Mongabay Blog

Mark Bittman, of the popular How to Cook Everything books, has written an excellent article on the environmental costs of eating meat, especially in the amounts that the average American consumes.  Oh, and he’s not a vegetarian. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

Some excerpts:

“Americans eat about the same amount of meat as we have for some time, about eight ounces a day, roughly twice the global average. At about 5 percent of the world’s population, we “process” (that is, grow and kill) nearly 10 billion animals a year, more than 15 percent of the world’s total.

“Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation.

“To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.”

It seems everyday there are more studies and reports coming out on the impacts of climate change–now and in the future (at mongabay we see A LOT of them).  Yet, rarely do these studies make it to mainstream new sources.  Either, the media is still run by science-skeptics or the newspapers, news shows, and online media sources actually believe that Brittany Spears’ latest cry for help, Clinton’s (take your pick: Hilary’s or Bill’s) latest remark on race, or the newest electronic gadget is somehow more important than massive shifting of earth’s temperature, causing desertification, species extinction, ocean warming, new migration patterns, flooding, increased intensity of storms, increased unpredictability of weather, changes in agriculture, and the beginning of struggles over dwindling resources, namely water. 

The newest proof of American media’s unwillingness to accept the seriousness of climate change is the presidential primaries, which have received such a glut of coverage that I actually know how much the candidates have spent on haircuts (unwillingly).  Yesterday, both Moveon.org and the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) reported that in the primary debates  only three questions out of  2,500 have been related to climate change.  A letter from NRDC states: “they have spent more time talking about baseball, UFOs, and Chuck Norris than they have about global warming”. 

While this is patently ridiculous and gross negligence on the part of the news organizations and their top-brass anchors, it’s not all that surprising.  Global warming is a serious issue, arguably the most serious issue in our world today, and arguably one of the most serious issues human beings–as a species and a civilization–have ever faced, but sometimes America has difficulty with serious issues: we’re after all the culture of video games, reality TV, and our stupidest videos.  In general, we prefer distraction and entertainment to serious debate and thought.  For presidental debates baseball, UFOs, and Chuck Norris are much lighter (distracting and entertaining) fare than a global ecosystem undergoing massive change (although I wonder how the candidate’s policies differ regarding baseball, UFOs, and Chuck Norris).

I do not mean this to imply hopelessness.  I have hope that the next president will be serious about global warming.  I have hope our consumeristic, distracted culture can change in time.  I have hope the next generation may possess the skills to take real time on serious issues (and not just climate change).  I have a lot of hope.  I just wish–sometimes–the America of today could buoy that hope just a little, rather than tying stone after stone to it.    

Yesterday the New York Times printed an enlightening article on the massive illegal seafood trade in Europe.   It may be time for a moratorium on eating seafood altogether…

The article can be accessed here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/world/europe/15fish.html?scp=2&sq=fish+europe

 An excerpt (by Elizabeth Rosenthal):

“Fish is now the most traded animal commodity on the planet, with about 100 million tons of wild and farmed fish sold each year. Europe has suddenly become the world’s largest market for fish, worth more than 14 billion euros, or about $22 billion a year. Europe’s appetite has grown as its native fish stocks have shrunk so that Europe now needs to import 60 percent of fish sold in the region, according to the European Union.

“In Europe, the imbalance between supply and demand has led to a thriving illegal trade. Some 50 percent of the fish sold in the European Union originates in developing nations, and much of it is laundered like contraband, caught and shipped illegally beyond the limits of government quotas or treaties. The smuggling operation is well financed and sophisticated, carried out by large-scale mechanized fishing fleets able to sweep up more fish than ever, chasing threatened stocks from ocean to ocean.

