Animals, Environment and Climate

The most common rational defense of oppression is that it is “natural”, part of “natural law.”

The Grain Chain of Being, caste system

In the West, this idea was influenced by Aristotle’s Great Chain of Being, and in the East through the caste system. Both were used to enshroud class and race-based prejudice in unassailable religious belief-systems, to protect the self-interest of those who constructed them: anyone who objected that it was wrong to harm others was said to be against God.

Ethical teachings conradicted violent religious teachings

Of course, there was also a tension within those traditions: Jesus’ own teachings advocate non-harm and in the East there is the similar idea of “ahimsa”. I will get back to ahimsa shortly.

A modern secular version of the naturalistic fallacy is social Darwinism.

Selective breeding not ‘natural’

Regarding the oppression of animals we see the natural argument still prevalent, as though factory farms or even selective breeding or hunting using modern technology could somehow be considered “natural.”

The fact that something exists in the material world does not make it “natural.” The natural world is the world unaffected by human technology.

The world people create from nature is itself not natural. It creates a set of conditions apart from the the natural world (the wilderness) — what is sometimes called a built environment — based on ideas, which have actually disrupted naturally occuring evolutionary behaviors. Rural landscapes are built environmentas, like cities, but with more greenery.

As a result we are now in the midst of the sixth great mass extinction on Earth and the only one created by one species.

No lower or higher in evolution

Similar to social Darwinism, used to justify social oppression, is idea of biological evolution to justify a hierarchy from “lower to higher” species, with man on top. This is a distortion because humans are just one species among many, not higher or lower than others. We are just more complex than most, due to our imaginations. Darwin himself rejected the lower-higher view of evolution.

Evolution simply refers to the changes that occur in a species in order to adapt to an environment, to survive. There is no moral hierarchy implied by the idea.

Free will instead of evolutionar adaptation – a new set of conditions

As stated above, humans have placed themselves outside the framework of naturally-occurring evolution by creating built environments, issuing from their imaginations, according to their desires, and this brings with it a certain power and new set of responsibilities not faced by other species. We have free will and exercise it and then call the results “natural” or “normal.”

Is does not imply ought

This normalization / naturalization process is identified by sociologists: a people create conditions that would not occur in the natural world and then begin to believe that it represents the world as it naturally occurs, and from that infer an “ought” where only an “is” exists. But as Hume stated, “is” does not imply “ought.”

Agriculture and civilization

Humans, though evolved as omnivorous primates (but depending more a plant-based diet than meat), do not require meat to survive or prosper, since the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago. This led to the rise of civilization. As civilized people we conform to a social contract not to kill one another and to live peacably.

Our inner conflicts

Sadly, this social contract exists in tension with our aggressive drives. As Freud showed, this creates an inner conflict in the human psyche. He hoped for a more enlightened society, where we acknowledged our drives and aggressions, consciously and did not repress them, where they become autonomous and erupt as violence.

The violence against animals is a legacy from the past, which no longer has a proper place in the world of technology.

I would not dispute the right of Aboriginal peoples who live through subsistence hunting, but this should not apply to rest of us.

A moral evolution required

Our moral evolution requires a shift from war and slavery and oppression of animals to a peaceful, egaliatarian society dedicated to the principle of non-harm towards all senient beings.

This is actually consistent with the survival of humanity, which cannot continue to be sustained if we continue to kill animals whoesale, sinch such a practices is unsustainable environmentally.

Psychologically, it is also unsustainable, as it creates a cognitive dissonance in us, whereby we deny the source of what we ingest — just as slave-holders thought of themselves as good people. Humanity’s war against itself and other species and against nature is all tied together, one contributing to the other.

If we are to oppose war and murder and rape and slavery, on the grounds that harm to others is wrong, morally, then the next step is to understand that it is wrong to harm other animals for the same reasons.

Sadly, many human beings still feel that war and murder are necessary, however. They are motivated by unconscious aggressive drives, which Freud referred to as “the death instinct.”

Reality construction

Humans are animals who construct reality for themselves and in their minds “naturalize” that which is constructed. In human society many ways of being are possible, including ways that do not require harm to others.

An Enlightenment view is that humans can construct a society based on universal (i.e. cross-cultural) principles of egalitarianism and social justice.

Non-humans now included

This has traditionally been inclusive only of human animals, but since the 19th century many philosophers have started including non-human animals within the scope of those who warrant our concern.

While not “rational” beings in the same way that human are, many are nonetheless feeling, emotive, thinking beings, and as we have no need to harm them to surive, the thinking is that we ought not to.

Remarkably this same moral evolution from harm to non-harm occurred in many world religions many centuries previous, when it was no longer deemed necessary to sacrifice animals during rituals. Yet somehow, though many religions grasped this crucial point, it was lost on the society at large.

