PETA agrees -- with me!

While I'm a skeptic about anthropogenic global warming gas, I have been steadily pointing out the suspicious silence by the MSM on the meat issue -- because according to all the official data, human meat consumption is said to be the number one cause of global warming.

I now I see that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is laying the issue at Al Gore's feet -- and they accuse his movie of failing to address cause number one:

Norfolk, Va. -- This morning, PETA sent a letter to former vice president Al Gore explaining to him that the best way to fight global warming is to go vegetarian and offering to cook him faux "fried chicken" as an introduction to meat-free meals. In its letter, PETA points out that Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth--which starkly outlines the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming and just won the Academy Award for "Best Documentary"--has failed to address the fact that the meat industry is the largest contributor to greenhouse-gas emissions.
Among other things the letter cites studies showing that switching to a vegan diet is more effective than switching to a Prius:
The effect that our meat addiction is having on the climate is truly staggering. In fact, in its recent report "Livestock's Long Shadow--Environmental Issues and Options," the United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.

ยท Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius.

I hope they hold Al Gore's feet to the fire on this one.

Something about the way they're avoiding meat strikes me as downright devious.

I suspect it's because they don't believe their own rhetoric. Or maybe it's because they think taking the country off meat will be too much of a hard sell.

Whatever it is, I'd like nothing more than to get to the bottom of this nonsense.

I hope PETA makes Gore squeal like a stuck hog.

MORE: I'm sorry to be redundant about this, but I don't think people fully appreciate the logic. Meat eating is either the number one cause of GW or it is not. If it is the number one cause, then why are the GW people not talking about it? Even the skeptics are not focusing on meat as they should be. I think meat may be the Achilles Heel of GW, as it puts the lie to them. The skeptics should be pressing it. I think the logic is being blurred for several reasons. One is that lot of people think we should conserve (we should), and end our dependence on foreign oil (we should). This does not mean that CO2 is being released in sufficient quantities to cause climate change, though. People rationalize going along with the GW scare because we need to conserve, and they forget that conservation of oil is a different issue. (I think it's right to conserve oil and reduce dependency, but I think fudging the issue is manipulative.)

Another reason is that even the believers have a natural resistence to giving up meat, and they fear it will damage their movement. They want to keep it quiet, and for some strange reason, their opponents go along with keeping it quiet, probably because they think the less said about it the better. Big mistake IMO, especially if meat is in fact the Achilles Heel of the environmentalists. The American people are used to being scolded about oil, but if they're asked to give up meat, they'll begin to wise up, and start asking basic questions. It's this "leave well enough alone" mindset which prevents people from getting to the truth.

Finally, there's a natural inclination to think of oil as the culprit, not just because Big Oil is so widely demonized, but because we've all been conditioned from childhood to think of smokestacks and tailpipes as pouring out evil, filthy pollution. Never mind that we emit carbons and that they're organic. Oil companies are "bad." Farmers are "good."

Thus, it is counterintuitive to see meat as the problem. Frankly, I don't think man's oil consumption or meat consumption emits enough carbon to change the climate. But I believe in being fair.

The emphasis on oil despite the data is just not logical!

UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link, and welcome all.

(Um, but Is PETA looking into this sirloin offset business?)

UPDATE: Thank you Rand Simberg for the link. ("The Real Problem" is how he puts it, and it is a real problem -- especially for Al Gore.)

AND MORE: Via Justin, I learned about a blogger named Mr. Bingley at "The Coalition of the Swilling" -- whose post graphically demonstrates how profitable "sirloin offsets" could be.

As you can see there's, what, 10 filets? Not bad. So 2 packs of 4 each go into the freezer.
Anyone know what's in Al Gore's freezer?

UPDATE: I don't know if PETA has heard about bloggers advocating rights for robots, but let's keep it quiet, OK?

