Global Warming, Human Psychology,
and Net Impact for Animals
by Matt Ball;
with a postscript
At first blush,
global warming seems to be a great
hook for those of us promoting
animal-friendly eating, but there
are two problems:
1. Offering accurate
information. Many people say that
meat is the leading cause of global
warming. But this is not true;
the production of meat is not
the leading cause of greenhouse
gases -- only more than transportation.
From:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607612562
Food, livestock production, energy,
climate change, and health
Although the main
human source of greenhouse-gas
emissions is combustion of fossil
fuels for energy generation, non-energy
emissions (including from agriculture
and land-use changes) contribute
more than a third of the total
greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide.
Greenhouse-gas
emissions from the agriculture
sector account for about 22% of
global total emissions; this contribution
is similar to that of industry
and greater than that of transport.
Livestock production (including
transport of livestock and feed)
accounts for nearly 80% of the
sector's emissions.
So livestock comes
after energy generation and industry.
And that is only globally; from
the Salon article referenced below:
Here in the U.S., livestock's
impact is not quite so extreme:
Six percent of our greenhouse
gases come from livestock production,
compared with 19 percent from
cars, light trucks and airplanes.
See more here
(scroll down to the update).
As we've said elsewhere,
no meat eater is actively seeking
to be a vegetarian; rather, people
are looking for a reason to dismiss
us. When we exaggerate or lie,
that is all that is remembered
-- not the underlying reality.
That worldwide meat production
contributes more to global warming
than all of transportation is
accurate and striking; there is
no reason to exaggerate.
2. The expected
impact in the public mind, and
how it thus actually affects
animals. When the public
hears "livestock" (as
in "livestock causes more
global warming than transportation"),
they think cattle, and the conclusion
is that they should eat less beef.
Even when people hear "meat
... global warming," they
think burping (or flatulent) cows.
(Of course, the news is written
by, and the media run by, meat
eaters. So they will always choose
the side that is least challenging
to their habits / the status
quo.)
For those that look
into the science and aren't already
vegan, concern for global warming
leads almost inevitably to more
chickens being eaten (it takes
about 190 chickens to provide
the same number of meals as one
steer; see "Suffering
per Kilogram" and "Farm
Animal Welfare, Legislation, and
Trade" (pdf).
For example, from:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/22/peta/index.html
"Astonishingly
enough," says study coauthor
Gidon Eshel, a Bard College geophysicist,
"the poultry diet is actually
better than lacto-ovo vegetarian."
In other words, a roast chicken
dinner is better for the planet
than a cheese pizza.
The average American
is responsible for about 26 tons
annually, so if the entire U.S.
population went vegan, we'd reduce
our greenhouse gas emissions by
only 6 percent.
The vast majority
of that 6 percent is from cutting
out beef and dairy. (The entire
article is worth reading for
how "informed" opinion
plays this out.)
Similarly:
Food-Miles and the
Relative Climate Impacts of Food
Choices in the United States
Environ. Sci. Technol.
In press
Different food
groups exhibit a large range in
GHG-intensity; on average, red
meat is around 150% more GHG-intensive
than chicken or fish. Thus, we
suggest that dietary shift can
be a more effective means of lowering
an average household's food-related
climate footprint than "buying
local." Shifting less than
one day per week's worth of calories
from red meat and dairy products
to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based
diet achieves more GHG reduction
than buying all locally sourced
food.
The LA
Times shows "replace
beef with chicken" in action:
"No hamburger
patties?" asked an incredulous
football player, repeating the
words of the grill cook. He glowered
at the posted sign: 'Cows or cars?
Worldwide, livestock emits 18%
of greenhouse gases, more than
the transportation sector! Today
we're offering great-tasting vegetarian
choices.' "Just give me three
chicken breasts, please,"
he said....
Here
is another example. [June
2009 -- another
example.] A final data point
is that if Al Gore -- who believes
global warming is an existential
risk -- won't change, it would
appear that global warming/veg
isn't an incredibly compelling
argument for veganism (see here,
and comments).
My general impression (and I know
there are exceptions to this and
all arguments) is that global
warming is another argument that
makes sense to us, and makes us
think, "Here is a great,
self-interested hook I can use
to convince others of veganism's
superiority!" But it isn't
a question of whether veganism
is the best diet for addressing
global warming (as far as I can
tell, it is). The bottom line
has to be the actual impact of
the message we choose to present.
In other words: we shouldn't seek
out and use arguments that seem
to support veganism -- veganism
isn't the point. If we take suffering
seriously, we must seek to present
a message that reduces the most
suffering.
As Nobel Laureate
Herb Simon discovered, human psychology
/ decision making is often determined
by 'good enough.' People don't
hear about a concern (especially
a relatively abstract issue like
global warming) and take it to
the fullest extent -- e.g., stop
driving at all -- but rather,
those motivated enough will do
something (drive a bit less, drive
a more fuel-efficient car) and
feel good that they are doing
something. (The same has held
true for "the
health argument")
In this case, though,
doing "something" means
eating a lot more chickens. We
can say, "But being vegan
is even better!" till we're
blue in the face, but experience
shows that this is effective only
in the rarest of cases; the vast
majority of people who will be
moved at all about global warming
are happy to be 'taking action'
by eating a lot more chickens.
