Where Is the Real Al Gore and What Have You Done With Him?
As a left coast liberal, it pains me to say this, but someone has to: Al Gore's persistent refusal to engage in a real discussion about the impact of meat production on climate change is starting to severely hurt his credibility as a spokesman for meaningful solutions.
To me, it's almost as if the man who so bravely first fought to focus the world's attention on the urgent crisis of global warming has been kidnapped and replaced with a meeker version who no longer dares, or cares, to speak truth to power.
Case in point: Mr. Gore's recent interview with BBC Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman ahead of the upcoming Copenhagen climate conference. In the interview, Mr. Gore acknowledged that concerns over the impact of meat production are "legitimate." But in almost the same breath, the former vice president then declared that he has no plans to become a vegetarian, a diet he characterized as a mere "personal choice."
Let's pause there. Meat production isn't only a "legitimate" contributor to global warming, it is the leading contributor. Meat is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all the transportation in the world combined, in fact 40% more. This is not a statistic from PETA, or the world's vegetarian food producers, it is from the top scientific authorities on the subject.
So what does it mean when the leading figure promoting awareness and searching for solutions to the climate crisis refuses to even acknowledge the chief cause of the problem?
Isn't such a stance rather akin to a leading lung cancer researcher lighting up at a solutions summit, calling smoking just a "personal choice." Is a choice merely personal, when it contributes to the rapid decline of the entire planet, not to mention cruelty to billions of animals suffering in factory farms?
Ironically, going vegetarian or vegan to combat climate change is often characterized as an "elitist" and difficult solution unrealistic for most people.
Really? Replacing one item -- meat -- on your lunch or dinner plate with a veggie alternative from abundant faux meats to beans to mushrooms to tofu is hard and unrealistic? Certainly not for people in the cities of the Western world, where such alternatives exist everywhere and where consumer choices have the widest emissions impact.
But let's for a moment consider the steps Mr. Gore highlights in his BBC interview as steps to take to combat global warming, "walking the walk" as he calls it: Mr. Gore mentions drilling geothermal wells at his house, replacing all his windows, and covering his roof with solar panels. All commendable, serious actions, but in what universe, are they realistic for non-millionaires? Let's also consider that while taking such steps does indeed reduce your carbon footprint, it does so by a mere fraction of what a simple change in your diet could do -- with no added cost.
All that's needed is the will to change. Just a bit.
It's long grated on my nerves that the leaders of our green movement seem to promote driving hybrid cars and replacing light bulbs as the most important steps Americans can take to help curb global warming.
Let me offer two inconvenient truths: 1) Most people in America cannot afford a hybrid car. 2) Changing your light bulbs has virtually no impact on climate change when factored among the real steps you could be taking.
Does this mean that if you cannot do everything, you should do nothing? That if you cannot give up meat entirely, you shouldn't even reduce the amount you eat? Of course not. We should all do all that we can.
But our leaders should challenge us to do our most, not our least.
That's where I miss the old Al Gore. I hope he returns. As a vegetarian.
Jonathan Safran Foer: Quitting Meat: A Process Of Change
When it comes to meat, change is almost always cast as an absolute. You are a vegetarian or you are not. It's a strange formulation, and it's distracting.
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
Here's the big thing most "Vegetarians" simply fail to understand - probably because it doesn't suit their world view: Carbon has what are called long and short cycles. The common part in the cycle is the atmosphere. The short cycle is where carbon from the atmosphere (primarily CO2) is absorbed by some process (usually photosynthesis - growing plants), then "used" in some process (say, food for animals), and then returned to the atmosphere (through decay, digestion, etc). The short cycle takes carbon from and returns carbon to the atmosphere fairly quickly (say, within a year or so). In contrast, in the long cycle, carbon from the atmosphere is absorbed by some process (say, the growth of trees) and, instead of being "used", is stored in the earth (and becomes coal, natural gas, oil, methane, etc - the so-called fossil fuels) later to joins with the mantle, or remain stored until humans decide to harvest it (fossil fuels), and through use, re-release it to the atmosphere.
Short cycle carbon is not the problem, release of long-cycle carbon is.
.
Al Gore doesn't check the details. The cover of his new book has an image of the earth, with several hurricanes spinning along at the same time. One of them, off the east coast of Florida, is spinning in a clock-wise direction, rather than the normal counter-clockwise direction.
Isn't there something in physics that explains why hurricanes in the northern hemisphere always spin in one direction, and hurricanes below the equator spin in the other direction?
Has Al Gore discovered a new type of hurricane?
What kind of nonsense are they feeding to you on the righ-wing, wingnut denier site Watt's Up With That now? Don't they have anything better to talk about than stuff like the aforementioned? If you spent your time actually reading science you would be much better off. This way you will go through life knowing nothing but trivia and misinformation.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Darn the doctored book cover
and
The polar bears on the SUMMER ice flow.
