So with all the talk about climate change and the enviroment in the media...

[SPJ]

why is it that so many media outlets seem so shy about advocating vegitarian diets or even a reduction in meat consumption? I mean even the U.N has come out with reports about how animal agriculture is responsible for more green house gases than transportation. But increasing vehicle efficency (which is good don't get me wrong) seems to get more attention.

I know that some groups like Peta and Goveg.com have been on Al Gore's back calling him a hypocrite and such (I still think he does good work for the enviroment.) It's just baffling to me that while many "how you can save the planet" lists have things like recycling and changing your lights and shower heads they don't even mention the vegitarian diet.

Again I'm not saying those things are bad, I personally try to recycle every bottle I use, but I mean the vegitarian diet (or even more the vegan diet) blows those things out of the water in terms reducing emmisions, and saving those CO2 converting trees that enviromentalist love so much. It even tops buying a hybrid vehicle as I understand it.

I won't say it's a big corporate conspiracy, because I have seen scattered bits about meat eating and climate change here and there on tv outlets (CNN for example) but it does make me wonder.

Anyone have any thoughts?

[RoboMonkey]

That would infringe on people's right to do whatever they want without having to worry about repercussions.

[Veggily]

I remember that Al Gore's site, while not promoting vegetarianism, did suggest something like "eat less meat." Perhaps a bit half-assed, but I think the suggestion might bring more awareness about vegetarianism.

Yes, it should be stressed more.

[MrFalafel]

Do not undersestimate the power the meat and dairy industries have over the media. They influence how advertisers spend their money in the media which has an immediate effect on how editors and newsmakers slant their stories.

[Indian Summer]

I agree with MrF. But also, I think it's a truth that is seen as just too inconvenient, and therefore dismissed as impractical for Average Joe, or they make up excuses in their heads ("but veganism is unhealthy and unnatural!", "we need protein!" etc) like meat-eaters often do when they feel that their diet is criticized.

[SPJ]

Do not undersestimate the power the meat and dairy industries have over the media. They influence how advertisers spend their money in the media which has an immediate effect on how editors and newsmakers slant their stories.

But that's the thing the oil industry has plenty of influence too, but the way cars contribute to greenhouse emissions is common knowledge. Everyone knows about that.

However, much of the time when I tell people that my vegitarian diet is in part motivated by enviromental concerns they ask me "what does meat have to do with the enviroment?" This tells me that it's not commen knowledge like co2 from cars, or landfills, or big energy companies burning co2 heavy coal to produce electricity.

[Indian Summer]

But that's the thing the oil industry has plenty of influence too, but the way cars contribute to greenhouse emissions is common knowledge. Everyone knows about that.

However, much of the time when I tell people that my vegitarian diet is in part motivated by enviromental concerns they ask me "what does meat have to do with the enviroment?" This tells me that it's not commen knowledge like co2 from cars, or landfills, or big energy companies burning co2 heavy coal to produce electricity.
Good point. I think the difference is that there has been so much more research done on the impact of the oil industry on green house gas emissions than that of the livestock industries. The research on oil industries is also much more conclusive than that on livestock. See e.g. this article:


A vegan diet would be better, but it would ignore some benefits of rearing grazing animals, said Tara Garnett, from the Food Climate Research Network at Surrey University, who wrote the report. 'A little bit of livestock production is probably a good thing for the environment,' she said. 'Livestock provide a very important service in terms of maintaining landscape and soil quality and maintaining biodiversity: you get different animals grazing at different levels and if you didn't have them you'd have a very different landscape.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/11/food.climatechange

While it might be true that you get different animals in a landscape shaped by livestock production than in one without livestock, I don't see how livestock production, however small, can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[IamJen]

moved from "in the news", since there's no news story attached

[MrFalafel]

Yeah, asking someone to change their lightbulbs to energy efficient ones is a struggle enough. Asking them to completely change their diet would simply be rejected by the vast majority of people as its just too much of a change.

However, it would be nice to see some more encouragement in that direction.

