Nice statement, Angus. Also being active in this area, I would add only that given the nature of today's industrial food systems, considerations of local economy should be added to the agroecological paradigm. When I moved to southeastern Pennsylvania five years ago, I was shocked at the advanced development of the local agroecological market. Virtually every type of meat and climate-appropriate fruit and vegetable is grown here by local, small-scale, ecologically sensitive farmers, and sold in local community-based farmers markets. I know the farmers market phenomenon is a huge and growing trend in the U.S., but what surprised me here was the combination of near-complete coverage of unprocessed food types and the explicit focus not just of individual farmers, but of the entire "market" or "industry" on the benefits that accrue to the local economy (and thereby return to the agroecological systems in place). Having moved here from Florida's central east coast, where there were literally no farmers markets, much less locally grown organic and/or sustainably farmed meats or veggies, this was an eye-opener.
So my sense of the ideal paradigm, for what it's worth, is a combination of agroecological and local economic (or ecological economic) as a combined and most fully realized response to the industrial food system. And I concur with Angus's closing point that this is a very different view than that driven by animal rights considerations. Cheers, Rich -- Richard L. Wallace, Ph.D. Chair, Environmental Studies Ursinus College 601 E. Main Street Collegeville, PA 19426 USA (610) 409-3730 (610) 409-3660 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wright, Angus Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 2:50 PM To: Dale W Jamieson; Maria Ivanova Cc: Mary Pettenger; gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: RE: RE: Vegan and Environmental Impact As I am sure many of you know, the main environmental and justice arguments (rather than animal liberation arguments for not eating meat were pretty well-laid out in Frances Moore Lappe's Diet for a Small Planet and others have been improving on and elaborating those arguments for some time. I was convinced by those arguments for many years and became a vegetarian for quite some time largely based on them. I later became convinced that the best eating model was based on what the best kind of farm would produce. The best kind of farm and farming system, I believe, is one that is a rough mimic of natural processes, and that as such incorporates animals in a variety of ways and makes modest amounts of meat consumption a logical consequence of the production system. This is an agroecological approach rather than a "minimal energy" or "minimal materials" approach, though in the larger picture, it would tend to minimize energy and materials production. Of course, large scale or l! ong term feed lot production would not be part of this.and meat would be produced in ways that are far different, ecologically and ethically, than what we now have. The farm, in fact, would look a lot more like what the mixed production farms of the American midwest looked like one hundred years ago--the kind many of us older folks remember from our childhoods. It is also a kind of farm one still encounters frequently outside of Europe and the U.S. (Eating very little beef in the U.S., I am much more relaxed about eating the delicious and more healthful grass fed beef one finds in Brazil and elsewhere--which of course brings in rainforest issues, another complicated--much more complicated than generally believed--issue.) I think many ecologically conscious farmers have come to the same kind of conclusions. Other than my own work on this, my main guides for this have been Wes Jackson and Miguel Altieri. I have heard Michael Pollin speak, but haven't read his book yet, but I gather it is the approach he takes, too. Having served on the board of Food First, the organization Frances Moore Lappe founded with the proceeds of Diet for a Small Planet, I can say that it is predominantly the evolution of thought that most people involved with that organization, I believe including Lappe, have taken. Let me emphasize that this would require dramatic change in our agricultural system--it is not a status quo argument. But it is based more on genuine ecological reasoning, in my view, than the standard vegetarian arguments. Of course, if you believe that it is wrong to kill and eat animals, then that brings in an entirely different set of considerations, different from those I have outlined here. Angus Wright Professor Emeritus of Environmental Studies California State University, Sacramento ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dale W Jamieson Sent: Wed 1/31/2007 10:23 AM To: Maria Ivanova Cc: 'Mary Pettenger'; gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: Re: RE: Vegan and Environmental Impact 'animal liberation' is of course important, but i was thinking of 'the way we eat'. an account of the study on vegan diets and co2 emissions that i was referring to can be found here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060414012755.htm cheers, dale ********************** Dale Jamieson Director of Environmental Studies Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy Affiliated Professor of Law New York University http://www.esig.ucar.edu/HP_dale.html Contact information: Steinhardt School, HMSS 246 Greene Street, Suite 300 New York NY 10003-6677 212-998-5429 (voice) 212-995-4832 (fax) "Knowing what we know now, that you could vote against the war and still be elected president, I would never have pretended to support it."