“The European Commission estimates that more than 1.1 billion euros in illegal seafood, or $1.6 billion worth, enters Europe each year. The World Wide Fund for Nature contends that up to half the fish sold in Europe are illegally caught or imported. While some of the so-called “pirate fishing” is carried out by non-Western vessels far afield, European ships are also guilty, some of them operating close to home. An estimated 40 percent of cod caught in the Baltic Sea are illegal, said Mireille Thom, a spokeswoman for Joe Borg, the European Union’s commissioner of fisheries and maritime affairs. “

Currently, in the Antarctic seas, Greenpeace’s ship Esperanza is chasing Japan’s whaling fleet.  Japan plans to take 900 minke whales and 50 fin whales for what they claim is scientific study, yet the whale’s final destination is Japanese restaurants and markets. 

Greenpeace believes in non-violent protest.  By chasing the whaling fleet the organization is attempting to interrupt the hunt–the Japanese cannot hunt when on the move–but not to damage the fleet.  Another environmental organization, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, is also pursuing the fleet, but has selected a more ‘action-oriented’ role, including in the past sinking and ramming ships, though no lives have been recorded as lost due to their actions. 

In the past century non-violent protests have proven, at times, remarkably successful.  The practice was first put in use by Gandhi (but what inspired by everything from Hinduism and Buddhism to Leo Tolstoy), then later by Martin Luther King and the People Power revolution in the Philipines.  Non-violence has been a way for people without traditional means of power–wealth, status, and/or weaponry–to create powerful change.  It is also a largely held moral and spiritual belief; those who practice non-violence believe that violent action is never acceptable and in the end solves nothing, but only begets more violence.  Non-violence may mean non-cooperation with the powers-that-be, it may mean peaceful protests and marches, or direct intervention without violence–this is what Greenpeace is doing by interfering with the Japanese whale hunt without attacking the ships or crew involved.  Non-violence also means that if one should meet violence they should do so without re-acting: turn the other cheek.  Non-violent philosophy is vast and its practitioners diverse: this is only meant as a quick sketch of the philosophy.  

Greenpeace has used non-violence from the beginning of its inception: attempting to save whales (and bringing their plight to the media) and other species, as well as preventing toxins from being dumped into the ocean etc.  Their actions have made them heroes to some, and extremists to others.  Japan has labeled them as ‘environmental terrorists’: a hyperbole if ever there was one.   

I applaud Greenpeace’s actions and its commitment to non-violence.  While the organization is not perfect, and has made mistakes in the past, it serves as a reminder of the power of non-violence to wake people up to injustice.  The difficulty that Greenpeace faces, of course, is that the injustice in not human-to-human, but human to another species and a larger ecosystem.  This requires a leap in ethical views.  Do whales have rights? And if so what are they?  Should ecosystems have rights to protect them from ourselves?  These are questions that require addressing throughout our societies.  Can we really expect to preserve any natural part of our global, to conquer such issues as global warming and mass extinction, if rights stop at homo sapiens and do not extend to the water we drink, the forests that take in the carbon and keep our riverways clean, the innumerable species that share our planet.   

As for the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, while I understand their frustrations and agree with their mission, I do not believe in their means.  Although they have yet to murder any person, their declaration of ‘any means necessary’ (including gloating about sinking ships), not to mention their grotesque use of a Pirate skull on their flag, only harms the cause of environmentalism and protecting species.  By taking the low road, they are proving themselves not dissimilar in means from the corporate and governmental forces they oppose.  

Personally, I believe that non-violence should play a larger role in the environmental movement.  Imagine: sit-ins for endangered species, marches on Washington for sustainable energy, boycotts against unsustainable fishing practices, protests against the coal and gas industries.  By doing so organizations and individuals risk being labeled as extremists (or even terrorists).  They risk being told that they care more about other species than their own, but more and more it appears that our species is just as dependent on the health of the global environment as any other species.    Secondly, can we really reasonably argue anymore that the one species is master of the earth, while all others proves slaves to our whims?  Does human-power make human’s right? 