Ritual sacrifices continue in secular guise

Strangely, we see the idea of ritual sacrifice of animals migrate over to ritual murder at the termination of scientific experiements. The researchers actually call the killing a “sacrifice.” Is this also considered “natural”, even though it occurs within the purview of science?

Farming is not “natural”

Perhaps the most receptive forum for the naturalistic argument is among pseudo-environmentalists and defenders of traditional farming methods. They all condemn factory farms, in principle — though many still patronize the factory farm products unthinkingly — but continue to defend meat-eating as “natural” – and invoke the example of the small farmer or the Aboriginal culture.

This is a specious argument if ever there was one, because both selective breeding of domestic animals and hunting using rifles and crossbows and trucks and snowmobiles relies on techniques produced within the context of civilization.

————-

See this clever video rebutting the naturalistic argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnhziIHpPtI&feature=player_embedded#!

————-

That crucial historical shift to an agriculture based society thousands of years ago allowed human socieities to morally evolve to not kill animals because plant-based diets were made possible then. Some communities made that transition more fully than others. We see this among some Hindu and Jain peoples, based on the universal principle of ahimsa.

Of course “rights” and ahimas are constructed ideas too, but if one must choose which construction to adhere too — one that causes unnecessary pain and suffering for others or one that respects others — why would we willingly choose the path of pain and suffering, based on self-interest?

Whenever you hear the naturalistic defense of meat-eating remember that it is a constructed idea, like all other human ideas, and is no more “natural” or necessary than human slavery is.

A possible objection, and reply to it

A possible objection to this thesis is that the idea of moral evolution is objectionable because it is no more than another constructed worldview, no better than any other. There could be many versions of moral evolution, one could say – so why this one which protects animals?

The answer is that if we wish to be morally consistent and if we believe that women and people of different colours should have basic rights, then it stands to reason that the same rights should be extended to animals who have the same basic traits as humans.

The idea of moral evolution is not a hierachical worldview, nor even a progressivist worldview, but rather a response to the flagrant abuse of power that we see daily against animals. To hide this behind a pretense of naturalism is self-delusional.

[/caption]

[caption id="attachment_396" align="aligncenter" width="365" caption="Historical evidence of moral evolution."]

[/caption]

Here is a letter I wrote to NOW magazine, a left-wing newspaper which did an article praising grass-fed beef. They actually printed it!

————

It is disappointing that NOW would promote a form of cattle-raising over veganism as an environmental good in your Green Issue (NOW, February 25-March 3).

This so-called “green idea” ignores the well-being of cows whose violent end can never be considered humane. It reflects a disturbing speciesist bias that views the environment as existing only to serve human desires.

Isn’t that the anthropocentric attitude that caused the climate crisis in the first place?

We can use a term coined by ethicist Tom Regan to describe the grassland-fed cow idea: environmental fascism. A vegan diet is better for the planet and for people, and is far more humane as well. True environmentalism requires us to act with compassion toward all living beings.

Paul York
Toronto

_________________

Here is a longer article on it for this blog:

If you ever wondered whether the grass-fed cow idea had any merit, and ought to be widely adopted, this article explains that it does not. This is important because many environmentalists and animal welfare advocates believe it represents a viable alternative to factory farms. There are three major arguments to consider: the possibility of greenwash, the environmental argument, and ethical argument.

Possibility of greenwash

World Watch Institute, which has done a great deal of research on factory farms and the beef industry, claims that the Big Meat industry uses the idea of grass-fed cows to promote beef consumption, but there is no evidence the cows are in fact grass-fed. See (http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5406 Article reprinted below).

This is because right now grass-fed is a voluntary standard, not regulated. A consumer might pay more for grass-fed beef but in fact be getting grain-fed beef. There is no way to tell, just as with free-range eggs, also unregulated, and probably not true free-range, if sold in large grocery chains.

But let us say, for the sake of argument, that tomorrow all grain-fed cow operations are shut down and only strictly grass-fed beef is allowed to be sold. We are still left with the environmental and ethical arguments against it.

Environmental argument

There are many issues that relate to the environmental argument: water consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, land use. I won’t go into them here in detail, for the sake of brevity, but essentially they claim that compared to grain-fed cows, grass-fed cows have less of an environmental impact.

This excellent article mentions a number of environmental arguments against the grass-fed idea, worth considering:
http://www.counterpunch.org/wuerthner01222010.html
I am including the full article below.

The most persuasive claim being made here, vis-a-vis the climate crisis, is that grass-fed beef does not necessarily reduce green-house gas emissions, at least with respect to the methane produced by the cow, which is over 20 times more powerful than CO2 in its ability to cause global warming. However, not using grain does reduce the emissions caused by industrial agriculture. This has to be acknowledged. Ultimately, the environmental argument has to be considered in the context of the choice between non-meat eating (going veg) and meat-eating. If it is considered only as a choice between two types of meat-eating, this presents a false choice.

