OMNI
VEGETARIAN ACTION
NEWSLETTER #24, December 9, 2015.
Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice,
and Ecology.
(#4 Feb. 12, 2014; #5 March 12, 2014; #6
April 9, 2014; #7 May 14, 2014; #8, June 11, 2014; #9 July 9, 2014; #10, August
11, 2014; #11 September 10, 2014; #12 October 8, 2014; #13, November 12, 2014;
#14, December 10, 2014; #15, January 14, 2015; #16, Feb. 11, 2015; #17, March
11, 2015; #18, April 8, 2015; #19, June 10, 2015; #20, August 12, 2015; #21,
September 9, 2015; #22, Oct. 14, 2015).
Thank you Marc.
190331 pageviews - 1543 posts, as of Nov
6, 2015
Veggie and Vegan Potluck
Wed - 6:00 pm @ OMNI
A food-friendly event with delicious dishes every second
Wednesday.. We want to meet you, at a
place and time where you can talk with others not only about recipes,
nutrition, and health, but about the meat industry monopoly, care for other
species, for the environment, and the climate. Hope to see you!
Wednesday, DECEMBER 9, members
of OMNI350 and CCL are invited to
attend our potluck and enjoy vegetarian cuisine and consider our philosophy,
and we are invited to attend their meeting following, which concentrates on the
fee-dividend approach to reducing carbon in our atmosphere. This newsletter especially focuses on the significant connection between
vegetarianism and climate change.
Vegetarian Potluck starts at 6, and CCL at
7. Make a special sign or announcement
if your dish is vegan. If you wish, provide your recipe, or at
least its name and main ingredients.
OMNI’S
Blog
http://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/
Newsletters
http://omnicenter.org/dick-bennetts-peace-justice-and-ecology-newsletters/
index :
http://omnicenter.org/dick-bennetts-peace-justice-and-ecology-newsletters/dicks-newsletter-index/
index :
http://omnicenter.org/dick-bennetts-peace-justice-and-ecology-newsletters/dicks-newsletter-index/
See:
Animal Cruelty, Animal Friendship, Animal Rights, Climate Change, CO2, Critical
Thinking, Direct Violence, Education,
Empathy/Compassion, Ecology, Ethics, Gandhi, Global Warming/Causes,
Health, St. Francis, Structural Violence, Torture, Vegan, Vegetarianism,
Violence, Wars, Water, for starters.
CONTENTS: OMNI VEGETARIAN ACTION POTLUCK DECEMBER 9
Nutrition,
Health
Eggland’s
Advertising Claims
Animal
Rights, Compassion for Animals
The
Meatrix
Meat Eating
Accelerates Climate Change
Chatham
House,
Carrinton,
Reduce Meat Consumption to Prevent 2 Degrees
Centigrade
Centigrade
Maisto,
Less Meat Our Best Chance to Avert Disastrous Climate
Change
Change
McKnight,
Vegetarianism the Real Defense against Climate Change
Anderson,
If Everyone Became Vegetarian
Population
Growth Accelerates Climate Change
OMNI’s
Overpopulation Newsletter
Population
Action International, Mogelgaard
Hymas
Interviews Ehlers, Pres. of Population Action International
Joanna,
Report on Condoms and Carbon Footprint of Having Kids
NUTRITION, HEALTH
EGGLAND’S
ADVERTISING CLAIMS, Google Search, Nov. 16, 2015
Eggland’s
Claims: Fresh Eggs |
Eggland's Best Better Farm-Fresh Eggs www.egglandsbest.com/ Eggland's Best
Eggland's Best is one of
the leading distributors of fresh eggs. Our USDA- approved farm-fresh eggs
deliver an overall better taste and superior nutrition.
Eggland's Best
Cholesterol Claims Called Deceptive ...
https://www.ftc.gov/.../egglands-best-cholester...