[TreeManEarthSteward]

However, it would be nice to see some more encouragement in that direction.

Lead the waaaay, please! :) and may I say~ good luck! :wayne:

Take for example this VBer member doing this good thing....

http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/member.php?u=37120

http://www.missionvegan.com (MissionVegan's website)

[dormouse]

I don't think you'll find anybody on VB who disagrees with you on this. You're right.

However, even we vegetarians are a little bit to blame. Our primary argument is usually ethics, followed by health. Most of us tend to mention environmentalism last (if ever) when we explain to people why we have made our choice. Maybe omnivores would be more responsive if we started explaining our vegetarianism in terms of environmentalism.

[beepbeeplove]

There isn't really a negative stereotype associated with taking public transport and buying wind electricity and whatnot, but there's a negative stereotype attached to vegetarians because of PETA and other militant vegetarian groups :(
In Melbourne though, at about 9 at night on the unpopular TV channel there's an ad that says that livestock accounts for 1/3 of greenhouse emissions, then says "go veg" :)

[Irizary]

There isn't really a negative stereotype associated with taking public transport and buying wind electricity and whatnot, but there's a negative stereotype attached to vegetarians because of PETA and other militant vegetarian groups :(

There's no way you can reasonably put a primary reason for negative attitudes about vegetarianism on "militant" vegetarian groups. That's a very facile excuse. When meat eaters are hostile towards the idea of eating animals as being cruel to animals or being unethical (which is the animal welfare/rights argument), it's because they don't want to look at the issue and/or don't want to change.

It would be like, if I were a child abuser, blaming my actions on pro-children's groups, because they managed to offend me by being too militant about child welfare, and giving child welfare a negative image to me.

And seriously, people associate vegetarianism with 'granola hippies' more than with militant AR people. If you're looking for someone to blame for a negative stereotype of vegetarians, probably better to blame the health vegetarians.

[Beancounter]

Do not undersestimate the power the meat and dairy industries have over the media. They influence how advertisers spend their money in the media which has an immediate effect on how editors and newsmakers slant their stories.

What he said. +1

[peace]

Our society isn't in the business of telling people not to buy things. Even much of the "green revolution" is a marketing trend. Buy a hybrid car (from the same companies that make gas guzzlers). Buy a shirt with a "go green" slogan (produced no differently than other clothing items). The eco-trend doesn't ask people to stop consuming the things they're used to buying at all.

[Beancounter]

Even much of the "green revolution" is a marketing trend. . The eco-trend doesn't ask people to stop consuming the things they're used to buying at all.

Another valid point...

[rainforests1]

There isn't really a negative stereotype associated with taking public transport and buying wind electricity and whatnot, but there's a negative stereotype attached to vegetarians because of PETA and other militant vegetarian groups :(
In Melbourne though, at about 9 at night on the unpopular TV channel there's an ad that says that livestock accounts for 1/3 of greenhouse emissions, then says "go veg" :)

Do you think there aren't "extreme" groups in other movements as well?

[sally429]

There isn't really a negative stereotype associated with taking public transport and buying wind electricity and whatnot, but there's a negative stereotype attached to vegetarians because of PETA and other militant vegetarian groups :(





:wayne:


There's no way you can reasonably put a primary reason for negative attitudes about vegetarianism on "militant" vegetarian groups. That's a very facile excuse. When meat eaters are hostile towards the idea of eating animals as being cruel to animals or being unethical (which is the animal welfare/rights argument), it's because they don't want to look at the issue and/or don't want to change.

It would be like, if I were a child abuser, blaming my actions on pro-children's groups, because they managed to offend me by being too militant about child welfare, and giving child welfare a negative image to me.

And seriously, people associate vegetarianism with 'granola hippies' more than with militant AR people. If you're looking for someone to blame for a negative stereotype of vegetarians, probably better to blame the health vegetarians.

I think that they are hostile, not always because they don't wanna face the facts, but because it is thrown at them in a hostile way. I think it is a normal reaction to react to a hostile situation with more hostility.