UPDATE (03/10/07): With apologies to the great Jonathan Swift, Lance at A Second Hand Conjecture offers "A Modest Proposal: Butchering Animal's for PETA and Green Sex":

Groups like PETA will have an important role of course, because in choosing which species need to be controlled we need a deeply ethical group such as them to monitor the process. We don't want species eliminated because some people just don't like them. I am sure snakes will be put up before the methane commission by someone as an offset to some cute species (Maybe rabbits? We don't want to be killing cute little bunnies do we?) It'll be up to them to make the unpopular and politically dangerous case that it isn't ethical to kill 10,000 snakes to "offset" the emissions from some Senator's daughter's cute little pony.
Read it all!

posted by Eric on 03.06.07 at 06:57 PM










Comments

And now, there is another thing Gore should be doing to help the environment, the wanker:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=d81c6fbf-8575-45c0-9274-c24f8f536910&k=27670

Jon Thompson   ·  March 6, 2007 7:40 PM

Jon, that's a riot. And all this time we've been told that it's the conservatives that care about what goes on in your bedroom!

Just goes to show, if you're totalitarian enough in your thinking, you finally do get around to regulating everything. If Orwell wrote 1984 today, Winston and Julia's subversive acts might have to do with insufficiently environmentally safe sex.

iftheshoefits   ·  March 6, 2007 8:05 PM

Jon, no offense, but isn't "Wanker" supposed to be Atrios's proprietary appellation?

:)

Eric Scheie   ·  March 6, 2007 9:08 PM

I have been intimately involed in butchering hogs. 2,000 a day.

When you stick them they squeal like stuck pigs. And they thrash around a lot. Very dangerous with the sharp hooves.

Usually the electric shock keeps them conked out until they bleed to death. Not always.

M. Simon   ·  March 6, 2007 9:24 PM

Interesting, I take it that wasn't halal pork?

Eric Scheie   ·  March 6, 2007 9:31 PM

You know, I'm sitting here right now eating about what I believe to be a 48 oz steak that I just cooked out on the grill. It was about 9 degrees above ass-freezing out there and the grill is the only thing that kept my fingers from snapping off. The deadly evil meat burning away in my gut ... it keeps me warm at night. Bring on the global warming!

mdmhvonpa   ·  March 6, 2007 10:45 PM

Precisely why they don't want to scold people about meat!

Eric Scheie   ·  March 6, 2007 11:02 PM

A Congressional global warming hearing will begin today, while DC is under a snow advisory.

S Wisnieski   ·  March 7, 2007 9:13 AM

Al wants to put the cheese in the breeze.

Fungo   ·  March 7, 2007 10:03 AM

Hmm... I thought it was fruit that is mostly responsible for creating methane in the human digestive system, not meat. Shouldn't we be discouraging the eating of fruit to reduce methane and thereby global warming?

And what do cows eat that cause them to produce so much methane? Greens and grains! We should discourage the eating of green leafy vegetables and grain. These must surely have the same effect on humans. Maybe meat is the only non-global warming food?

Ron W   ·  March 7, 2007 10:08 AM

How do we grow enough vegetables to eat and to make fuel for our SUVs? Clear cut the remaining forests? Spotted owls are not going to like this!

Crash72   ·  March 7, 2007 10:18 AM

Didn't I just read organic farming releases a lot of stuff from the ground that shouldn' be released????

Sandy P   ·  March 7, 2007 10:22 AM

I'm investing in the lentil futures market before Gore corners it.

mr_oni   ·  March 7, 2007 10:33 AM

"Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius."

I'm guessing that's because switching to a Prius from the standard American car (a Camry?) doesn't get you that much.

Anonymous   ·  March 7, 2007 10:47 AM

Human meat consumption? Hold Al's feet to the fire? Make him squeal like a stuck pig? Is this a new trend in food marketing?

The too many animals approach would make the extermination of the bison a good thing. Personally, I think the whole over simplification of these issues," If only we did this.." or " We shouldn't do that.." highlights the fact that we do not understand , or control, what is going on.

Mike   ·  March 7, 2007 10:57 AM

Dammit, now I'm hungry. Thanks a lot, guys.

Dave   ·  March 7, 2007 11:26 AM

> why are the GW people not
> talking about it?

GW people *have* been talking about this, for years--how do you think PETA heard about it? I've seen articles about bovine emissions several years ago. You need to pay better attention and subject yourself to GW people who know what they're talking about, like the blog RealClimate.

