On Pitfalls of the Environment Argument
We all know that a vegan diet has a smaller carbon footprint than the typical omnivorous diet, (assuming the vegan’s diet isn’t loaded with processed food and non-organic fruits and vegetables shipped thousands of miles).
Perhaps you see the problem already. All those "locavores" and many of those who tout SOLE (sustainable, organic, local, and/or ethical—and notice the AND/OR, which is puzzling), have no problem breeding, controlling, confining, mutilating and slaughtering animals for food. They just would like to do it in the most environmentally-responsible manner.
So if they have a way to exploit animals that lowers the average carbon footprint, how can you complain if your priority is the environment argument rather than the ethics argument?
Exhibit A: "Eat whale and save the planet." Let’s get one thing out of the way–I don’t have an ethical problem with anyone eating whales if they’re already eating cows and chickens. And if the Norwegian whaling lobby is correct that the carbon footprint of whale meat is lower than that of beef, that doesn’t bode well for those for whom the environment is top priority. They would then have no choice but to advocate for the eating of whales over the eating of cows.
Interesting predicament, eh?
Exhibit B: One of TerraPass’ main projects is "farm power:"
When Holsum Irish welcomed its first cows, its waste handling system consisted of a flush system and a lagoon. Water ran underneath the barn’s slotted floors, washing the waste into a large outdoor pond with bermed edges. And there it sat.
Underneath the liquid, the organic solids decomposed. Unlike compost-style processes which give off carbon dioxide – completing a balanced carbon cycle – the collected manure decayed without oxygen and hence produced methane gas, which bubbled to the top of the pond and escaped to the atmosphere. Methane is 21 times as damaging as carbon dioxide when it comes to global warming, so the methane’s escape was not good for the planet.
Kenn Buelow, Holsum’s manager, decided to install an anerobic digester. They’re like a next-generation pond– a waste receptacle with engineering added. Today, the digester and associated changes in waste handling allow Holsum to capture the methane and feed it to generators which power the dairy. The digester also transforms the products left over when the methane is gone. They’re not waste. The digested solids are clean and used as cow bedding. The nitrogen-rich liquid is used as fertilizer and can now be pumped over the fields instead of trucked. It’s a win-win-win-win.
So when you buy your TerraPass for your vehicle, you’re funding this program, which certainly helps the environment, but also helps people feel better about using animals.
Now, I’m all for helping Our Planet, but I like to do it the old fashioned way: by not hurting it first.
Again, I’m an environmentalist. But to come out swinging with how bad exploiting animals is for Our Planet is a big mistake. It’s like the cruelty argument–all someone has to do is present you with an alternative way to use animals that decreases cruelty (or harm to the environment), and you look like an idiot (not to mention a hypocrite) if you don’t endorse it.
I'm right there with you Mary. Thanks for this entry.
My forthcoming handout/pamphlet does not mention cruelty or the environment.
Thank you for bringing this point up, Mary. I’ve always seen the environmental and health benefits of a vegan diet as no more than desirable *side effects*. It’s nice that going vegan also currently happens to be much better for the environment and our health, but ultimately, it is irrelevant to the essential reason for being vegan: to treat nonhumans with respect as fellow sentient beings and full members of the moral community. Even if it were better for the environment and our health to consume animal products, the essential reason to be vegan stands strong and independent of support beams, stilts, props, or training wheels.
Although I agree with you, I still don't think the environmental argument is useless. In my opinion the people who are most concerned about the environment are also the people most likely to promote "happy" meat. If you read the description of the system, it's obvious it's a design for factory farming. No free roaming cows here! So when encountered with a happy meat enthusiast who also promotes this gadget, I would simply ask how the two concepts are supposed to be combined. I'm sure there are ways around this, as well, I just don't think we should throw out the environmental arguments completely. I find that they are powerful tool for getting the attention of people and then move on to the ethical arguments.
Point 2: I'm not sure if the Norwegian pro-whalers are correct about the carbon footprint for whaling. Fishing has a huge carbon footprint, mostly due to the enormous distances to non-depleted fishing waters. Although the whale hunt might take place closer to the Norwegian coast, I still believe the pro-whalers are doing some happy calculations here.
Good post.
I have a similar problem with arguments for acceptance of homosexuality grounded in it being genetically determined, along the lines of: how can you hold it against someone if it wasn't even their choice. It misses the point. Even if people *did* choose their sexual orientation, it wouldn't matter what their choice was.
Having heard/read about the new approaches factory farms are heading towards to counter the environmental consequences of breeding animals, I too saw this was going to alter "my pitch" considerably.
However, I have yet to argue the cruelty issues without consensus. Perhaps I've never had a worthy enough opponent??? Not saying I've won every disagreement. Many discussions have ended with admission (but dis-interest) in cruelty…. I'm familiar with the "less cruel" scenarios – but still, cruel is cruel right? Any ownership of an animal has the potential (and almost certainty) of abuse. I'm not sure of what hidden flaw there is to this argument and would appreciate a heads up. Thanks….
Are they planning to breed and raise whales, before slaugtering them? Otherwise, I can't see the comparison with eating cows. If not, how do they plan on making it sustainable? If they do, how would it be environmentally sound? And as another poster mentioned, there's a huge footprint left with overfishing and all that entails.
The environment is just one thing I may talk about, depending on the audience. There is never one approach to vegan advocacy.