To NEIL AND WILL

[compassionategirl]

and anybody else interested in enviro stuff and its relationship to ar.

 

Thought you might find these articles interesting:

 

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?145&src=

 

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?1428&src=

 

Have you ever visited E Magazine (www.emagazine.com)? They have awesome articles that try to reconcile ar and environmentalism.

 

 

Enjoy.

[Aaron]

Eat the whales. I love it.

 

f.a.b.o.l.o.u.s.

 

: )

 

Nice find CG.

[Guest]

fabolous failed to have a decent follow up this year to the "breathe" single that blew heads last year.

[neil]

thanks, CG. i read the first article a few years back when the issue was printed. i was so happy they did it.

 

http://www.emagazine.com/images/covers/cover_0102_med.jpg

 

but, it brings up all the frustrations i had with how weak the enviro. community is with veg*nism.

 

how can they argue with this? found here

 

http://www.emagazine.com/images/0102feat1_keepmoving.jpg

Circle Four Farms, a Utah-based pork producer, hosts a three-million gallon waste lagoon. When lagoons like this spill into rivers and lakes as happened in North Carolina in 1995, the result can be environmentally catastrophic.

[Gym hater]

Eat the whales, good campaign. Some of those environmentalists do more harm than good.

[Gym hater]

how can they argue with this? found here

 

Roberts Fashjer is metioned in that article.

[Aaron]

JZA hm. I'll have to download that and check it out.

 

I don't remember hearing it.

[compassionategirl]

Excellent article Neil.

 

It strengthens my already strong belief that the two movements/philosophies need not be mutually exclusive.

 

They just always very intuitively seemed to go hand in hand to me. In fact, it wasnt until I became an animal advocate that I started caring about the environment too.

 

It is a process of evolution in consciousness, and I think one journey inevitably leads to the other.

 

For example, Paul Watson first was an environmentalist and later became an animal rights advocate as well, if I am not mistaken. he has gone on the record stating in no uncertain terms that

 

"It is my firm belief that you cannot be an environmentalist unless you are a vegetarian or better yet, a vegan. To not practice vegetarianism is simply to deny reality."

 

I think both movements can benefit from joining forces at least on certain practical levels. I suspect though that the greens want to distance themselves from the ar people because they feel that the latter is based more on emotion than science, and also because the latter tends to pull some outrageous stunts, etc.

 

But, as one vegetarian green said in the magazine, environmentalists should focus on the environmental merit of the vegetarian message, without getting side tracked by the identity of the messenger!

 

I think that is compellingly logical advice.

[neil]

i wholeheartedly agree.

 

what's bad for the environment is bad for all living things, from little to large animals. we're threatening the base of the food chain in the oceans which could greatly disrupt life as we know it.

 

and like that quote from Paul Watson (which is great!), it is despicable when self-identified environmentalists eat meat.

 

the leader of earth policy institute that said: "“That’s not too difficult in the U.S., but for people in developing countries, being a vegetarian often means eating only rice, and I don’t think I would recommend that."

 

where the heck did that idea come from?! there are plenty of developing countries (if not all) that use beans, legumes etc. for protein needs. has he ever had central or south american cuisine, ethiopian food, asian food, senegalese food, etc.? i've had hearty vegan meals from each. grrr...

 

but yeah, it would help both causes if there was more collaboration.

[compassionategirl]

Okay, then here is the rest of the quote by Paul Watson:

 

"Can the environmental movement ignore the impact of animal husbandry on global ecological systems?

 

My answer to this is no. Unless the environmental movement begins to address the real problems impacting ecological systems, there is no hope of conserving or protecting these systems. The primary problems are diminishment of diversity and diminishment of interdependence caused by the diminishment of resources or carrying capacity. There is simply not enough fish in the sea to contuinue to feed ever expanding populations of humanity. Humans as predators vastly outnumber the animals that are hunted. Predators must always be a fraction of the number relevant to prey populations. Chemical utilization in animal husbandry from battery chickens to fish farms is developing into a major health concern. Animal waste is a major source of pollution...."

 

A meat eating environmentalist is simply an oxymoron.

 

 

By the way, Sea Shepherd is one of my favourite direct action marine animal protection organizations.

 

[willpeavy]

Jacobson’s argument doesn’t stop there. “On a macro level,” he continues, “the vast majority of corn and soybeans goes to animal feed. If people stopped eating meat, Illinois, Indiana and Iowa would be returned to forest and grassland.” Some environmentalists and nearly all animal rights advocates would reply, “What’s wrong with that?” There would certainly be major economic impacts if the American heartland stopped producing agricultural products, but why couldn’t the Midwest become a huge exporter of grain to feed the world’s hungry? Jacobson says economic realities mean it would more likely be eaten up by suburban development—a point well taken.

 

I don't think it would turn into a suburban wasteland if ethanol was promoted more. Ethanol is made from corn, is renewable, and lot cleaner fuel than petroleum. If animal agr. could be shut down the farmers could keep their corn farms if they could sell their crops for fuel