Federal Trade Commission
Mar 13, 1996 - At issue are claims regarding the
effect of Eggland's eggs on blood ...And second, the case tells other advertisers making
health claims that
we ...
www.casewatch.org/ftc/news/1994/egglands-best.shtml
Aug 27, 2006 - The FTC complaint, which details the
charges, cites several statements found in Eggland's national print
and broadcast advertisements.
www.washingtonpost.com/.../egglands...advertising.../...
The Washington Post
Mar 14, 1996 - Eggland's Best Inc., a Pennsylvania producer of specialty eggs sold
...has settled charges that it made false advertising claims, including
that ...
www.prwatch.org/.../egg-lands-worst
Center for Media and Democracy
Jun 21, 2010 - Egg Land's Worst. By Anne Landman on ... Rose Acre also claims that their
chickens are "comfortable." In reality ... False advertising? Unreal.
adage.com/article/media/j-j-eggland...ads.../300438/
Advertising Age
Sep 18, 2015 - Johnson & Johnson
and Eggland's Best
have pulled advertising from ABC's "The View" after controversial
comments by host Joy Behar about ...
www.newsday.com/.../johnson-johnson-eggland-s-best-pull-ads...
Newsday
Sep 17, 2015 - Two large corporations
have pulled their advertising from the "The View" after an uproar over remarks
on the daytime talk show that poked fun ...
www.tmz.com/.../the-view-advertisers-nurse-johnson-and-johnson-...
TMZ
Sep 17, 2015 - Johnson & Johnson
and Eggland's Best
are pulling ads from the ABC show. EB seems ..... Leah Remini's
Surprising Claims About Suri Cruise.
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1317461363
Roxanne Hovland,
Joyce M. Wolburg,
Eric E. Haley -
2014 - Business & Economics
Alpo had challenged superiority, exclusivity, and health claims. ... Paper
Tiger Litmus Test: FTC Gets Eggland's, its First NARB Case, Advertising Age 2, 2 (Dec.
articles.dailypress.com › Collections ›
Low-fat Diet
Feb 1, 1993 - The issue centers
around one company's claim. ... market 18 months ago, because its advertising campaign
suggested Eggland eggs are lower ...
PROTECTING ANIMALS, ANIMAL RIGHTS
·
CONTACT
Do you want to learn the truth about factory farming? Watch the
new, updated and remastered edition of The Mea
MEAT PROPELS
CLIMATE CHANGE
PBS Newshour,
Dec. 1, “Carbon Hoofprint.”
The program
opens by indicting carnivorism as a major cause of CO2/Warming/Climate Change,
but most of the program presents a debate between two beef ranchers, one
promoting “humane” feed lots, the other free range meat, the conclusion of
which seemed to be draw, and anyway none of which was relevant to the
catastrophe that is meat-eating.. Dick
HomeResearchChanging Climate, Changing Diets:
Pathways to Lower Meat Consumption
Changing
Climate, Changing Diets: Pathways to Lower Meat Consumption
24 November 2015
Research Associate, Energy,
Environment and Resources
Senior Research Fellow, Energy,
Environment and Resources
AUTHOR:
Catherine
Happer, Lecturer in Sociology, University of Glasgow
Reducing global meat
consumption will be critical to keeping global warming below the ‘danger level’
of two degrees Celsius, the main goal of the upcoming climate negotiations
in Paris. Grand Central Market in Los Angeles,
California, October 2015. Photo: Getty Images.ttitudes and
The problem
§ Our appetite for meat is a major driver of
climate change. Reducing global meat consumption will be critical to keeping
global warming below the ‘danger level’ of two degrees Celsius. The livestock sector accounts for
15 per cent of global emissions, equivalent to exhaust emissions from all the
vehicles in the world. A shift to healthier patterns of meat-eating could bring
a quarter of the emissions reductions we need to keep on track for a two-degree
world.
§ Global meat consumption has already reached
unhealthy levels, and is on the rise. In
industrialized countries, the average person is already eating twice as much
meat as is deemed healthy by experts. Overconsumption is already contributing
to the rise of obesity and non-communicable diseases like cancer and type-2
diabetes, and it is a growing problem: global meat consumption is set to rise
by over 75 per cent by 2050.