There is the coreolis effect, but the rotation of storms is not inviolate. In particular, sometimes storms that originate near the equator - as most hurricanes do - can either start up with the opposite rotation due to local weather effects at the time it started or get pushed to the other side of the equator. Both happen. Deal with it.
.
Gore is not stupid or a hypocrite for not substituting tofu for meat.
He just knows that:
A plant chemical found in tofu and other soy products could damage sperm and have a negative effect on male fertility. Small amounts of genistein can cause human sperm to get “burnt out” and lose fertility.
But for all the rest of you it's: OK - move along - nothing to see here.
You mean you deniers want us all to have to eat solyent green?
You can eat anything you want - just don't tell me what I can or can not eat.
(other than endangered species)
The line is drawn and defended.
It's here, it's here for goodness' sake
The season tis upon us, it's time to partake
Two doe and a buck is what I've been waiting for
Saturday I'll be settling the score
Steaks for me and my neighbors five
It doesn't get any fresher than this - yesterday live.
I can see it now, with in my site
Can't wait for Saturday - oh the delight.
STOP with the focus on quitting meat altogether and START focusing on the real problem. The real problem isn't meat, it's factory farmed meat which isn't what I would call real meat down to it's actual chemical makeup. People should take the time to support sustainable agriculture along with their health rather than cut out meat at the cost of their health.
99% of all meat in the US is factory farmed, so it *is* the real problem. How do you suppose 300 million people in the US will eat 1% of "ethically raised" meat? They can't. Nor do they have to. Almost every single person in the US can thrive as a vegetarian. And have you looked at the state of our national health? Obesity, cancer, heart disease are everywhere... did the explosion of these diseases happen because people are now eating more vegetables or more meat? Think a little.
No one is forced to eat factory farmed meat. You act like everyone only has two options choosing between factory farmed and vegan. If people only buy free range meat then that will push up demand for it. This whole game of pretend you play makes no sense. The diseases... once again I must reiterate come from FACTORY FARMED MEAT... write that down. So stop with your nonsense argument. If people stop buying one product it will go out of demand, it's just economics. So stop buying factory farmed meat people!!! Buy free range!!
Thanks for your perfectly logical moral courage, more than I could ever say for Al. I take issue with one singular point your raise herein. The old Al Gore is precisely the same as the old Al Gore, who never cared a wit about animal rights, veganism or the impact of the animal-centered diet on Mother Earth. This is exactly why I was so disappointed about 15 years ago when I read "Earth in the Balance" after finishing John Robbins' book, "Diet for a New America," which covers the environmental dietary angle extensively. To add insult to gross injury, I understand Gore has long been a more avid hunter than even Bill Clinton. I lost my respect for Gore many years ago, especially when he ran for President in 1999 while enthusiastically supporting the EPA's "High Production Volume" scheme created by Carol Browner, which required hundreds of chemicals, already known either benign or toxic to humans, to be tested on thousands of nonhuman animals in unnecessary experiments. This program's raison d'etre was simply to support the vivisection industry. Gore claims "giving up" flesh is "difficult" but this is only true for infantile psychological reasons. There is no reason anyone in this advanced society can't go vegan when doing their homework with the myriad resources available. MK Gandhi was dead-on when he remarked that the greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated. On this criterion, America remains in the Dark Ages.
99% of humans don't care a wit about animal rights & veganism.
Dark ages? Have you seen the ghettos of India?
Grow hemp feed the seeds to chickens turkeys and pigs.(HEMP SEEDS 100% COMPLETE PROTEIN)
Corn is low protein. soy makes birds sick.
Hemp 6X more BTUS than corn.
While your growing the seeds you still get fiber for clothing and hemp oil from the leaves and stalks.
Three uses one crop.
WorldWatch magazine = "top scientific authorities"?
I think not...especially when emissions from ALL of agriculture are less than 1/4 that of power generation.
Not to mention all the co2 that is scrubbed/eliminated by the plants grown to feed animals is never factored in by the vegan studies.
Keep this up....linking climate change to militant animal rights/veganism can only help marginalize this pseudo-science & prevent $trillions$ of wasteful spending.
What's WorldWatch? The article's stat is cited from the UN and leading climate change study groups. Whose stats are you reading? Factory Farmer Daily?