Child abuse isn't contrivercial, its bad, people agree for the most part about that. Animal rights are contrivercial....You can't really compare them. Maybe you think that they are comprable but in reality, to most people they aren't. I think that by comparing things like that, it seems extreme to most non-veg*ans. This is a good example of why people are turned off by a veg*an lifestyle. That seems like an extreme comparison and almost overdramatic to the average joe. It doesn't matter if you think it is or not.

Also, I am sure that other groups have militants, but nothing like we do. I am always hesitant to say that I am vegitarian because it can really turn people away. Why should my diet matter to other people...because they associate it with militant groups like PETA, and they are afraid, like PETA I will try to FORCE them to do what I do.

[Irizary]

Do you think there aren't "extreme" groups in other movements as well?

True. By that logic, ELF members should be making recycling and solar energy look very negative as well.

[sally429]

I think that other groups try to introduce people to their causes in a more positive way. We tend to throw all the negative aspects at them.

[Irizary]

Also, I am sure that other groups have militants, but nothing like we do.

ELF, Earth First...


I am always hesitant to say that I am vegitarian because it can really turn people away...they are afraid, like PETA I will try to FORCE them to do what I do.

That's a shame you don't advocate for animals, and that you're around such illogically frightful people who are afraid that you're somehow going to be able to FORCE (!!!11) the steak out of their hands.

[Irizary]

I think that other groups try to introduce people to their causes in a more positive way. We tend to throw all the negative aspects at them.

What exactly do you consider "negative?"

[Sevenseas]

I think that they are hostile, not always because they don't wanna face the facts, but because it is thrown at them in a hostile way. I think it is a normal reaction to react to a hostile situation with more hostility.But what one considers 'hostile' is subjective. Given that animal exploitation perMEATes the lives of many people, any advocacy against animal exploitation and for veg*nism will be a personal threat to them in a way that, say, talking about the situation in Darfur will not be. So there is some motivation for defensiveness already before the most friendly, respectful veg*n opens his/her mouth. The standards for what is "hostile" and what is not are not likely to be very consistent.


I think that by comparing things like that, it seems extreme to most non-veg*ans. This is a good example of why people are turned off by a veg*an lifestyle. That seems like an extreme comparison and almost overdramatic to the average joe. It doesn't matter if you think it is or not.I am sure that no amount of hostility by veg*n advocates will be as harmful to the AW/AR movement as veg*n advocates being so embarrassed by their "extreme", "overdramatic" views that they keep silent. If even the veg*ns themselves behave as if a comparison between animal abuse and child abuse is beyond the pale, then what reason could anyone possibly have for seeing things in a new way?

I think an argument that goes "we should not express these new values because they seem extreme to anyone with the old values" is irrational and self-destructive for any social movement.

[sally429]

First I do advocate animal rights, but not in a forceful "this is the only way" kinda thing. I think by doing something like not allowing meat in my home, it will only turn people away. It isn't my goal to convert anyone. I will gladly give people more info., but only if they want it. Until they do I will continue to share as many veg*an meals as I can with them. I am guessing you are in an area where it is generally well accepted...try saying any kind of AR thing in South Texas.


I consider facts about the suffering and slaughter of animals to be negative.

[rainforests1]

Also, I am sure that other groups have militants, but nothing like we do. I am always hesitant to say that I am vegitarian because it can really turn people away. Why should my diet matter to other people...because they associate it with militant groups like PETA, and they are afraid, like PETA I will try to FORCE them to do what I do.
I wouldn't even consider PETA a militant group. They've done a few things which would be considered "extreme", but they've done far less than many groups in many different movements. Regardless of what PETA does, animals are still suffering similarly to how they'd be suffering if PETA didn't exist, so I think a lot of people just use PETA as an excuse. When I talk about this subject on other message boards, PETA isn't even brought up that often and the reasoning given far more than any is because "meat tastes good". I think people exaggerate a bit.