SUVs or Cows? Which are Worse?

Feeling guilty about driving that SUV? First, read our latest Big Idea column on why trucks don't always deserve sneers (see Shut Up About My Truck, September 2007), then take note: Animal rights groups are touting the message that eating meat is worse for the environment than driving, the New York Times reported Wednesday.

Where's the evidence that going vegetarian equate to being an environmental do-gooder? In November, the U.N. Food and Agriculture organization reported that the livestock business contributes more to gas emissions than all transportation combined.

While the PETA manager for vegan campaigns, Matt A. Prescott, told the NY Times that environmentalists are pointing fingers at the wrong things (SUVs, not steaks), could it be that both transportation and livestock farming are major contributers to global warming? Why pinpoint one or the other?

PETA is certainly out to make the public choose; their latest campaign consists of a Hummer with a chicken-suited driver holding a banner that proclaims meat is the top cause of temperature rise, the NY Times said.

For global-warming naysayers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a report that confirms that greenhouse gas emissions are a "likely" cause of high temperatures this summer in the Geophysical Research Letters. Last year ('06) is proving to be the hottest year yet, barely beating out 1998—both of which were El Nino years. It marked the ninth year for temperature increases and was 2.1 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the 20th-century average, according to the study.

How does Al Gore feel about eating fewer cheeseburgers? We may never know. But, according to the NY Times report, Gore's deputy press secretary noted that on page 317 of "An Inconvenient Truth" there is a recommendation to "modify your diet to include less meat."—Alicia Carr

Comments

[Michelle Waitzman]

The farm animal gas problem is old news down here in New Zealand. In fact, when the Kyoto protocol came into effect, the government was shocked to discover that New Zealand's "clean green" image didn't hold up when methane emmissions from farm animals were taken into account.

For a while there, they considered making the farmers pay for the carbon credits their animals were costing - a move that was labelled the "fart tax". But that plan was dropped, and rather than worrying about how often cows burp, New Zealand is putting up more wind turbines and taking other reasonable steps.

http://loveinatent.blogspot.com

[NRDCTalker]

If all you care about is getting ink (or pixels) it's a pretty clever campaign. But ultimately may well be counterproductive not only for PETA but also for the greater cause.

There's no question that what you put on your plate matters for the environment, in more ways than PETA bothers to mention. But the takeway from this polemic is just as likely to be confusion and disengagement.

We've got a longer discussion of it over here:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jcoifman/go_pluck_yourself.html

[Guy]

It's a little irrelevant to say that one form of pollution is worse than another - certainly, pollution from vehicles AND from farm animals are BOTH bad. The fact that pollution and carbon emissions from farm animals could be worse certainly does not make driving a vehicle any "less bad".

The reality of the matter is that reductions are needed on both sides - we need to reduce our impact from driving as well as reducing our consumption of meat products.

[Darcy McGee]

Do you think they're factoring in all the emissions from the tractors and other farm equipment that are used in modern farming?