I am a vegetarian, but take serious issue with this article. Addressing how meat is produced is a legitimate issue, attacking someone for eating meat is not necessarily a legitimate issue. You can be on a vegetarian diet that contributes more to global warming than what some meat eaters contribute. Properly managed cattle and other grazing animals can be part of sustainable food systems that not only do not do harm, but actually contribute to the lessening of global warming by carbon sequestration. A person eating a diet of grass fed organic feed raised in a sustainable manner is not contributing to global warming. A person eating a vegetarian diet of industrially raised vegetables and grains is contributing to global warming. Google Joe Salatin and/or Polyface Farms to learn how meat animals can be ethically raised in ways that help not hurt the environment. Also Google permaculture designer Darren Doherty and keyline systems to learn how properly managed ranches can sequester carbon.
You are OK with the whole egg and cheese issue?
The inhumanity of your actions is just appalling.
@lbsaltzman: "You can be on a vegetarian diet that contributes more to global warming than what some meat eaters contribute." Sorry, but that is just fantasy. 99% of all meat produced and eaten in the US comes from factory farms. Also: it takes 16 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef. Incredibly wasteful and ineffective when compared to plant-based foods. You don't think they feed cattle organic, small-farmed vegetables, do you?
After you get him to address the "meat issue," maybe he can address the "mansion issue" and the "100 foot long boat issue."
There is no mansion issue.
A 10,000 square foot home is not a mansion? Who knew?
This from USA Today - enjoy!
"Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home.
The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, according to bills reviewed by The Associated Press spanning the period from Feb. 3, 2006, to Jan. 5. That is far more than the typical Nashville household, which uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.
His Nashville home is more than four times larger than the average new American home built last year — about 2,400 square feet, according to the National Association of Home Builders."
MIkko, you're awesome dude!!
I agree completely! Thank you for this article.
If everyone went vegetarian just for one day, the U.S. would save:
● 100 billion gallons of water, enough to supply all the homes in New England for almost 4 months;
● 1.5 billion pounds of crops otherwise fed to livestock, enough to feed the state of New Mexico for more than a year;
● 70 million gallons of gas -- enough to fuel all the cars of Canada and Mexico combined with plenty to spare;
● 3 million acres of land, an area more than twice the size of Delaware;
● 33 tons of antibiotics.
If everyone went vegetarian just for one day, the U.S. would prevent:
● Greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 1.2 million tons of CO2, as much as produced by all of France;
● 3 million tons of soil erosion and $70 million in resulting economic damages;
● 4.5 million tons of animal excrement;
● Almost 7 tons of ammonia emissions, a major air pollutant.
Can you give me a link for this info?
NOPE - for one people can't eat feed grains, and the rest is imagined.
Well said. I was disappointed with what Al had to say about meat eating, that he didn't acknowledge its status as a primary contributor to climate change, and that he didn't explain how eating less meat is the biggest single thing an individual can do to reduce their carbon footprint. Going 1 day without meat can reduce an American's carbon output by 12%. A 20% reduction in meat consumption is the equivalent of swapping your gas car for a hybrid.
I'm okay with him not being a vegetarian. Maybe he doesn't like the label: labels can be too prescriptive. If PETA and Glenn Beck had ganged up on me, I'd be wary of it too! But it saddens me that he says - somewhat dismissively - that he has no plans to become vegetarian. Why not at least aim for it? Not "I eat less meat, but it's a personal choice I have no position on" but "I'm trying to give it up because it matters that I do". Why the blind spot?
I've been lacto-ovo vegetarian for 19 years and am transitioning to vegan. It's harder than giving up meat was, so I sympathize with folks who struggle. But every meal I make without animal products brings me closer to my goal and eases my burden on the planet. Even if I don't earn the label "Vegan", I'm still doing better than if I hadn't tried. The process makes the difference.
Alanne needs a little perspective. He wonders whether a scientist respected in cancer research should light up in public? Turns out, that scientist is aware of the NIH studies in the late 90's that demonstrates a J-curve effect with cigarettes. At one pack a day, or less, the risk over normal population for lung cancer is .9 of 1%. This explodes when two packs a day is approached. Maybe, just maybe, we need to look a little closer at the meat production data, and decide if there isn't some adjustment to meat production that dramatically shifts the statistics to allow moderation for those who want to include meat in their diets? Maybe Alanne can expand on how the data is arranged for his readers.
I'd be interested in a seeing a link to the data about meat being the leading contributor to global warming. Eyeballing this EPA graph http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginventory.htmll - scroll down a bit) makes it look like agriculture as a whole contributes about 1/4th as much greenhouse gas (the figures are adjusted for the fact that methane has a greater impact than carbon dioxide) as transportation, and less than 1/10th of the overall amount.
For real facts, start with the UN Food and Agriculture Organization's report, the most comprehensive and authoritative on the subject: ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e00.pdf00.pdf.
A few weeks earlier the UN also released a report that stated there was no evidence of human activity contributing to climate change. So which one should we believe?
Great piece. Well said. Very thoughtful.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
