I choose to eat has nothing to do with "morals". It has to do with MY CHOICE.
I am so sick of people being high-and-mighty w/ their vegetarianism. If it works for you, great. But quit trying to foist your way of life on me. We are omnivores by nature. Just because you choose to disregard that fact doesn't make it any less valid for those of us who CHOOSE to eat meat.
Should citizens of conscious become vegetarians? - No. Or that depends on how you define conscious.
Is it better to clear land, plant fields, fill them full of pesticides, destroy the countryside, kill all kinds of animals in the process, including birds, mice, wild animals?
Is it better to let the nitrogen filled fertilizers run into the ocean causing algae blooms and fish dye offs?
Or do you think it would be better to live in a place where sheep are allowed to eat freely from the grass, where birds, mice and all the rest still exist - and then you eat the sheep? You actually kill less animals.
Is a mouse's life less important than a sheep? If you kill one hundred mice for your grain are you a better person than if you kill one sheep?
Unless you want to pretend that agriculture does not kill many, many, many animals every year and shorten human lives with all the pesticides.
Newfycrat,
Your misunderstanding of ecology is amazing.
I'm not only an animal lover (3dogs 1cat 2 horses) I'm a meat eater. AND PROUD OF IT. I have worked with farm animals- and your hands definitely don't stay clean. Why do I ,caregiver to any four legged friend, eat meat? Becaue that is how god or nature made me. I am an omnivore by design. Canine teeth, fingers,eyes forward, superior brain capacity to hunt in groups. I am first and foremost an animal. I would never change a carnivores diet to veggies- that's not even in the realm of proper animal husbandry.
PETA is the Pro-Lifer's of the conversation regarding humane & ethical treatment of animals. Industrial farming is detrimental to the animals, and the envirnoment, but also contributes to the higher incidences of food borne illness- ans spread to greater distances-as we've recently seen. I appreciate all that I have been given by a god or just nature. In return for things I will harm along my path, I vow to help all that I can as payment. I have worked with humans & animals all my adult life. I give back with more than mere words and sentiments-but with true committment and dedication. PETA, like the Prolifers should realize these are personal choices. Inform but don't judge. Because you don't have a copy of the 'master' plan either. I give to them in the best ways I know how and in return they give back.Circle of life.By the way what do we do with all this live stock- expect the farmers to feed them till they die, maybe you can take home a few head, or were we planning on shooting them so they don't cause anymore global warning? Great ideas have realistic goals and plans.
If you had spent any time with a variety of animals personalities- I can guarantee- there'd be one SOB you'd gladly eat on a kaiser roll- Nasty/rank .And are you sure carrots aren't screaming as you peel them on to your other massacred veggies-are you sure?? Be thankful of everything.
Well said. Also, humans can only get B12 vitamin from animal products. A totally vegan diet is not healthy.
Sorry, we were made to be omnivores and eat meat when we could get it, which wasn't a lot. And our work was purely physical, plus our life was short (so no problem with clogged arteries).
And if we stopped eating all those factory-farmed critters, they wouldn't make so many more. Trust me, the ones that are already in process will be eaten.
Hunter and gatherer populations do not have clogged arteries! In fact, most of this kind of damage was first seen in the agricultural societies in Egypt.
In addition, every one's life was short. A lot of people in agricultural societies died young from infections from bad teeth (hunter and gatherers rarely had bad teeth unless they ate an all fruit diet or used their teeth in tool making) Just do a quick check on the life of Europeans in the middle ages - they died of starvation, rickets (caused by eating too much grains - the phylates which prevent the uptake of calcium and other minerals like zinc) and many other diseases - including water born diseases caused by large populations.
None of the type 2 diabetes right now is happening because people eat meat. Meat only causes a slight increase in insulin if it is eaten in large quantities. Blame corn, corn syrup, sugary sweets and all of that for all the diabetes that is shortening people's lives. (obesity is almost a larger killer than smoking).
Meant to say DON'T have to compete about who is the best environmentalist!
I have been a vegetarian for 20 years and have been amazed at the hostility I get for it. The only good thing is that some people who were rude years ago came around as they started getting health problems.
My personal opinion is that one can't be a true environmentalist if one eats meat, drives an SUV and has 4 kids. I am not confrontational as it does no good. Some of my friends do awful things but donate money and that helps. Yes, we have to compete about who is the best environmentalist, but let's be honest, too.
It's not my job to beat you up, but are you really trying? All of us have room to improve. I use heat/ac about 2 days a year (my neighbors go for around 180 days). I rarely buy new, recycle, buy locally, don't use a clothes dryer, etc. But I try to get better.
Again, personal opinion--isn't this like dumbing down grades? Let's give everyone an A because they are trying. Here's reality. The ice fields are melting. The temperature is going up. Big storms are coming. A lot of the reason is factory farming, SUVs, McMansions, etc. But hey, you gave $10 to Audobon last year. You're trying!
I'm not only an animal lover (3dogs 1cat 2 horses) I'm a meat eater. AND PROUD OF IT. I have worked with farm animals- and your hands definitely don't stay clean. Why do I ,caregiver to any four legged friend, eat meat? Becaue that is how god or nature made me. I am an omnivore by design. Canine teeth, digits on my hands and feet, ,binocualr vision and a brain to hunt or scavenge any food. I am first and foremost an animal. I would never change a carnivores diet to veggies- that's not even in the realm of proper animal husbandry.