Methodological problem: “best of sector” approach omits the choice to abstain

What is not questioned, generally, in these comparisons is the methodology of how they are presented. It assumes that given two choices, the one that is less harmful is better. In reality, we have three choices: grain-fed, grass-fed, and not to eat beef at all, or abstention.

The last is the most environmentally and ethically sound. It is no mistake that the comparison is between “two evils”, persuading us to accept the lesser of evil, and omitting mention of alternatives, such as artificial meat — which is the same price or cheaper in many cases, and much healthier in some cases as well.

Take the issue “corporate social responsibility.” We are, for example, presented with a choice: invest in Barrick Gold, which has the highest industry standard for CSR, or Goldcorp, which has been de-listed as an ethically sound investment by some “ethical fund” advisors. There is actually a name for this methodology: the “best of sector” approach.

But consider that Barrick Gold still murders human beings and dumps raw mine waste into rivers and burns down the huts of villagers who protest and jails and beats them, at the Porgera mine in Papua New Guinea (See articles on this at http://protestbarrick.net). Thus it is like being asked to choose between the concentration camp that kills the fewest inmates over the one that kills more. We are forced into a utilitarian choice, contrary to the rights position. Both human rights and animal rights are predicated on a rejection of utilitarianism, in favour of a duty-based position that recognizes the intrinsic worth of the individual.

The best solution, ethically, is not to have concentration camps at all, or open-pit mining, or use cows for food. The third choice, not mentioned by proponents of the grass-fed cow solution — veganism – is better than two poor choices, one of which is only marginally better than the other. (And for those so interested, the solution to the open-pit mining problem is recycling of minerals, not extracting new ones).

Ethically grass-fed beef makes no sense: to enslave other sentient beings is wrong, if we consider that they have an equal right to life and liberty by virtue of the fact that they are sentient, aware, emotive, etc. The happy cow idea has been soundly critiqued by many animal rights thinkers, because it is a form of welfarism, not abolition of slavery. It has also been called “illfarism.”

The comparison with a slave plantation is in order: Death-camp slaves can be likened to grain-fed cows. Plantation slaves of the Old South can be likened to the “happy cow” and grass-fed ideals. Emancipation from slavery can be likened to the abolitionist view that no instrumental use of cows is ethically sound. Here again, but from an ethical point of view, we have the correct solution to the best-of-sector ethical dilemma: total abstention from consumption of good produced which require the deaths of other sentient beings — be it gold or food or something else.

It is a basic principle that any solution to the climate crisis should take into account everyone, not only the members of one species. If it does not, this is called speciesism. That would be like saying that the solution to the climate crisis is to kill all members of one group – such as all black people or this nationality or this ethnic group – so that the other group not killed can survive. It is not a universal solution. It is a fascist solution, a form of climate injustice. The idea that all cats and dogs must be killed because they produce GHG emissions is also fascist.

See my article on this, below: http://cruelty-free.org/environment/?p=286

The most environmental and ethically sound solution to the problem is for every human to become vegans, based on local organic agriculture. The fact that this probably won’t happen anytime soon does not negate the soundness and virtues of the solution.

In any case, peak oil will solve the problem for many, forcing them to become vegetarians or starve. But if it were done now, voluntarily, rather than later by compulsion, there would be enormous environmental and health benefits for all species.

There’s Nothing “Natural” About the Livestock Industry

Why Grass-Fed Beef Won’t Save the Planet

By GEORGE WUERTHNER

Another livestock industry propaganda piece recently appeared in Time Magazine by Lisa Abend titled “How Grass fed Beef Can Save The Planet.” The basic premise of the article is that factory farming is bad, so grass-fed or free-range beef is good for the planet and even human health. Grass-fed beef is the latest fad with people who have little scientific training, and thus are easily duped by pseudo-scientific sounding pronouncements.

While there are some livestock operators who are promoting grass-fed beef, many of the advocates are well meaning people who are vulnerable to anything that have the word “natural” in it. Just because raising cows in factory farms on grains is bad for the Earth, does not mean that cows grazing on pasture or hay are better for the Earth.

The assumption of many people is that less industrialized makes it better to consume. Some of the “natural” folks eschew city water treated with chemicals, for instance, and prefer “natural” water sources. Yet many natural water sources have many unhealthy things in them. Arsenic, for instance, is often found at naturally high levels in water at levels that are a health risk to drink. One needs to be careful about assuming that anything more “natural” is automatically safer, healthier, and better for humans and the planet.

I do not want to contend that industrialized livestock production is good. There are huge problems with factory-raised meat. Cattle raised on grain tend to be given more hormones, and grain production generally requires heavy pesticide and fertilizer use, as well as fossil fuels to operate machinery. But just because a cow grazes in a pasture, does not mean it is “green” or that eating grass-fed beef is environmentally beneficial. Indeed, as a generalization, almost all the negatives associated with Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) exist with grass-fed beef. And grass-fed livestock has many unique impacts not shared by their factory-raised counterparts that may be more environmentally destructive. The assumption that grass-fed beef is “healthier” is based more upon wishful thinking than reality.