It appears to me that for the average citizen–who believes passionately in these issues–non-violence may be one of the best ways to affect change, whether it is changing the situation or changing minds.  At the same time, one must attempt actions that are not easily disregarded as extremist and wacko (remember being called ‘green’ used to be a dirty word).  One guy chaining himself to a tree is fodder for mockery and cynicism, a thousand people surrounding a grove marked off for another box store may not appear so nutso.  A million people marching for action on global warming in Washington may just make history. 

Things are changing.  The green movement is no longer only on the fringes.  Perhaps, now is the time for other NGOs (or individual leaders) to look to Gandhi for inspiration.  If the practice of non-violence enmasse can overthrow an empire, perhaps it can also change the way we view our world.    

The Woodlark islanders struggle to stop Vitroplant Ltd from logging seventy percent of their island for palm oil plantations has received new attention from organizations and media. 

The online organization forests.org has set up an action letter which anyone concerned by the issue may attach their name to have their opinion sent to 12 administrators involved.   Over two thousand people from all over the world have sent protests for Vitroplant Ltd.’s plans.  The link to the letter:

http://www.rainforestportal.org/alerts/send.asp?id=png_woodlark

 These protests have been covered by media in the pacific:

 http://www.mvariety.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=4740&format=html

http://www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php?op=read&id=37298

As well a recent (and excellent) article has appeared in Pacific Magazine updating the situation:

 http://www.pacificmagazine.net/news/2007/12/30/scientists-to-study-island-thats-site-of-proposed-palm-estate

After tonight’s caucuses in Iowa, Americans will have a slightly better idea of which candidate will win their party’s nomination (and therefore a slightly better idea of who may be president in 2009).  While the candidates are remarkably varied, one finds hope in the fact that most, if not all, see climate change as a great threat that needs immediate action, unlike the current administration. 

When compared to the republicans the democrats are still the environmental party.  The democrats in general speak about climate change with greater seriousness and urgency, while pledging to do more to prevent and mitigate global warming.  The top three democratic contenders–Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards–have each put forth detailed proposals to reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.  Many scientist’s see this as neccesary to avoid the worst effects of climate change.  While the details of their plans vary some, their desire to tackle climate change is clear.  The question now becomes: which candidate is most likely to make good on their promises?      

Unfortunately, no republican candidate has gone so far as the democrats, i.e. putting forth a plan with actual numbers attached.  However, republicans this time around are generally taking the issue more seriously than the current administration.  Both John McCain and Mike Huckabee support a mandatory cap-and-trade system to deal with global warming.  John McCain has been a long spoken out for the need to act on climate change.  Mike Huckabee views the issue as a moral one and wants to break our culture of fossil fuels. 

Mitt Romney and Rudolph Giuliani have not shown the same level of commitment.  When talking about climate change Romney stresses the need for energy independence for national security purposes and is willing to use as much coal as possible to get there.  Rudolph Giuliani’s views climate change as a real and present danger, yet stresses (like the Bush administration) that the US can achieve nothing unless China and India act similarily, in other words he is unwilling to lead on the issue.  He also opposes (like the Bush administration) any cap on carbon, preferring the financial market to solve climate change.  Even though so far the financial market as it is has done little to curb carbon use.  Despite these facts both Romney and Giuliani expressed in a recent debate that they would enact programs akin to the Apollo mission in scale to create energy independence.   

In some ways the political powers that be have come a long way in the last few years.  George W. Bush has changed his mind very infrequently since entering office, but climate change was one of those rarities.  President Bush now states that climate change is real, that it is probably caused by human activity, and that action needs to be taken.  The problem is President Bush has refused to do anything of real consequence to tackle the issue.  America continues business as usual.    

Most Americans believe that we will have to wait out the Bush administration before anything meaningful is achieved regarding climate change.  The Bush administration seems to believe the same thing: they prefer foot dragging and obstruction to action.  Let us hope whoever takes the oath of office next January will not so cowardly leave the burden for another day.