PETA is the Pro-Lifer's of the conversation regarding humane & ethical treatment of animals. Industrial farming is not only detrimental to the animals, and the envirnoment, but also contributes to the higher incidences of food borne illness- and the ability to spread the disease to great distances- as we've recently seen. I appreciate all that I have been given by a god or just nature. In return for things I will harm along my path, I vow to help all that I can as payment. I have worked with humans & animals all my adult life. I give back with more than mere words and sentiments- but with true committment and dedication. PETA, like the Prolifers should realize these are personal choices. Inform but don't judge. Because you don't have a copy of the 'master' plan either. I give to them in the best ways I know how and in return they give back.Circle of life.By the way what do we do with all this live stock- expect the farmers to feed them till they die, maybe you can take home a few head, or were we planning on shooting them so they don't cause anymore global warning? Great ideas have realistic goals and plans.
If you had spent any time with a variety of animals personalities- I can guarantee- there'd be one SOB you'd gladly eat on a kaiser roll- at lunch. Nasty/rank....
"Why do I ,caregiver to any four legged friend, eat meat? Becaue that is how god or nature made me. I am an omnivore by design"
Nature isn't a very good excuse. Nature also designed humans to be clever at murdering each other. Being civilized is the state of having overcome your natural tendencies to hurt other sentient beings including non-human animals.
thank you cyboman. could not have said it better...
Nature also designed us to evolve. A strong sense of morality, along with the intelligence to make appropriate ethical decisions, are the marks of a highly evolved person.
People justify slaughtering animals and eating meat, saying that animals do these things. Yes, they do, but we can do better. If we can't live peacefully, what good are our big brains?
Very well stated. I agree with everything you said. As a (mostly) vegetarian, I wish everyone would use the common sense you have expressed here.
I am an environmentalist IMHO because I believe I should be and I make SOME effort. Lets leave the definition up to the individual. If you choose to stand on the sidelines and use up your energy calling others hypocritical instead of thinking up ways you can help the cause without taxing yourself, so be it.
I don't feel superior to anyone because I know the guy next to me may be doing far more than I. Maybe I should feel guilty that I don't do more, but I'm at least doing something.
I'm especially pleased that you mentioned the idea that one doesn't 'need' meat.
Yes we all should be vegetarians. It's really reprehensible that we kill living creatures for food. There isn't really any justifying it. We torture and kill animals so we eat what we want. Plus meat isn't even good for you.
RE: It's reprehensible that we kill living creatures for food.
Kitsapdem, can we assume that killing living creatures for fashion, sport and entertainment is reprehensible, as well? Can we assume that you do not, at any time, wear leather coats, jackets, shoes or belts? Can we also assume that you do not participate as an athlete, or as a spectator, in sports that feature the skin of animals, such as football (pigskin ball), basball (ball and mitt) or tennis (where the best tennis racquet strings are made of animal gut)? Can we also assume that you do not ride in cars with leather seats? I'm sure you totally disapprove of hunting, of course that is to be expected. I truly respect vegetarians but am always so interested in how far they are really able to support their 'killing living creatures is reprehensible' claims. Please advise the audience where you stand in this matter. Thanks for your insight in advance.
First, thanks for the enjoyable article.
eaglecapri, I'm a vegan and its quite easy (and important to me) to not wear anything made from animals. Sometimes I wonder though if the shoes I wear, for example, contain glue made from animals. I don't need to buy a car or furniture made from leather, though I may have to ride in someone else 's car that has leather seats. I don't like sports so I can't say how I would deal with that (though I would never compromise my ethics). So in the end, being vegan is simple but withdrawing all your support from a system that abuses animals is probably impossible.
I don't know what standard Kitsapdem follows, but I could affirmatively answer each of your questions.
My parents have leather furniture, and when I visit only sit on the floor. My shoes and belt are synthetic, and of course no leather coat. I don't even watch sports that use products of slaughter.
None of this is difficult at all, and I'm not even vegan, as dairy is a part of my religion. However, I actually directly support animal protection, as I maintain my property as a NWF certified backyard wildlife habitat and as a farm sanctuary.
You realize that plants and even bacteria are alive right? Do you photosynthesize your energy? Do you generate energy by the breakdown of methane?
If you're going to take this approach for the argument, which not inconsequently turns people off almost immediately, you should at least be more precise. Otherwise you come off as insane for making that specific suggestion.
"It's really reprehensible that we kill living creatures for food."
I'll pretend to not notice that the ONLY things we eat are creatures that were once alive. I'm sure Kitsapdem meant living "animals."
Unless you are a biblical fundamentalist, animals (including humans and proto-humans) have been killing animals for food since long before there were morals. I realize that as rational beings we can choose not to do things that are against our current morals, etc. etc., but making a blanket statement that insults anyone who has different morals than you is counterproductive and won't win any arguments. Is it reprehensible for Inuit to eat meat, when there are almost no edible plants that grow in their environment? Is it wrong for indiginous peoples living in the rainforest to continue a hunting tradition that dates back millenia, or should they clear the forest to plant peas and put aside their quaint culture to be more like you? I agree that factory farming animals is wrong, but not every one who eats meet is "reprehensible," in my view.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
