Let it be known, I’m on PETA’s side in regards to the statement “you just cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist.” Well, I guess you could be a meat-eating environmentalist, but you’d be a less effective one. Further, while PETA is known to sensationalize instances of animal abuse to make a point, a dramatic touch is often needed to appeal to people who habitually practice a behavior in direct contradiction to an organization’s beliefs. So, I was interested to read a response to the “afore-linked” article published on Grist.org called, “PETA’s dogma is all bark and no bite.”
The author, Alex Roth, reminds us of some valid points in his article. For instance, that the same report PETA uses to defend its position also states many of the environmental harms caused by livestock production can be mitigated through better agricultural practices. But, I haven’t read the report, and I don’t know if “many” refers to a lot of the little harms or actually includes removing substantial harms to the environment. Also, I agree that PETA jumped on the climate change bandwagon a little late, at least publicly. Apparently the ethics argument falls on deaf ears. Who knew?! But, I’m sure the good folks at PETA did know of the horrible environmental effects of raising animals for food long before they started advertising these facts.
That being said, hasn’t everyone jumped on the green bandwagon? This very blog wouldn’t exist without renewed interest in the environment. And fluorescent light bulb makers would only casually mention the energy-related benefits to their products in the past, choosing instead to mention the bulbs’ light was more natural or that the bulbs lasted longer. And most energy-efficient vehicles were long advertised as being affordable, because of little engines, not green.
The article weakens considerably after these few points. Roth claims that PETA is using what he calls “the paper napkin defense” in making their claim. His description of the defense goes like this:
“An environmentalist says something like, “We have to stop dumping toxic chemicals in our water, because it’s poisoning children.” Then someone who thinks he’s very smart counters that you have no right to speak up, because he saw you use a paper napkin, which is made out of trees and will be thrown in the garbage. As illogical and irrelevant as such a response is, haven’t you heard it a thousand times?”
While I’ve heard people use that type of logic before, and I do agree it’s frustrating to hear, I don’t think it’s what’s PETA’s doing. What Roth ignores, and what is of utmost importance here, is that people should do all they can to reduce their detrimental behavior. While PETA may be making absolute statements, I don’t think they’re asking you to become a vegetarian over night, though I’d surely prefer it. What they are saying is that you can’t have your cake and eat it too; eating meat and tooting your green horn is fundamentally hypocritical. The two acts are incongruous, plain and simple. Surely you can be greener than your neighbor if you have a hybrid vehicle or compact fluorescent light bulbs, but at the same time you’re not doing all you can do to lessen your impact on this planet.
Also, Roth uses the same “all or nothing” argument he claims PETA uses. He says, “To me, being an environmentalist simply means supporting policies and practices that promote a healthy environment.” To me, that means living a less wasteful life, and what’s more wasteful than creating something just to destroy it? You don’t build houses just to tear them down and you don’t build relationships just to end them. Why then, would you raise an animal just to kill it? For food? There’s plenty of food to go around in this country. Hell, farmer’s are paid not to grow food. Advocating a policy for policy’s sake, and then ignoring that policy seems to me to be like Republican politics, not environmentalism. Make a concerted effort to do less harm. Not eating meat is a good way to do that. Otherwise you’ll be nothing more than a guy who loves gay sex but tells people on TV that it’s wrong and you’ll burn for it!
Sphere: Related Content
Recent Comments