--Hilary Clinton parody on Saturday Night Live ----- Original Message ----- From: Maria Ivanova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:45 pm Subject: RE: Vegan and Environmental Impact > Mary, > > > > I want to support Dale's suggestion about Peter Singer's book "Animal > Liberation." I just showed Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth to my Global > Environmental Governance class and asked students to post their > reactions to > the class website. The note below from one of my students goes > right to the > issues you raised. > > > > "I had been meaning to see An Inconvenient Truth for a while, only > puttingit off because I felt like I knew most of what Al Gore would > have to say. I > had assumed, keeping abreast of environmental issues and taking small > measures in my personal life towards less consumption, that I was > well-enough informed. While some of the film's contents did not > surprise me, > it reinforced a sense of urgency and a desire to do more. > > I can relate most to the story Gore told about his family giving up > tobaccofarming stating that (I have to paraphrase), whatever once > served as > justification could no longer do. Recently I took up a vegetarian > diet after > over 20 blissfully ignorant years of eating meat. I read Peter > Singer's"Animal Liberation," a book about animal rights consisting > of utilitarian > arguments for ending the suffering of animals. Immediately I was > captured by > the surprisingly unsentimental and rational arguments for not > eating meat or > accepting other forms of animal suffering. What struck me reading > furtherwere the environmental consequences of heavy meat > consumption. In one scene > of the film, there was a fresh water use chart showing the impact of > agriculture on water consumption. I discovered while reading > Singer's book > that there are gross inefficiencies in meat production (completely > asidefrom the issue of animal suffering) which require significant > amount of > grain, water, land and oil use which could be conserved entirely or > eventually redistributed to poor areas of the world whhere people > barelyhave the necessity of fresh water, let alone the luxury of > well-fed meat. I > do not need to go further in summarizing Singer's work, but I do > recommendthe book highly. > > What does this aside have to do with Al Gore's tobacco story? Reading > "Animal Liberation" was an awakening for me. The book asked > questions I had > tacitly refused to acknowledge and encouraged me to face realities > I was not > entirely aware of. Much like Al Gore's father, what I did before > was no > longer acceptable. For me, the ethical dilemma was not so great > that I could > not abstain from eating meat. This story of mine is only half a > year old, > but now I take pleasure in the small sacrifice of a no-meat diet, > and I feel > healthy besides. It will likely be the first of many similar > conservation-oriented changes I will make in my lifestyle over the > next few > years, because I am surely convinced of Al Gore's point that doing the > ethically right thing can very well be the most profitable in the long > term." > > > > Regards, > > maria > > > > Maria Ivanova > > Assistant Professor of Government and Environmental Policy > > The College of William & Mary > > Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795 > > Phone +1-757-221-2039 > > Mobile +1-203-606-4640 > > Fax +1-757-221-1868 > > Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://mxivan.people.wm.edu > > > > Director, Global Environmental Governance Project > > Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy > > 301 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511 > > http://www.gegdialogue.org > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mary > PettengerSent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:22 AM > To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu > Subject: Vegan and Environmental Impact > > > > Hello - > > I'm seeking sources that discuss the environmental impact of > vegetarianism/vegan in comparison to consumption of meat. A student > recentlyasked about it and I vaguely remember some articles but > cannot find them. > Any help would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks, > > Mary Pettenger > > > > Assistant Professor of Political Science > Model United Nations Advisor > Western Oregon University > 345 N Monmouth Ave > Monmouth OR 97361 > (503)838-8301 (w) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
