People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) issued
a press release on October 1 once again attacking Al Gore because he
eats meat and yet wants to end global warming. Theyíve got a billboard
with a picture of Gore munching on a drumstick and saying "Too
Chicken to go Vegetarian? Meat is the #1 cause of Global Warming."
Ingrid Newkirk repeats the assertion printed on a PETA flyer that
"there's no such thing as a meat-eating environmentalist" and
cites the recent FAO study which stated that the cattle industry causes
more global warming than the entire transportation sector.
PETA has some valid points: meat-eating is related to
environmental destruction and global warming. However, their press
release creates more problems than solutions. You donít make the
environmental case for vegetarianism by making ham-handed and inaccurate
attacks. This is such an obvious turn-off that I am tempted just to
point it out and leave the question "what is wrong with this
approach, and why?" as an exercise for the reader.
PETA may be
assuming that "no publicity is bad publicity," but this is
just not true. At some point, people will write you off no matter
what you say. As long as this only affected PETA, it wouldn't be
so bad, but it would be unfortunate if this spilled over to affect
Because others may assume that PETA speaks for
vegetarians, vegans, and people who care about animals, Iím going to
point out -- in excruciating detail -- just precisely what is wrong with
this press release, and make it clear that PETA
doesnít speak for me.
1. The core claim is inaccurate.
It is sloppy and inexact to say "meat is the #1 cause of global
warming," and this is bound to come out when anyone takes a closer
look at the realities. Livestock actually contributes
about 18% to the total global warming effect (FAO, p. 272). This is certainly
significant, but that still leaves 82% for other causes. That
meat-eating is the "#1 cause" of global warming is an
artifact of how we present the data. If you changed the way you categorize the causes of
global warming -- lumping transportation with manufacturing to produce a
"consumer goods" sector, perhaps -- something else might turn
out to be the "#1 cause."
But there's another complication. The FAO report does not
implicate the meat industry in global warming so much as it implicates the
cattle industry. We do not have so much a "meat
problem" as we have a "cow problem." To quote from the FAO report, Livestockís Long
Shadow: "damage occurs at both the high and low end of the
intensity spectrum, but it is probably highest for beef and lowest for
poultry" (FAO, p. 275). All meat-eating contributes to global warming,
but what really boosts the cattle industry above the rest is methane
production, a special feature of ruminant animals -- most notably,
belching and pooping cows (FAO, p. 82-83).
Itís ironic that the PETA ad shows Gore eating chicken, which is not the worst global warming food.
Compared to beef, it is actually substantially better. They could
have depicted Gore with a steak, but then the pun involved in calling
him a "chicken" would be lost. Publicity value, in this
case, trumps accuracy.
2. Framing this as a "global warming" issue is
The FAO report is about more than global warming. It is about the
soil, the water, and the forests -- issues on which the relationship
between vegetarianism and the environment is much, much stronger. Food
production takes about 17% of the annual fossil fuel use in the United States, but
causes almost 100% of the soil erosion.
But soil erosion as an issue is not as "sexy" as global
warming. So they altered a basically sound case so it would apply in a misleading
way to the issue of the moment. It appears to me that PETA hasnít
really studied this problem. Theyíve just thrown together a press
release and launched their well-oiled publicity machine without actually
considering whether what they are saying is strictly accurate.
3. Personal attacks donít cut it.
PETAís billboard is, in effect, a personal attack on Al Gore. It
accuses him of cowardice because of his personal behavior ("too
chicken to go vegetarian?"). It also engages in a futile debate
about who the "real environmentalists" are.
We could, I suppose, debate the ethics of making personal attacks.
But beyond questions of ethics, who exactly do they think they are
appealing to? Most environmentalists (and most Americans) eat meat. PETA
is attacking most environmentalists, most Americans, and the winner of
the Nobel Prize for Peace. Uh, we need a different approach.
4. Disruption doesnít cut it.
There is a deeper point here, and that is that the mood of the
country is shifting in a very significant way. From the 1960's to the
1990's, whether it was the counter-culture or Reaganís free-market
economics, Americans have valued individualism. But now we are already
facing major disruptions and challenges, such as global warming and a
failed and immoral war in Iraq. We are on the brink of even more serious
challenges such as peak oil and the collapse of the consumerist economy.
There is the growing (and accurate) perception that individualism has
been taken too far -- that we do not need people to stir things up even
more. The individualist approach of trying to disrupt things to get
attention will become less and less effective with each passing month.
PETA risks being categorized as a bunch of sectarian whiners.
Vegetarians can do better than this. Instead of the sort of
name-calling slogans like "Gore is a chicken" which we often
associate with the second grade, we need something along the lines of
"Vegetarianism: good for you, good for the planet." By
emphasizing that vegetarianism is a constructive and practical solution,
we can connect with the environmental movement and ultimately the
October 13, 2007 (slightly modified October 17, 2007)
- - - - - - - - - -
UPDATE October 29, 2007:
There has now been some discussion of this by others on the
web. Here are my further comments.
1. Discussion of the claim that meat is the "#1 cause" on
written by Liz Galst in Salon appeared, "Earth
to PETA" (you may not be able to access it if you don't
subscribe) which disputes PETA's claim, saying that "The No. 1
cause of global warming is burning fossil fuels for electric power."
She doesn't give the exact figure, but the "Time
for Change" web site copies a graphic from Wikipedia citing the
contribution of power stations at 21.3%, slightly more than the 18% from
Matthew Prescott of PETA posted a reply saying that "in fact,
animal agriculture uses enormous amounts of the energy produced by power
plants to grow and process feed crops." Evidently he thinks
that if we didn't count the power generation emissions that specifically
contribute to meat production, the 21.3% figure for power generation
emissions would be brought down below 18%, thus once again making
meat-eating the #1 cause.
Well, I actually doubt this, but both Galst and Prescott have missed the point with this
statistical quibbling. When you have multiple causes, especially
when each of them is much less than 50%, what the
"#1 cause" is depends on how you slice and dice the
statistics. It is just plain sloppy to say something is the
"#1 cause" without explaining that this means "18%"
or "21.3%" or whatever. If you wanted to, you could
point out that 82% of global warming comes from causes other than
meat-eating and conclude that "of all
global warming emissions, the overwhelming preponderance is not related to meat-eating."
What would that prove?
2. PETA's Effectiveness.
I am in an environmental discussion group where this issue came
up. In this internet group, most of the respondents didn't
like PETA's approach, even the vegetarians and vegans. But one person
did loyally try to defend PETA and raised an interesting point which I
didn't think of: many people think of PETA as an effective group, and
therefore tend to dismiss complaints about their obnoxiousness.
I don't have any scientific surveys to back this up, but in my
experience PETA is not an effective group. PETA is a polarizing
group. I have found that most environmentalists that I've talked
to, in a variety of different contexts, are
turned off by PETA. At best they are indulgent, sort of dismissing
what PETA does by saying things like "well, what do you expect from PETA
But the reaction of PETA's own members and
supporters is quite different. They see PETA speaking "truth
to power," and send them more money. PETA sees the money
coming in and launches more campaigns, which in turn convinces the
PETA members that the struggle is continuing -- and convincing everyone
else that they are dealing with a bunch of people who are obnoxious,
self-righteous, and uninterested in truth.
PETA has created the same kind of vicious cycle of debate that the
Christian right wing has done with their pet issues. They've
whipped up their own followers into a frenzy of enthusiasm and created a
reaction among their opponents, but they have not actually substantially
furthered public understanding.
3. The level of discourse.
I haven't seen anyone else (not even the Salon article) who has
raised the question of
the level of discourse. This was so obvious to me that I thought
it would be sufficient just to point out the infantile-like nature of a
campaign that is reminiscent of second-grade playground rhetoric:
"Gore is a chicken!"
In the first place, Gore's motivations are not relevant to this
debate and making this an issue does not help the debate. It is an
ad hominem argument, just the kind of thing that I am tired of,
environmentalists are tired of, and the public is tired of. But
even at the level of political invective, it falls short; the only excuse for this sort of rhetoric is a plausible argument
that Gore is, in fact, a coward. If meat-eating caused 70% of
global warming emissions -- the kind of thing which their misleading
slogan about the "#1 cause" implies -- and Gore knew all this and didn't speak out, then
I'd say they might have a good case.
Now I don't know what goes on
inside Gore's brain or what motivates him. But with 82% of
emissions due to factors other than meat consumption, and Gore at some
considerable political risk striving to put the global warming issue on
the world's table, I don't see how you could make a plausible argument
to that effect.
PETA should produce some sort of argument or evidence that Gore is a
coward, or they should apologize and stop their campaign. In the
meantime vegetarians and vegans can do their part by distancing
themselves from PETA and saying to anyone who is listening: PETA doesn't
speak for me.
UPDATE October 23, 2009:
It turns out that PETA might be right after all about meat being the
leading cause of global warming! (Though for the wrong reasons.)
WorldWatch magazine is publishing an article "Livestock
and Climate Change," by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang. The
key conclusion: livestock-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are
51%, or more, of all human-caused GHG emissions. Anything
more than 50% would make meat the undisputed leading cause of global
warming, without any need to resort to statistical trickery.
Obviously this does not mean that we should make unsupported
assertions on the chance that further research will justify us, so my
basic political argument still holds. It's also unclear how
Goodland and Anhang's argument will stand up to scrutiny. If it
does though -- and their article at first glance looks pretty good --
then we might want to see if PETA still has some of those bumper
stickers that have the slogan "Meat is the #1 cause of global
warming." We might want to order some!