Cowspiracy

[vgpedlr]

[*]Framtiden i Våre Hender
(a Norwegian environmental organization; the biggest(?) in Norway)
talks often about eating less meat etc. http://www.framtiden.no[/list]

Does that include the whale meat I saw at the Bergen fish market? My Norwegian hosts wondered if that would offend me.

It's funny how we culturally condition ourselves that some meat is OK, some fantastic, and others disgusting, and that it varies so widely around the world. Yet it's all the same in essence, just dead animal flesh.

[f1jim]

I did a search on the links you provided for organizations that you believe are getting the message about animal consumption out there.
Hmmm. If that's the best you have we are in trouble. I urge everyone to examine these websites and see if you believe they are leading the charge in discussing animal consumption and the environment.

The best I could find on the Rainforest Foundation was in their 10 steps for change. No. 3 was to avoid "Brazillian" beef.
Your list makes the point the movie is trying to point out.

f1jim

[baardmk]

Okay, maybe you're right about the irony about "Brazilian beef", but I'm not familiar with the subject in depth - it may very well be that soy imported from Brazil aren't coming from rainforest areas. And increasing demand for soy in total will probably increase deforestation in rainforest areas, anyway, so I guess I agree.

I don't disagree that Cowspiracy exposed hypocricy and a major elephant in the room, but it's not as clear-cut as some make it out, either.

An important environmentalist/journalist/author in the UK, George Monbiot, has written favourably about Cowspiracy: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... rent-story
He has talked about some of these issues before.

[vgpedlr]

I don't disagree that Cowspiracy exposed hypocricy and a major elephant in the room, but it's not as clear-cut as some make it out, either.

How so?

What did they get wrong?

[patty]

In China it might be the sticks, in Africa it might be the stones but in this country it is movies that will take you to that next place. Every story has a beginning, a middle and end. When watching the movie the viewer travels with the beginning and middle and the end opens up to other possibilities. All the multiple endings within the stories of Conspiracy are indescribable. The stories I viewed had pathways to violence against the environment, domestic family violence, and of course violence to the animals, but the real shocker was the violence to women today. The rings from the pebble falling in the water go beyond anything I could have ever imagined. And it is a stories within a story.. of it's the food.

Aloha, patty

[baardmk]

I feel I am kind of repeating myself here.

Did I say Cowspiracy was "wrong"? My critique has not mainly been about that movie in itself, but the stories some choose to spin on top of it and also quite independent of it.

But Cowspiracy has had it's role in all of this, of course. One part where I believe Cowspiracy had some selective oversight was regarding greenhouse gases, where they cite 18%(more than transport) from that old UN report. The latest estimates from a much more extensive/detailed analysis, I imagine, says 13.5%, if I remember correct. The latest release of Cowspiracy, at least, should have had these figures available. They also make a point about an alternative estimate of 51% done by an advocacy organisation. That figure and the assumptions made therein is an outlier in this field, and yet they make a point about getting it in. It's a slanted perspective.

About the tote-bag study you requested, Jim, I don't know, as I couldn't find the reference. Maybe I'll remember to PM it to you when/if I find it. You'll easily find more or less equivalent studies about the health-halo of organic foods.

[vgpedlr]

I feel I am kind of repeating myself here.

Sorry. But that may be because some do not understand you, or still disagree.

Did I say Cowspiracy was "wrong"? My critique has not mainly been about that movie in itself, but the stories some choose to spin on top of it and also quite independent of it

Still disagree.

But Cowspiracy has had it's role in all of this, of course. One part where I believe Cowspiracy had some selective oversight was regarding greenhouse gases, where they cite 18%(more than transport) from that old UN report. The latest estimates from a much more extensive/detailed analysis, I imagine, says 13.5%, if I remember correct. The latest release of Cowspiracy, at least, should have had these figures available. They also make a point about an alternative estimate of 51% done by an advocacy organisation. That figure and the assumptions made therein is an outlier in this field, and yet they make a point about getting it in. It's a slanted perspective

.
Have you checked the documentation on their website? I browsed it, though I didn't look at this particular number. Still disagree with your criticism.

[f1jim]

Let's say the number is 13.5% and not 18%. Des that matter? Isn't either number a significant enough figure to walk away from as most all the large organizations supposedly being watchdogs have? Everyone overstates their case to some extent. If finding out the number was the smaller figure does that make you abandon the cause? Not for the activist minded people. But the activist minded people are being misled by the very groups they think have their back.
Let's say for arguments sake that animal consumption is really the number 2 factor in environmental degradation or in deforestation. Should these caretaker organizations ignore the issue?
That's the premise of the movie and it's very accurate.
f1jim

[Skip]

When it comes to global warming, there are always trade off's as to what is the most effective thing to do. For example, let's say that we legislate against using coal for producing electricity in the United States by some kind of carbon tax (which is a huge political task to do) or other legislative method. Then the coal producers will sell their coal to China (and elsewhere) where they can use it to produce electricity. If we were not to allow coal to be sold at all, somebody else would sell the coal to China (or whoever wants to use it).

Global warming needs global solutions that everyone will adopt. Changing to a whole food plant based vegan diet requires no legislation whatsoever. The only thing that's stopping its acceptance is the education of people about all of it's benefits. If this ever happens, it will take decades (not years) in my opinion just as it did for people to cut down on smoking.

This will eventually happen because the earth does not have the resources to feed the world with animals to eat as a primary food. War and famine will end our existence before global warming does in my opinion unless we evolve beyond the "predatory stage of development"(as Einstein put it).

[colonyofcells]

I believe there's also pestilence and death.

[Rob]

Excellent discussion. I went on the McDougall Plan initially for health reasons. And then I read a book and watched a movie by John Robbins, 'Diet for a New America'. That opened my eyes to the many other important reasons for a vegan diet, in particular the impact that animal agriculture is having on our planet. Having been in this mode for a couple decades, I've learned much from personal experience, observations and discussions with others, books, video lectures and documentaries, articles, research reports, internet research, health conferences, and especially this forum. I use the acronym SHEEEEESH! (with 5 E's) to keep in mind the many reasons for a WFPB diet:

S - Safety
H - Health
E - Environmental
E - Ethics
E - Economics
E - Easiness
E - Enjoyment
S - Sustainability
H - Happiness!

When I consider the benefits of this lifestyle and the risks, costs and consequences of the alternatives, this seems to be such an obvious choice. However, it's a lifestyle that is to be experienced to be understood.

[vgpedlr]

On a lighter note and definitely off-topic, I liked it because he drove around interviewing those people in a VW bus like mine. His is cleaner and nicer, but mine's a full camper.

Any movie with a VW bus wins.

[baardmk]

Also provide the link to the "tote bag" study. That would make interesting reading.

By employing a more intelligent search than last time I found it.

Shoppers bringing reusable bags are more likely not only to load up on organic and “green” goods than those who use the free paper or plastic bags provided by the store, but also more likely to spend more on indulgent, not-so-healthy foods such as ice cream, cookies, and chips, (...)

[colonyofcells]

I carry my reusable bag every day and I usually put my cell phone there so I look strange and weird every day. I go to costco monday to friday during lunch time hours. My current reusable bag is from 1996 Lucky grocery. I don't buy ice cream, cookies and chips. Costco is currently selling organic gold potato (50 cents per pound). I carry extra reusable bags in my back pack. I recently gave away a 6 flags bag and a disney bag to a visiting team mate from Singapore.

[f1jim]

baardmk it appears from the study the people that bring their own bags are just buying more everything period. Not more unhealthy items specifically.
f1jim