Phil Gutis's Blog
An Invitation to PETA
September 11, 2007
Posted by Phil Gutis in Curbing Pollution , Living Sustainably , Solving Global Warming
NRDC hasn’t been visited by any chickens driving hummers, but we did get a letter from PETA earlier this summer asking about our policies regarding global warming and factory farming and vegetarianism. Our response to PETA just went out the electronic door and I thought it might spark some interesting conversation.
But first some background: In a much-noted story in the New York Times, PETA said it would begin to target the “headquarters of environmental groups, if they don't start shaping up.”
PETA apparently has written to more than 700 environmental groups, asking them to promote vegetarianism. NRDC received its copy of the form letter in mid-July and we’ve had an interesting internal conversation about it over the summer.
The facts are, in fact, fairly clear cut. The energy that goes into raising, transporting, processing and distributing livestock and livestock-related food products has a huge impact on the Earth’s atmosphere. According to a recent United Nations report, livestock activities overall are responsible for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Much of the carbon dioxide emissions attributable to livestock come from the deforestation caused by the expansion of pastures and arable land for livestock feed crops, particularly in developing countries.
And two of the greenhouse gases emitted by livestock have a far higher potential to warm the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. The unique digestive process of some livestock is responsible for 37 percent of anthropogenic methane, which has 23 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Livestock manure also emits 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. (Livestock are also responsible for almost two-thirds of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.)
Consequently, reducing meat consumption would indeed help to reduce livestock contributions to global warming, as well as to local and regional air pollution. And there are other benefits as well. Deforestation could be limited, more lands could be made available to crow crops for people food and/or biofuels. (Thanks to my NRDC colleague Bill Dornbos for the research effort.)
NRDC’s internal policies, which we’ve recently strengthened, is to limit the amount of beef and other meats served at NRDC events and to offer a wide range of vegetarian options. We’re also looking into how we can best advise our offices about which fish options to offer given the devastating impact over-fishing is having on the global fisheries.
So PETA is correct in its assumption that eating less meat will help the global warming situation. And a pretty hard-core vegetarian myself and a former member of PETA (at least I think my membership has lapsed), I can’t even fault them for their chicken-driving tactics. For the most part, I love the way PETA makes a point and that’s why I joined and will probably re-up at some point.
As usual, PETA has approached this issue with -- to put it nicely -- a laser-like focus. But there’s more than one solution to this enormous problem and we’ve made an offer to the folks at PETA that I sincerely hope they will take up.
We’ve invited PETA to give us a buzz so we can talk with them about their offices and transportation.
NRDC has focused a great deal of energy over the years in making sure that our operations are as green as possible from an energy perspective and we’d love to make our expertise in this area available to PETA. (Our Santa Monica office, for example, was at one point, the greenest building in the country and still holds a platinum LEED rating.)
I’ll let you know if they respond to our offer. It may be the most interesting indication of just how serious PETA is about solving global warming.
Text of NRDC’s letter to PETA follows:
September 10, 2007
Bruce Friedrich
Vice President, PETA
501 Front Street
Norfolk, VA 23510
Dear Mr. Friedrich:
Thank you for your letter of July 16th in which you raised a concern about NRDC’s approach to global warming and food choices.
We share the urgency of your concern about all sources of global warming, and the impact that many types of agricultural practices -- including the raising of livestock -- can have on the problem. NRDC has in fact been very involved in the fight against factory farms and the air and water pollution they generate.
On the global warming front, NRDC is leading the fight to cut emissions from power generation and transportation at the state, federal and international levels and with corporations around the world. We will continue to make that a priority by advocating numerous specific policies and economy-wide carbon (and equivalent) limits.
With those priorities in mind, we have worked hard to green our offices and offset our business travels. We have an extraordinary level of expertise in these areas and are very interested in talking with PETA about ways you could address power and transportation issues with your organization.
NRDC also believes that personal choices and behavior can make a real difference in fighting global warming and reflects that belief on our websites and other educational materials. We will over time add more information on our consumer-focused materials about the important environmental benefits of dietary choices. (Our own internal organizational policy is to limit beef and other meats served at NRDC events and to offer a wide range of vegetarian options.)
Thank you again for your letter and interest in fighting global warming. If you are interested in pursuing opportunities to green your offices and travels, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Phil Gutis
Director of Communications
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
- Phil Gutis
- Director of Communications
- New York City
- I'm NRDC's Director of Communications so Switchboard and NRDC.org are ultimately my responsibility. (Cheers or...
- more→
Comments
Chris — Sep 20 2007 10:34 AM
If the environmental community wants to guarantee that the vast majority of Americans will hate us, by all means, let's join the PETA campaign. What a great way for us to alienate people who are just now starting to listen to the green community.
People may recycle. People may drive less. People may be more energy efficient. But they're not giving up meat -- and they're absolutely going to label environmentalists who tell them they should as being out of touch with reality, preventing us from reaching them on other issues that they might actually support.
Bruce Friedrich — Sep 22 2007 11:36 AM
Hey Chris, PETA is not suggesting that NRDC (or anyone else) do anything more than: 1) honestly educate those who look to them for accurate environmental informaiton; and 2) walk the talk (i.e., do as much as they can to be a green organization). Maybe you're right that people won't give up meat, though I did (20 years ago), purely for environmental reasons, as did PETA's Matt Prescott and many others.
If we give people honest information, many will change; some won't, but shouldn't everyone have the information and be allowed to make their own decisions?
What we at PETA are suggesting, more specifically, is that NRDC and other environmental groups should, when discussing global warming, talk about the fact that eating meat causes 40 percent more global warming than all cars, planes, and other modes of transport combined. Also, since eating meat is among the top three causes ever every environmental problem, from the smallest and most local to the largest and most global, the issue should be discussed, where appropriate (e.g., NRDC's global warming "what you can do" brochure, Web site, mailings).
We also feel, strongly, that NRDC and other environmenal groups should "walk the talk." Clearly NRDC is doing a tremendous amount in this regard. An easy thing for them to do would be to ensure that all NRDC functions are vegan and that all NRDC employee meals are vegan. This would be setting a positive example without being shrill.
We can't think of any reason at all the NRDC and the other environmental groups would not do these two things, and in fact both seem like the would only enhance the group's effectiveness, in addition to being the most honest and meaningfully effective ways to proceed on this issue.
I hope this makes sense and better explains our position. We are in the 11th Hour; it is reasonable to act and talk like it.
For more information, with citations, please check out www.GoVeg.com/eco.
Thanks,
Bruce