One of the presumed benefits of grass-fed meat is the idea that somehow livestock fed grass reduces global warming gases. Research suggests that livestock, particularly cows, are a major source of greenhouse gases (GHG) that are warming the planet. One recent UN report finds that as much as 18% of the GHG are from livestock—more than all transportation and/or industry sources of GHG. Others put the figure even higher. No matter which studies are used, there is little dispute that cattle are a major contributor to global warming.

Fermentation in the animal’s rumen generates huge quantities of gas—between 30-50 liters per hour in adult cattle. So those proponents of grass-fed beef start with the simplistic assumption that since cattle evolved to eat grass, such a diet must be superior to grain-fed factory raised animals. Yet grass is a poor substitute for grains in terms of caloric energy per pound of feed. As a consequence, a grass-fed cow’s rumen bacteria must work longer breaking down and digesting grass in order to extract the same energy content found in grain—all the while the bacteria in its rumen are emitting great quantities of methane.

Researcher, Nathan Pelletier of Nova Scotia has found that GHG are 50 percent higher in grass-fed beef. If somehow magically we could convert all factory grown cattle to free range grass-fed animals, our global warming situation would be greatly accelerated.

Beyond the GHG issue, free ranging cattle present other problems that CAFO raised animals do not. For instance, one of the major consequences of having cattle roaming the range is soil compaction. There’s not a single study that demonstrates that having a thousand pound cow trample soil is good for the land.

Soil compaction reduces water penetration, creating more run-off and erosion. Because water cannot percolate into the soil easily, soil compaction from cattle creates more arid conditions—a significant problem in the already arid West, but also an issue in the East since the soils are often moister for a longer period of time. Moist soils are more easily compacted. Sometimes the influence of pasture grazing is long lasting. One study in North Carolina found that stream insect biota were still significantly different in streams heavily impacted by agriculture 50 years after agricultural use had ceased compared to control streams. Soil compaction also reduces the space in the top active layer of soil where most soil microbes live, reducing soil fertility.

Free ranging cattle trample riparian areas, the thin green lines where 70-80% of all western wildlife utilize for homes and food. According to the EPA livestock is the major source of pollution and riparian damage in the West. But that doesn’t let eastern cows off the hook since trampling of riparian areas also occurs in the East, though with less biological impact since fewer species are solely dependent on this habitat.

Cattle, of course, release a lot of manure on the soil. A typical 1,100 pound cow releases 92 pounds of manure a day as compared to a typical person a pound of feces Most of that excrement is left on the land where it washes into streams and adds to nutrient loading as well as the spread of disease like E coli bacteria. In fact, livestock manure is a major source of water-borne disease and pollution throughout the country.

To put this into perspective, consider that state of Vermont has approximately 150,000 cows, most of whom excrete their waste either directly on pastures or if collected from barns it is later spread on fields. In either case, most of this waste winds up on the land without further treatment. This is the same as permitting a city of nearly 14 million people to spread their human waste on the land!

It has been asserted without good evidence that grass-fed beef cattle produce less E-coli, Campylobacter, Salmonella, and other dangerous pathogens. Yet all of these diseases have been repeatedly isolated from both grass and grain-fed livestock.

Outbreaks of diseases like E coli have been traced back to pastured animals. Notably, the E. coli spinach outbreak in California in 2006 was isolated from pastured cattle. And there are other examples.

By contrast CAFO operations, because of their scale and ability to collect and process manure in a treatment plant, can potentially be less polluting overall compared to grass-fed beef—though admittedly this is not common practice as yet.

There are disease issues for wildlife as well. For example, grass-fed animals carry disease that can harm native species. Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) or Mad Cow disease is thought to have originated with domestic livestock and later transferred to elk and deer. And foot and mouth disease transmitted from cattle has been shown to infect bison. Brucellosis, another disease originating with domestic cattle, has created a huge controversy in Montana, where bison infected with the disease are killed when they wander from Yellowstone National Park.

Free range cattle are also problematic for other reasons as well. Take predators. Most grass-fed cattle are vulnerable to predators, and it is the presence of “free range livestock” that leads to conflicts and the eventual slaughter of everything from wolves to coyotes both as preventative or in retaliation for predation.

On western rangelands where livestock are often let loose on public lands, even the mere presence of cows socially displaces native herbivores like elk that simply won’t graze in the same place as cows. Since there are no empty niches, these native herbivores are displaced into lower quality habitat. Thus even “predator friendly” beef is more hype than reality.

One of the big problems with grain-fed livestock operations is the huge amount of land that is used to produce grain. Approximately 80-90 million acres of land in the US are used to grow corn alone. That is 80-90 million acres of once native prairie that is now growing a mono crop at a tremendous loss of biodiversity.

