Another good reason to be vegetarian
Eating meat causes global warming:
The trillions of farm animals around the world generate 18 percent of the emissions that are raising global temperatures, according to United Nations estimates, more even than from cars, buses and airplanes.
5 Responses to “Another good reason to be vegetarian”
About this entry
You’re currently reading “Another good reason to be vegetarian,” an entry on Bodhipaksa's blog, bodhi tree swaying
Published: Dec 04 2008
This is a tough one for me. I have always been a meat-eater, but the habit seems less and less morally sustainable. I have entertained the thought of giving it up, but have not yet found the way to do it. I guess the truth is, I have not yet set the intention fully in my mind.
I know how you feel. I’ve been a vegetarian for 26 years but have struggled on and off with being a vegan. I know in fact that veganism is ethically far better, but I don’t have the same revulsion to eating dairy that I have with the thought of eating meat. I go for periods of time without eating dairy or eggs, but then I’m eating with extended family and they find it hard enough to cope with vegetarians, never mind vegans. So I slip, and like a former smoker who has one puff I find myself thinking that the game’s over and I may as well just give up. It’s silly to think in such a black-and-white way, of course, but that’s the way my mind tends to work in that situation when I try to declare myself a vegan. I find it hard to give up. But I do find it easy to cut down, and that’s something that’s manageable and that I don’t think I can fail at. I can go for weeks or months without buying anything non-vegan for the house, and that means I can go maybe 90% of the way to meeting my goal of being dairy-free. You might want to think in terms of reduction at first, rather than going (unfortunate phrase in the circumstances) “cold turkey”.
Are you aware that 31,072 American scientists (including 9,021 with PhDs) signed a petition stating, “There is no convincing scientific evident that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate”? See http://www.petitionproject.org.
There are, literally, thousands of climatologists and scientists (including John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, who wrote in 2007 “It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM…our planet is not in peril”) who disagree with the “science” of global warming.
A friend of mine recently posted this blog:
Global Warming…Finally, the Truth is Seeing the Light of Day
Politicians the world over are pushing hard for carbon emission caps on industrial nations, and they want the caps in place right now. Environmentalists are lining up by the thousands to support the caps, to stop fossil fuel use, and to put an end to industrialism and Western life styles.
They all say, “The science is settled. Now we have to decide how to fix the problem.”
Lined up with the politicians and environmentalists is a willing and complacent Media, who is all too anxious to point the finger of blame for…pretty much everything…at the West in general and America in particular.
Why are the politicians and environmentalists so hot to get carbon caps in place immediately, if not sooner?
A very powerful reason: the truth about the global warming scam is finally filtering through the media. The truth is taking two forms:
1) The fact that the world has been cooling, not warming, for the past decade. Besides the fact that the oceans have cooled almost to 1970s levels–snow in New Orleans? 81 below zero in Siberia? Polar ice caps now growing, not shrinking? The coldest summer in decades in much of the northern hemisphere? Yup. Global warming.
2) Large numbers of scientists, many of whom are at the top of their fields, have inspected the IPCC climate change reports, examined the science behind it, and now are forming a large and (hopefully) persuasive group of skeptics.
Following is a reprint of a Senate EPW press blog.
Please, if you can, take the time to read who some of these scientists are, as well enjoy their often acerbic and scathing quotes.
And, if you have the time, here is a link to the full report. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=37283205-c4eb-4523-b1d3-c6e8faf14e84
As a Buddhist, I find it reprehensible that we don’t employ our minds, which ought to be flexible and free from being swayed by political winds.
The New York Times is unabashedly liberal. It thrives on sowing the seeds of fear regarding global warming. I, however, prefer my science a wee bit more scientific. And tens of thousands of scientists are telling me there’s no credible science to support global warming.
Therefore, there’s no need to get worked up about animals causing global warming. (Even at face value that’s an insane notion. Animals have been around since this world began, even before humans. To think that they’re now the cause of our ecological downfall is just plain insane.)
Well, I’m certainly in favor of us using our critical faculties.
I have in fact heard of the petition you refer to. Are you aware that the movement for the petition was begun by Dr. Frederick Seitz, one of whose claims to fame was trying to sow uncertainty about the harmful effects of smoking tobacco. He was paid for many years a paid permanent consultant for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. A man of great integrity? Here’s a sketch of him from a Vanity Fair article:
The George C. Marshall Institute, which put out the petition, is funded by Exxon-Mobil.