(And it is the cattle industry
that is worried about the global
warming / diet argument, not the
poultry industry -- the latter
loves anything that badmouths
beef.)
Although the global
warming / food connection seems
clear to us and appears to justify
our veganism, the bottom line
is how it actually plays out in
people's minds via the actual
media. When used on its own, I
fear that the diet / global warming
angle does significantly more
harm (more chickens eaten) than
good (people actually going veg
who otherwise wouldn't have if
exposed to the realities of modern
agribusiness).
For this reason,
I think that we should be very
careful how we use global warming.
It is a hot topic, so it gives
us an "in" with the
media and environmental groups.
But if we present it on its own,
given human psychology, the case
is almost always going to have
the bottom line of eating more
chickens. In my opinion, the global
warming / diet connection does
more harm than good when presented
on its own, but can work as a
hook to capture attention and
allow us to draw attention to
the horrors of modern agribusiness,
with a special focus on cruelty
to chickens.
PS On a related
topic, there is growing recognition
that increased usage of certain
biofuels will exacerbate global
hunger (e.g., http://tinyurl.com/5wmh3y).
Of course, the same argument of
resource usage can be made regarding
using crops as animals feed (e.g.,
http://tinyurl.com/2lvbww)
-- according to the FAO, only
100m tonnes of cereal crops go
to biofuel, while 760m tonnes
go to animal feed -- and the latter
figure isn't even counting soy.
As pointed out here:
There is plenty
of food. It is just not reaching
human stomachs. Of the 2.13bn
tonnes likely to be consumed this
year, only 1.01bn, according to
the United Nation's Food and Agriculture
Organization, will feed people....
But there is a bigger reason for
global hunger, which is attracting
less attention only because it
has been there for longer. While
100m tonnes of food will be diverted
this year to feed cars, 760m tonnes
will be snatched from the mouths
of humans to feed animals -- which
could cover the global food deficit
14 times. If you care about hunger,
eat less meat.
Keep in mind, however,
that beef is much, much less efficient
than chicken (and eggs) -- see,
again, the Salon
article:
Welcome, then,
the savior of environmentally
concerned carnivores everywhere:
the chicken. Unlike cattle, chickens
don't burp methane. They also
have an amazing ability to turn
a relatively small amount of grain
into a large amount of protein.
A chicken requires 2 pounds of
grain to produce a pound of meat,
compared with about 6 pounds of
grain for a feedlot cow and 3
pounds for a pig. Poultry waste
produces only about one-tenth
of the methane of hog and cattle
manure.
Like thousands of
activists over the past decades,
I'd love to think there is some
perfect, logical, self-interested
argument that won't just vindicate
my veganism, but will convince
large numbers of people to go
vegan, while not leading others
to eat more chickens. But this
is not the case -- there just
aren't lots of people out there
who secretly want to be vegan
but just need that one statistic.
For nearly everyone, any change
away from the status quo is difficult
and resisted. As much as we'd
love to argue otherwise, in response
to health or environmental arguments,
the first, easiest, most convenient,
and socially acceptable step is
to eat more chickens.
It is worth briefly
considering why health and environmental
arguments seem to be more easily
"accepted" by people,
and why most individuals are resistant
and defensive when faced with
the cruelty argument. Much of
this could well be that health
choices are personal (and easily
overridden by habit, convenience,
etc, even in the face of severe
health issues), while environmental
concerns are abstract and easily
assuaged by taking some
action (new lightbulbs, recycling)
from the laundry list of suggested
actions ("No one's perfect!").
The obvious cruelty
and vicious brutality of factory
farms, however, is both real,
immediate, undeniable, and clearly
an ethical challenge to our view
of ourselves. For these reasons,
the animals' suffering can't be
easily dismissed and forgotten;
thus it is important for meat
eaters to avoid the issue as much
as possible (and to make the messenger
the issue, whenever possible).
For the same reason, it is incumbent
on us, as animal advocates, to
actually advocate the animals'
case, so that no one can avoid
facing the hidden reality.
As I've written
elsewhere:
I’m not fooling myself – I
know that exposing what goes
on in factory farms and slaughterhouses
isn’t going to reach everyone.
But feel-good arguments that
avoid the horrors of meat production
are easily dismissed, and thus
simply not compelling enough.
We don’t want people to nod
in agreement and continue on
as before. It is far better
if 95% of people turn away revolted
and 5% open their minds to change,
than if everyone smiles politely
and continues on to McDonald’s
for a chicken sandwich.
Let me repeat: Trying to
appeal to everyone hasn’t
worked, and it won’t work.
It is well past time
to give up the fantasy that
there is some perfect self-centered
argument that will magically
compel everyone to change.
In deciding what
to present to the public, our
criteria shouldn't be, "Does
this seem to denigrate (some)
meat and/or support veganism?"
We shouldn't be trying to justify
our diet -- we need to
stand up for the animals.
We don't get to determine how
people should react;
we must consider how our chosen
argument will actually play
out to the general public
and through the media. We must
set aside our personal biases
and needs, and honestly ask, "Is
this the argument that will alleviate
as much suffering as possible?"
The animals are counting on us.
|