As bad as that plant community conversion may be for natural process, and native species, grass-fed beef generally dine on either pasture or hay—both of which consist of exotic grasses that are planted at the expense of native plants. In most states, the biggest single factor in the destruction of native plant communities has been their conversion to hay or pasture. Indeed, across the country more than 130 million acres have been converted to hay and pasture. To put this into perspective, the entire footprint of all urbanization and developed land in the entire US is about 60 million acres. In a sense one could argue that grass-fed cows have destroyed far more of the native plant cover than all the cities, highways, factories, Wal-Mart parking lots, etc. combined. No small impact. Whatever the exact figure may be, there is no denying that a lot of native plant communities have been converted to hay or pasture.

In the West, much of the pasture and hay is created by irrigation thus require water withdrawals from streams and rivers. In most of the western United States, the majority of water consumed is not for domestic or industrial uses, but for agriculture, and the prime agricultural product produced is hay and/or irrigated pasture. As a consequence, aquatic ecosystems are fragmented, destroying fisheries, degrading riparian areas (water withdrawals affects water available for streamside vegetation), and increasing the effects of pollution (because toxins become more concentrated).

Even cattle grazing on native grasslands are not immune from judgment. One can’t be putting the majority of native grasses into the belly of exotic animals like cattle which are then exported from the system without impacting the ecosystem. Every blade of grass going into a cow’s belly is that much less forage for native animals, from grasshoppers to elk.

There are far more ecological problems I could list for grass-fed beef, but suffice to say cattle production of any kind is not environmentally friendly.

The further irony of grass-fed beef is that consumption of beef products is not healthy despite claims to the contrary. There may be less fat in grass-fed beef, but the differences are not significant enough to warrant the claim that beef consumption is “healthy.” There is a huge body of literature about the contribution of red meat to major health problems including breast, colon, stomach, bladder, and prostate cancer. The other dietary related malady is the strong link between red meat consumption and heart disease.

Another health claim is that grass-fed beef has more omega-3 fats which are considered important for lowering health attack risks. However, the different between grain-fed and grass-fed is so small as to be insignificant, not to mention there are many other non-beef sources for this. Fish, walnuts, beans, flaxseeds, winter squash and olive oil are only some of the foods that l provide concentrated sources of omega-3 fats. Arguing that eating grass-fed beef is necessary or healthier grain-fed beef is like claiming it is better to smoke a filtered cigarette instead of a non-filtered one. The health benefits are minor if they make a difference at all.

There may be ethical reasons to prefer grass-fed animals over the often inhumane treatment given to factory-farmed animals. But even that rationale seems hollow to me. If one is that concerned with ethical issues, one should consider whether keeping any animals captive for slaughter is really ethical.

Beef consumption, whether grass-fed or grain-fed animals is neither healthy for the planet nor for humans. Reducing or eliminating red meat—whether grass or grain fed—from one’s diet is one of the easiest way to “save” the planet.

George Wuerthner is the editor of Welfare Ranching—The Subsidized Destruction of the American West as well as a contributor to Fatal Harvest about Industrialized Agriculture, and a soon to be published book on Factory Farming.

World Watch Institute article

Excerpt from

Of course “grass-fed” beef doesn’’t mean “grain-fed”!

by Danielle Nierenberg on October 18, 2007

The food blogs have been buzzing this week with the news that a new “grass-fed” standard for meat was released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. My favorite headline of all was “USDA limits grass fed label to meat that actually is”—from Ethicurean.com, who has been following this issue very closely.

It took five years and lots of wrangling from farmers and advocates of grass-fed livestock to make sure that the standard is finally in place. But why all the hooplah and controversy over labeling? At first glance, the issue seems pretty simple: Meat that is labeled as “grass-fed” should come from animals that ate only grass, not corn and soybeans. Similarly, cows that were fed grain (in the feedlots and industrial dairies that dot the Western U.S.) should not be labeled as “grass-fed” when they reach grocery store shelves. Right?

The problem is, big beef wanted to cash in as well, especially since beef and other products that come from grass-fed animals, including milk, butter, and eggs, are so popular right now … the beef industry was stamping the “grass-fed” label on cattle that had actually been fed grain nearly their entire lives (all cows start off eating grass, but if they’re sent to industrial feedlots, they spend the last few months of their lives being finished on grain). Some producers were even feeding feedlot-confined animals with hay and corn stalks and other agricultural leftovers, then labeling them as “grass-fed.”

A friend posed the following ethical question regarding animal rights and the environment.

________________________________________________

 

I found this article this morning, and the first thing I thought was, “I wonder what Paul’s response to this would be”. Personally, the claims in this article make me ill, but I desire the opinion of one more seasoned in the environmental movement. The article (linked below) basically claims that keeping pets is as bad for the environment, if not worse, than other common culprits. It ends with the frustrating statement: “Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table. ‘Rabbits are good, provided you eat them,’ said Robert Vale”. My fear in this instance, though, is that this is just my own particular sensitivity to rabbits clouding my potential for objective reasoning (after getting to know this species so well, my heart sinks at the idea of anyone ever utilizing them as a source of food).

 

As someone with several pets, I find all of this very troubling. While I have a hard time supporting any environmentalist that advocates eating meat at all, some of these claims are hard to refute (although, for others, there are easy solutions—such as not flushing cat litter/feces, and using more environmentally-friendly products, like Yesterday’s News, or cleaning up after one’s dog while on walks). Targeting pet owners over those who, for example , drive the gas-guzzling SUVs, seems quite unfair to me, but at the same time, I don’t want to simply shun information that I find inconvenient (which is just as bad). Generally, I’m more inclined to side with those who advocate the healing capacity of pets (although I worry about those who focus too strongly—or perhaps, solely—on this, as it leads to mere objectification: animals simply as means to yet another, purely human, end). I personally think that there are few more potent ways of cultivating the connection between human and animal life than by bringing a truly loved, cared for, respected and admired animal into one’s home as one’s friend and companion.

 

Anyway, here’s the link to the article:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood

 

I welcome any feedback you may wish to provide.

 

___________________________________

 

I’ve heard this one before, and the answer is complex.

 

First, saying that we ought to get rid of existing animals because of their carbon footprints is both speciesist and an example of what animal rights philosopher Tom Regan would call “environmental fascism.” As with the human overpopulation issue, it is far better to first get rid of lifeless cars than creatures endowed with life and therefore entitled to it.

 

That having been said, many animal rights activists are against the breeding of more animals and will adopt and spay/neuter homeless “animal companions” (the term “pets” is not PC to them).

 

I thought about this also with respect to cows. Gedankenexperiment in ethics:

 

Premise one: one cow represents the same greenhouse gases (in methane) as an SUV (in CO2)—and that’s a lot. There are about one billion cows worldwide, adding up to a major global impact on climate change.

 

Premise two: we need to get rid of factory farms to mitigate climate change, and the whole world agrees to this.

 

Ethical dilemma: what do we do with the cows? If we believe in animal rights, we cannot kill them; but if they continue to exist they will contribute to killing everything else.

 

The animal rights answer is, of course, to not kill or eat them, to let them live out their days while disallowing them to reproduce and finding humane ways to capture the methane. Of course, if we are prepared to do this with cows—to stop their reproduction for humane reasons—then I think we also should be prepared to do the same with our species, which has grossly overpopulated the planet. I say no reproduction for a number of years until enough of us have died of old age to live more sustainably.

 

The same also goes for pets/animal companions – no more dog or cat reproduction. This is the most humane answer, I think. What is not acceptable is continuing to let them reproduce and killing those that do exist.

 

As for the use of hens for eggs: again, a complex answer. This represents the instrumental use of an animal, for which reason most animal rights folks don’t eat eggs. However, I know of a farm sanctuary at which the eggs are eaten because they would just sit there and go to waste if they were not. The problem with having a hen just for eggs is that it tempts people to use the hens just for this purpose, which is an instrumental use of animals – precisely what animal rights stands against, and which has led to factory farming. Many people in cities are buying hens for this reason.

 

The article referenced above is specieist through and through because it views non-humans as existing merely for humans’ sake. If animals do produce greenhouse gas, they should not pay for this with their lives or their freedom. This more abolitionist view is much more consistent with mitigating climate change than killing or using animals because it is grounded in the sanctity of all life, which is precisely why we ought to mitigate climate change—not merely to save our own skins.

Why the Gap?

 

Why is it important that we think about the connection between animal rights and climate change issues? There is a growing, worldwide movement to address the approximately 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions caused by factory farms and agro-business (about 18% of which issues from factory farm related emission). Environmental non-profits have traditionally avoided discussion of meat-eating, preferring to focus on such things as renewable energy, climate-change policy, energy conservation, air pollution and wilderness conservation. This is because many of those in the ENGO’s eat meat and many of those whom they had hoped to appeal to for funding also eat meat. Clearly this needs to change. The environmental impact of the use of animals must be given center stage in climate change discussions, along with energy issues.

 

I can think of many examples of the failure of environmentalists to address this topic. David Suzuki eats fish and when asked why, he has said it is because he is Japanese, which evokes laughter but fails to address a serious lack of concern for an important way we can help save the world’s oceans from collapse. In his book, Heat, George Monbiot tells of attending a barbecue held for environmentalists where they served meat. A professor who writes on the future of food states emphatically that “the future is NOT vegan” and that local food sources should include goats and chickens. Organizers of a climate change conference on food refuse to invite a vegan speaker. A climate change conference at a university serves meat. These are all examples of the environmentalists and climate change policy people purposely ignoring an important way in which climate change can and should be mitigated.

 

Another example that portrays the contradictory attitude of environmentalists can be found in the popular book, The 100 Mile Diet. Not only are there recipes that include meat, it also focuses merely on transportation greenhouse gas emissions. Most importantly, the book fails to address the amount of emissions coming from the methane expelled from farm animals, the immense water consumption of these animals, and the amount of additional emissions caused by pesticide use in their feed (as pesticides are petroleum-based products). The fact is that soybean crops provide a great source of protein and can be grown locally or traded locally in most parts of North America. Even if food goes local worldwide, it is still possible to rely on plant-based proteins, if there is a will to do so.

 

 

The Food Link

 

Increasingly, political campaigns on climate change and conferences on climate change are addressing sustainable food issues. They even refer to themselves as “foodies.” They sometimes (but not always) refer to the necessity to reduce meat eating, not out of consideration for animals but to mitigate climate change and unsustainable use of water and land. For example, David Suzuki, to his credit, advocates reducing meat consumption to once per week. However, by and large, these campaigns and conferences avoid the topic of animal rights altogether, and for this reason their conclusions lack the moral conviction needed to convince the target audience why they should give up their favoured foods.

 

The issue of the environmental impact of food is THE perfect opportunity to raise the issue of animal rights, and it is my argument here that concern for animal rights ought to inform that discussion because environmental concern and concern for animals rights are both ethically grounded in concern for the other. The other is both human and non-human, both living now and in the future, both local and global. The other is all of us because we are all interdependent. The illusion of individualism and separateness is precisely what is killing the life systems of Earth. We exist on this Earth to do more than merely serve ourselves: our purpose includes compassion and concern for others. This is fundamental. And it is also extremely practical …

 

Modern Motivations

 

A person is less likely to become a vegan out of concern for what will happen in 50 or a 100 years as a result of climate change than become vegan out of consideration for pain and suffering of fellow creatures here and now. Contributing in some small way to the suffering of some person in the future by buying supermarket meat, while knowing that at the same time the Alberta tar sands do more damage in a few seconds that a person does in a whole lifetime of meat-eating, is simply not as moving as knowing that by not eating the meat one has directly and immediately saved a life – the life of the creature whose flesh is sitting before you in the package.

 

Living in cities, we are so often removed from natural environments that it is hard to imagine why we might have an obligation to them. Animals rights brings environmental concern into the here and now by reminding us of the right to life of non-humans, who breath and feel and exist as we do. They are a reminder of something basic. We share the same genetic material as them. We bleed as they do. We can feel pain as they do. To feel pain is be reminded of who and what we are: natural beings. To hurt other beings like ourselves is to desecrate ourselves.

 

There is something powerful and direct about animal rights that one also feels in relation to human rights or local environmental destruction, such as clearcutting: we feel it viscerally, in our gut. It is powerful. We feel the need to stop the injustice of killing and to protect life, which is precious. As environmental concerns become more widespread they are at risk of losing their visceral immediacy; they become abstract, and bogged down in statistics and complex policy decisions. The animal rights movement is informed by the heart and it is from the heart that this world can and must change for the better. Without this compassion we lose our way.

 

The hard reality is that, with the change anticipated due to rising oil costs (due to peaking oil supplies), dwindling fresh water supplies, the prospect of worldwide famine due to rising food prices, and the necessity to mitigate climate change caused by factory farming, we need to draw on any and all available cultural resources that currently exist to reduce meat consumption. One of the most powerful resources that now exists worldwide is the global movement for animal rights. The level of organization and commitment of AR activists should serve as an inspiration to environmentalists everywhere. A merge of the movements is long overdue.

 

The animal rights movement argues against meat, dairy and egg consumption and overall against the instrumental use of animals for human desires (not needs). They base their foundation on the premise that it is morally wrong to harm other living, feeling beings. This same moral foundation correlates with the motives of many environmentalists who are concerned with preserving biodiversity, endangered species, and nature that is non-human. When the environmental movement does not follow this ethical foundation, it loses its way and easily encourages the very forces that are causing environmental destruction. From this we can see the merger between many ENGO’s and fossil fuel corporations, for example. Without an moral core informing it, environmentalism can get co-opted, corrupted, gutted of meaning and purpose and transformed into little more than “greenwash” and public relations.

 

 Stumbling Blocks, and Moving Beyond Them

 

A strong, ethical foundation has historically informed environmentalists, who are motivated by the concern for humanity, since our species is as much endangered by environmental catastrophe as with any other species. One would think that the radical concern for the welfare of others would simply extend from human beings to other species. Among young children this happens quite easily, but among older children and adults who have been conditioned to block out concern for animals and to view them as objects to be used by our species, a very strong cultural bias against animal rights occurs even among those who are genuine altruists and morally good people. Consequently, some of the same people who might be concerned with future generations who will suffer from drought caused by climate change and will selflessly devote their lives to this cause, will not extend that same concern to non-human species. We need to address that and discover how to reach the environmentalists who have such good intentions but who have not extended their concern beyond one species.

 

Being faced with the necessity of addressing unsustainable food production, the transportation of food, and having to rethink how the cities of the world will get their food supplies, we as a species are given the incredible opportunity to re-think our relationship with other species and with nature as a whole. It is often said that we are not separate from nature, but what does this really mean in terms of our relationship to the non-human world? The animal rights movement has blazed that trail and environmentalists need to learn from it. Of course the two movements are not separate: most AR folks are also environmentalists on some level, but the same certainly cannot be said of most environmentalists, many of whom still eat meat. This is where we need to focus our attention if we are to save both humanity and non-humanity from perishing, due to the excesses of industrial civilization.

 

Tipping Point

 

Given that we are likely to exceed the much feared “tipping point” of two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures, many believe it is too late already, but Dr. Danny Harvey, a professor of geography a noted climate scientist at University of Toronto says, “Much has been lost but there is still much that can be saved.” His remarks refers not only to the loss of the coral reefs, such loss that is irreversible, but also to the many trillions of animals and plants that still do exist but need us to stop their continued destruction. Many species still can be saved, if we act to save them. Many animals and people will die needlessly unless we mobilize all these movements into an overpowering force for social and political change. This can still happen, and it must.

 

Synergistic Cooperation

 

The animal rights movement has a solid moral foundation of concern for others. For this reason, it has the potential to invigorate and strengthen the environmental movement, which suffers from self-interest and specieism. There is very little time left to act to effectively mitigate climate change before we reach a tipping point of 450 parts per million atmosphere CO2, which could trigger a “tipping point” of positive feedback reactions in the atmosphere, lead to catastrophic climate change, and effectively spell the end of human civilization and most of biodiversity. Ironically, in order to save our civilizations we must learn to be concerned with something beyond it: the non-human other.

 

It is often said that people only do that which is in their own self-interest—certainly that is true of many people. However, there are many powerful social movements in history that lay their focus on concern for the other, including the abolitionist movement against slavery – which the animal rights movement most resembles. That particular movement, although numbering a small percentage of the population in 19th century America, had drawn from an extremely powerful force and performed incredible feats. The philosopher Kant called it “the moral law” and Gandhi identified it as “soul force.” Martin Luther King Jr. referred to both terms in his writings. This force is capable of moving people so profoundly that they will give their lives to it. We see this force in both the animal rights and environmental movements. It can change the world.

 

Looking Ahead

 

The articles that I will write for this blog have one purpose: to show the connection between these two movements and the issues they are concerned with, and why these movements should merge and inform each other and why the growing movement against agro-business can and should include an animal rights perspective. This is an end which is by no means guaranteed, at this point, since many of those who advocate that position still eat meat or are otherwise biased against animal rights. There is a discernible fear and aversion to animal rights discourse among some climate change policy advocates, as though it might taint their discussions. My argument is that without animal rights informing climate policy, it is doomed to dry formulations and pathetic targets, and purposely avoids discussion of one of the most important sources of emissions: factory farms.

 

I will also address the question of biodiversity and climate change and how concern for biodiversity and endangered species ought to be informed by animal rights, which is currently not the case. There is a strong emphasis on the whole species but not the individuals in it. Currently, groups like World Wildlife Federation and various zoos around the world care little for animal rights, but have become strong advocates for protecting biodiversity. I will show why this represents a fundamental contradiction, one that has its foundation in anthropocentrism and specieism, which, in fact, logically contradicts environmental concern. Concern for biodiversity necessarily entails concern for animal rights. If you try to remove one from the other, you impovrish both.

 

Drawing on environmental philosophy, we can see how this problem represents the distinction between deep and shallow ecology. I will argue that, for the environmental movement to be really effective, we must stop pandering to the mainstream bias for shallow ecology and start arming itself with a much more potentially powerful ethical foundation: deep ecology, which is consistent to a great degree with the philosophy of animal rights. Furthermore, we must abandon the notion that social ecology is somehow fundamentally at odds with deep ecology: concern for the human must also entail concern for the non-human. The separation exists in our minds more than in reality, and practically speaking the goal of both ought to be concern for life in all its forms.

 

It really is inexcusable that the animal rights movement, which represents an extremely powerful social and political force worldwide, should be systematically excluded from discussions on climate justice, environmental protection and creating a more sustainable society. This can change, however. These columns will be an attempt to bring about that change through rational argumentation. As we progress in this series of arguments for bringing together animal rights and environmental movements, and work through the various problems associated with doing so, I hope to draw on the wisdom and insights of readers to help me in this task.

 

To continue this discussion, please email your thoughts and comments to paulyork.2010@gmail.com.

 

_______________

Paul York is a doctoral candidate at the Centre for the Study of Religion, University of Toronto. In addition to caring for animal rights, he is an environmentalist, human rights activist, and community organizer.