My 2 cents on the other side of the coin: As you mention, Kevin,
My 2 cents on the other side of the coin: As you mention, eating lower on the food web is very important, EXCEPT when you use grass-fed beef, because to my knowledge that's the only and best way to trasform grasslands into sothing that we can use. And yes, there are out there responsible ranchers that do more for their land and carbon footprint than urbanites. It is unfortunate that in most underdeveloped (not a politically correct term, but still the same) we have moved from grass-fed to grain fed, mostly pushed by consumers that want the cheapest not the best (I do hope that the grain prices stay up there). Which touches on the basic issue here: education (but not the typical "school" ed, is almost ethical ?). For what it's worth, I also believe it`s a "human" problem, not even ecologists. Abraham de Alba Avila Terrestrial Plant Ecology INIFAP-Ags Ap. postal 20, Pabellón Arteaga, 20660 Aguascalientes, MEXICO SKYPE: adealba55 Tel: (465) 95-801-67, & 801-86 ext. 126, FAX ext 102 alternate: dealba.abra...@inifap.gob.mx cel: 449-157-7070 ________________________________ From: Kevin McCluney <kevin.mcclu...@asu.edu> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 9:50:17 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Are ecologists the problem? I recently attended the 2009 annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA). The theme of this year’s meeting was sustainability. There were many great talks on this subject and a few truly pessimistic ones. One speaker proposed that human beings are, by our very nature, destined to consume and reproduce as much as possible, and despite our best efforts, this will lead to our own demise. During the same talk the speaker also asked, “who is responsible?” He answered his question by saying that we at this conference are just as much a part of the problem as anyone else. Is this true? I know I myself have taken many steps to lower my footprint and many other ecologists have as well. For instance, at last year’s ESA meeting in Milwaukee there was an interesting occurrence at local restaurants. The first night of the conference I had a really good veggie burger at one restaurant. I went back later in the week for another. The waitress apologized… they were all out. She went on to explain that the manager had heard our conference was coming to town, so bought extra ahead of time, but ran out of those quickly anyway. The manager then went to the local grocery store and bought more. But alas, by the time I returned, they had run out of those as well. Further, when I dine with friends at ESA meetings, I often find that more than half the table orders vegetarian entrees. Why does eating vegetarian matter so much? Modern, industrialized livestock production is one of the more environmentally destructive human endeavors. It contributes roughly one fifth of all our greenhouse gas emissions, more than all cars, and these gases are major contributors to the rapid climate change we’re experiencing. Livestock production also may, in certain cases, be leading to deforestation and destruction of important ecosystems, as well as to pollution of rivers, lakes, and even oceans. In addition, we all know that basic ecological principles hold that it takes less resources to raise plant based food sources than meat based, since energy is lost as you move up the food chain. Thus we can feed more people and use fewer resources on a plant-based diet. All this caused the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently to proclaim that the best thing a person could do to reduce their impact on climate change was to eat a more plant- based diet. My wife and I haven’t stopped at eating low on the food chain. We’ve also joined community supported agriculture, where we buy a share of produce from a local farm. The farmer gets upfront economic security and we get very affordable, local, fresh organic produce. We pay just $18 per week for a large bag of food. At this price we can afford to supplement our diet with additional organic items from the grocery store. We’ve also taken a variety of other steps, from riding my bike to work, to offsetting car and air travel through renewable energy from an independently certified company, to buying 100% of our electricity from renewable sources through our local utility for as little as $15 per month. While we may not be reaching the small ecological footprint of those in many third world countries, we’ve done our best to come in line with our planet’s limits while maintaining a decent quality of life. So, are ecologists just as much a part of the problem as everyone else? Are all ecologists the same? What are the variety of lifestyle choices made by ecologists? Not only would the answers to these questions provide a response to the ESA presenter, but I think the answer would be interesting to a wide audience. I propose that ESA conduct a poll of members, asking questions about lifestyle choices and demographics, comparing ours to that of the general public. If we are not different, this would be a bit of a wake-up call. However, if we are different, then perhaps some of our lifestyle choices would be informative to understanding how to achieve a more sustainable society. If there is one thing I learned from a cultural anthropology course I once took, it was that there isn’t just one right way to live. Human cultures throughout the world are very diverse. But, from the inside of one culture it is often very hard to see other ways to live. Let us not be trapped in our culture, but seek a better understanding of all the ways of living, so that we might find a more sustainable path. -- Kevin E. McCluney Graduate Student School of Life Sciences Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-4601