Are you aware that the definition of “American scientist” used in the petition was “anyone with a bachelor’s degree in science”? So any one who had, say, a 40-year-old BS in computer science (and no knowledge whatsoever of climate issues) was eligible to become a signatory.
If fact even dentists could (and did) sign. Like Hub Hougland, a dentist in Muncie, Indiana. And medical doctors too, like W. Kline Bolton, M.D., a professor of medicine. (These were cited in a website I visited).
But I’m not content simply to rely on other people’s assessments, and so I picked a random name from the list: “Thomas W. Harding, PhD.” Who is he? From what I can find on Google he’s the program director of the Respiratory Therapist program at a community college in North Carolina. What about his qualifications inspires you to trust his scientific opinion about global warming? Oh, and he doesn’t have a Ph.D. as the petition claims. He has an M.S.
Another I picked entirely at random was Joseph Albert Schufle, PhD. He actually does have a Ph.D. He’s 91 years old and formerly did work on “structure of water, dating of sediments, and history of science.”
And another is J. Ryan Neville, PhD, who is in his 80s and formerly did research on measuring blood oxygen.
Or Frances Brand Bauer, PhD, who doesn’t appear anywhere on the web except on the petition. Does she even exist?
Or Wilbur Yellin, PhD, who is retired but formerly worked for Proctor and Gamble.
Or veterinarian William C. Drow.
Or Bruce D. Drake, PhD, who consults on the “validation of pharmaceutical processes”.
Or André LeClair, PhD, who teaches “General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology.”
I chose these entirely at random, except that they all had doctorates. I did not find a single climate scientist in my small sample, or anyone in an even vaguely related field. I’m not saying that this is a scientific sampling, but it’s backed up by other studies. A 2001 Scientific American analysis estimated that there were only about 200 climate researchers who had signed the petition — as they put it “rather a small fraction of the climatological community.” I’d suggest that the vast majority of the signatories of the petition are in no better position to comment on the reality or causes of global warming than any average person. I’d also suggest that before we start uncritically following a bunch of PhDs we ask what their qualifications are actually in.
And John Coleman? Really? You say you like your science “scientific” but he’s a former weatherman! He does have a bachelor’s degree from 1957 in — well, I couldn’t actually find out what it was in — but I’m pretty sure he’s not a climate researcher.
You say “The fact that the world has been cooling, not warming, for the past decade. Besides the fact that the oceans have cooled almost to 1970s levels–snow in New Orleans? 81 below zero in Siberia? Polar ice caps now growing, not shrinking? The coldest summer in decades in much of the northern hemisphere? Yup. Global warming.”
For one thing, “Scientists say they now have unambiguous evidence that the warming in the Arctic is accelerating… Arctic ice cover in summer has seen rapid retreat in recent years. The minimum extents reached in 2007 and 2008 were the smallest recorded in the satellite age.” (BBC, Dec 17).
For another, apparently La Nina events have brought temperatures down recently, but “2008 still ranks among the 10 warmest years on record.” (BBC again).
Third, you’re confusing weather with climate, and anecdotes with data. The fact that it’s colder than usual in one particular place doesn’t negate the fact that the overall climate is warming.
Lastly, your point about animals makes little to no sense. The article I linked to says that 18 percent of the emissions that are raising global temperatures come from farm animals, not that animals “are the cause of our ecological downfall.” Nice try at a straw man argument, though.
You say “Animals have been around since this world began, even before humans. To think that they’re now the cause of our ecological downfall is just plain insane.”
Have you considered that since there are now more human beings than ever before there might also be more farm animals than ever before? That as people have been becoming richer they have been eating more meat (and that that results in a yet greater number of farm animals)? That farm animals are now being fed on highly unnatural (for them) diets that lead to greater methane production?
You say “tens of thousands of scientists are telling me there’s no credible science to support global warming” and I’ve no doubt that’s what you want to hear for political reasons. But those “scientists” are not in the main climate scientists, or even researchers (dentists? veterinarians? MDs? Maybe there are some plastic surgeons in the list, who knows?). The vast majority of climate researchers are convinced that the world is getting hotter, that human activities are largely to blame, and that the consequences could be devastating.
Thank you for post, and especially for this link to NTY article, I’ve let myself to use it on my vege blog as well.