David   ·  March 7, 2007 11:51 AM

Why not sell "guilt offsets"? For a hundred bucks a month I'll feel guilty for you. I'll send you pictures of me crying or looking sad and of course guilty.

Big rich libs like Al Gore can then be guilt free and I'll get rich.

roux   ·  March 7, 2007 11:53 AM

Not only that. AGM people claim that the absence of any warming between about 1940 and about 1975 was the result of buring high sulfer coal. The West in general and the US in particular, stopped buring high sulfer coal beginning in the early 1970s because of the early environmental movement. (Yes, its true, environmentalism causes AGM.) If so, one easy and obvious solution to global warming is to repeal the Clean Air Act. Naturally, this is not something we really want to do but, since we are now faced with THE WORST CRISIS in the history of humanity, we really have no choice. Either we burn more high sulfer coal or cause the extinction of all life on earth. (Also, more nukes.)

bmcburney   ·  March 7, 2007 12:30 PM

Not only that. AGM people claim that the absence of any warming between about 1940 and about 1975 was the result of buring high sulfer coal. The West in general and the US in particular, stopped buring high sulfer coal beginning in the early 1970s because of the early environmental movement. (Yes, its true, environmentalism causes AGM.) If so, one easy and obvious solution to global warming is to repeal the Clean Air Act. Naturally, this is not something we really want to do but, since we are now faced with THE WORST CRISIS in the history of humanity, we really have no choice. Either we burn more high sulfer coal or cause the extinction of all life on earth. (Also, more nukes.)

bmcburney   ·  March 7, 2007 12:32 PM

Not only that, AGM believers claim that the absence of any warming between about 1940 and about 1975 was the result of buring high sulfer coal. The West in general, and the US in particular, stopped buring high sulfer coal beginning in the early 1970s because of presure from the early environmental movement. (Yes, its true, environmentalism causes AGM.)

If aerosol sulfides prevent global warming, one easy and obvious solution to global warming is to repeal the Clean Air Act. Best of all, this would have immediate enconomic benefits in the short term as well as preventing the manifold horrors of AGM. Naturally, this is not something we really want to do but, it is universally admitted that the Kyoto treaty and similar measures will merely slow the progress of AGW. The only technology "proven" to actually halt AGM in its tracks is high sulfer coal. If you consider that we are now faced with THE WORST CRISIS in the whole HISTORY OF HUMANITY, we really have no choice. Either we burn more high sulfer coal or cause the extinction of all life on earth. (Also, more nukes!!!!)

bmcburney   ·  March 7, 2007 12:41 PM

Meat production isn't a major contributor to greenhouse gases, at least not on any long time scale. Large areas of the world (like North America) used to be covered in vast herds of methane farting herbivores such as bison and the seas were full of farting whales. We haven't come close to replacing the natural methane producing biomass by our domestic meat producing animals.

Given that recent studies have found that plants, especially those in tropical areas produce far more methane than previously thought, cutting down a rain forest for beef production might actually put one ahead of the greenhouse gas production game.

Shannon Love   ·  March 7, 2007 12:47 PM

don;t foget the dairy herds!

reliapundit   ·  March 7, 2007 12:58 PM

Hmm, does this mean that Buffalo Bill and all the other people who have been reviled for almost killing off the American buffalo were actually de-facto environmental do-gooders?

Soren   ·  March 7, 2007 3:00 PM

Good points. I added a few myself on my blog

http://jameshudnall.com/blog.php?/site/comments/quote_of_the_day3/

James Hudnall   ·  March 7, 2007 3:19 PM

Too much CO-Moo in the atmosphere?

Laika's Last Woof   ·  March 7, 2007 6:37 PM

Just to make this clear for those who aren't paying enough attention, meat farming is the number one cause of carbon dioxide. Methane doesn't matter much because it doesn't concentrate in the atmosphere.

Jon Thompson   ·  March 8, 2007 4:12 AM

iftheshoefits,

Kyoto in the bedroom? We need sex offsets now to account for all the extra CO2 released during heavy breathing.

Don (evangelicalecologist.com)   ·  March 8, 2007 8:20 AM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits