Guilty conscience, Mr. Roth?

Alex Roth, a guest writer for Grist, slams PETA spokesman Matt Prescott for saying, "You just cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist," and ends up getting slammed by the Grist community instead.

Now, I'm definitely not a huge fan of Prescott's statement that omnivores can't be environmentalists. Though I think it would take a whole lot of effort to rationalize the cognitive dissonance of being a meat-eating environmentalist away, I also think it's counterproductive to promote exclusionist environmentalism. But that's PETA's modus operandi. They say or do something shocking in order to get an idea across. We react strongly. They do it again. After awhile, the idea becomes mainstream (see also: PETA's campaign against fur). And, as Holly notes on the comments section of the Grist site, "PETA is not an environmental group. It is an animal-rights group."

That said, Roth's arguments are ridiculous and then some. He writes, "Of course, most of us carnivorous environmentalists do sometimes eat factory-farmed meat, just as vegans sometimes eat products made from industrial soybeans." Uh, Mr. Roth? It takes a much smaller toll on the environment to grow a pound of industrial soybeans than it does to raise a pound of meat.

According to "Choosing Nature, Three Times a Day: The True Cost of Food" on the Sierra Club website (emphasis mine):
WILD PLACES LOST: Fifty per cent of the Earth is devoted to cattle production. (In
the U.S., 45% of land is devoted to cattle.
WILD PLACES LOST: 70% of the land in the Western U.S. is devoted to cattle.
WILD PLACES LOST: 95% of the oats, 80% of the wheat and
80% of the corn in the U.S. is fed to cows.
WILD PLACES LOST: About 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to
create cropland to produce our meat-centered diet.
GRAIN: It takes 10 to 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of cow flesh.
WILD PLACES LOST: It takes 10 to 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef.
DESERTIFICATION: The major cause is cattle grazing.
WATER: It takes up to about (some estimates are higher) 2,500 gallons of water to
produce one pound of grain fed beef. With the same water, farmers could produce 16
pounds of broccoli, 25 pounds of potatoes, enough soybeans for three pounds of tofu or
enough wheat for nearly five pounds of whole wheat bread.
TOPSOIL LOST: One pound of grain fed beef causes the loss of 35 pounds of topsoil.
ENERGY: It takes one gallon of gasoline to produce one pound of beef.
POLLUTION: In the United States, two billion tons of untreated sewage is discharged into the environment from cows.

Roth also writes, "PETA also shoves aside the report's conclusion that many of the environmental harms caused by livestock production can be mitigated through better agricultural practices". Yeah, but as anyone who's taken Biology 101 knows, even with better ag practices, raising livestock still takes way more energy than growing plants. From the College of Agriculture Sciences at Penn State, "In a food chain, an animal passes on only about 10 percent of the energy it receives." That's why, as noted above, it takes about 10 pounds of grain to get one pound of beef.

Then he states, "To me, being an environmentalist simply means supporting policies and practices that promote a healthy environment". Everyone from the UN to the University of Chicago is publishing evidence that switching to a plant-based diet can lessen one's impact on the environment by as much or more than switching to a hybrid vehicle. So, by his own definition of what it means to be an environmentalist, Roth should, if not adopt a plant-based diet, at least support those who do, and at the very least, keep his yap shut when others promote veggie diets for environmental reasons.

He continues, "These days, climate change is known to be exacerbated by most human activities, from stir-frying tofu to watching videos of endangered baby harp seals." True enough. But some activities exacerbate climate change more than others. From the UN report:

The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. . . The livestock sector is a major player [in climate change], responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport.

Some behaviors are also easier to change than others. Reducing my carbon footprint by driving less and biking more has proved more challenging than adopting a plant-based diet, by at least a degree of magnitude. So, if eating meat creates a huge amount of greenhouse gases and it's fairly easy to avoid eating meat, why eat meat?

(On an unrelated note: I suspect Roth would be against clubbing a baby harp seal, but he doesn't seem to have a problem with shooting a bolt through a cow's head, as is standard practice in the beef industry.)

Roth continues, "No, what is most astonishing about a person like Prescott is that someone evidently so well-intentioned can simultaneously be so counterproductive and so irritating". Funny, I was just thinking same thing about you, Mr. Roth.

A call to all you writers

Grist has a short article on "fast fashion", the cheap, nearly disposable clothing that's becoming more and more popular. The article briefly touches on the environmental, social, and global impacts of producing so many clothes so quickly, but I'm sure there's tons more to be said. If anyone out there can do for "fast fashion" what Eric Schlosser did for fast food in "Fast Food Nation", I bet it would be an interesting, eye-opening read.

Alien invaders!

Just posted this reponse to the lengthy discussion on Grist over an article questioning whether invasive species really are as evil as we think they are. Short answer: probably. Long answer:

As someone who spent one hot summer waging a futile battle against exotic invasives plants (Japanese honeysuckle and tree of heaven, mainly) in a national park, and a semester studying the effects of goats on the flora and fauna in the Galapagos, it would be fair to say I think exotic invasive species are a serious threat.

I also think it's fair to say that the best policy is to "keep them all out", as burger suggests, provided burger means preventing any new exotic species from entering an ecosytem. And I agree with NJD that the "wait-and-see" approach is irresponsible; if newly introduced population is still small enough that eradication is feasible, better to be safe than sorry.

I don't think it's fair, however, to dismiss Erik's arguments as they apply to established exotic invasive species. It's easy to say, yes, let's get rid of kudzu. Not so straightforward if we bring herbicides into the picture. Or when we have to kill golden eagles to protect the foxes on California's Channel islands. (The eages are protected under the Eagle Protection Act but are not native to the islands).

We have a limited number of resources with which to manage exotic species and it's not cheap or easy. So it makes sense to evaluate the costs and, yes, the benefits, of an established invasive species to an ecosystem, as well as the costs and benefits of trying to eradicate it. That way we can make the most out of the limited resources we have.

At the national park, my two coworkers and I barely made a dent in cutting back the exotic invasive plant species, and I'm sure most of plants grew back the following year anyway. Perhaps if we had focused on just getting rid one of the most noxious species, we could've successfully eradicated it from the park. Perhaps if we'd also focused more restoring disturbed areas and preventing further disturbances, rather focusing solely on the symptoms--invasive population explosions, we'd have been more successful.

That said, I think Erik is right on to question whether a "pristine" ecosystem ought to be our ideal. The vast majority of forests in this country are not virgin forests and are constantly changing due to forces of nature and man. Deeming one moment in history as an ecosystem's "pristine" state to aim to replicate seems rather arbitrary and silly. Perhaps "healthy" is a better adjective to work towards.

As a side note, what about native invasive species? Whitetail deer, juniper, red maple...