§ Governments are missing a key opportunity for
climate mitigation, trapped in a cycle of inertia. In spite of a compelling case for
addressing meat consumption and shifting diets, governments fear the
repercussions of intervention, while low public awareness means they feel
little pressure to intervene.
Key findings
§ Public awareness of the link between diet and
climate change is very low. There
is a considerable awareness gap around the links between livestock, diet and
climate change. While awareness-raising alone will not be sufficient to effect
dietary change, it will be crucial to ensuring the efficacy of the range of
government policy interventions required.
§ Governments must lead. Our research found a general
belief across cultures and continents that it is the role of government to
spearhead efforts to address unsustainable consumption of meat. Governments
overestimate the risk of public backlash and their inaction signals to publics
that the issue is unimportant or undeserving of concern.
§ The issue is complex but the message must be
simple. Publics respond
best to simple messages. Efforts must be made to develop meaningful, accessible
and impactful messaging around the need for dietary change. The overall message
remains clear: globally we should eat less meat.
§ Trusted sources are key to raising awareness. Unless disseminated and supported
by trusted sources, new information that encourages shifts in meat-eating
habits is likely to be met with resistance. Trust in governments varies
considerably between countries, but experts are consistently seen as the most
reliable source of information within a country.
Recommendations
§ Build the case for government intervention. A compelling evidence base which
resonates with existing policy objectives such as managing healthcare costs,
reducing emissions and implementing international frameworks will help mobilize
policy-makers.
§ Initiate national debates about meat
consumption. Increasing
public awareness about the problems of overconsumption of animal products can
help disrupt the cycle of inertia, thereby creating more enabling domestic
circumstances and the political space for policy intervention. This is a role
for governments, the media, the scientific community, civil society and
responsible business.
§ Pursue comprehensive approaches. Shifting diets will require
comprehensive strategies, which together will amount to more than the sum of
their parts by sending a powerful signal to consumers that reducing meat
consumption is beneficial and that government takes the issue seriously.
EXPERT
COMMENT
It’s Time
to Put Meat on the Climate Negotiating Table
RESEARCH
PAPER
Livestock
– Climate Change’s Forgotten Sector: Global Public Opinion on Meat and Dairy
Consumption
- See
more at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/changing-climate-changing-diets#sthash.TYYvxNQe.dpuf
Eating less meat essential to
curb climate change, says report
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/03/eating-less-meat-curb-climate-change
Global
livestock industry produces more greenhouse gas emissions than transport but
fear of a consumer backlash is preventing action, says Chatham House report
Dietary change is essential if global warming is
not to exceed 2C, says report. By Damian Carrington. Tuesday 2 December 2014 19.02.
Curbing the
world’s huge and increasing appetite for meat is essential to avoid devastating
climate change,
according to a new report. But governments and green campaigners are doing
nothing to tackle the issue due to fears of a consumer backlash, warns the analysis from the thinktank Chatham House.
The global livestock industry produces more greenhouse gas
emissions than all cars, planes, trains and ships combined, but a worldwide
survey by Ipsos MORI in the report finds twice as many people think transport
is the bigger contributor to global warming.
“Preventing catastrophic warming is dependent on tackling meat
and dairy consumption, but the world is doing very little,” said Rob Bailey,
the report’s lead author. “A lot is being done on deforestation and transport,
but there is a huge gap on the livestock sector. There is a deep reluctance to
engage because of the received wisdom that it is not the place of governments
or civil society to intrude into people’s lives and tell them what to eat.”
The recent landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change found
that dietary change can “substantially lower” emissions but there is no UN plan
to achieve that.
Past calls to cut meat eating by high-profile figures, from the chief of the UN’s climate science panel to the economist Lord Stern, have been both rare
and controversial. Other scientists have proposed a meat tax to curb consumption,
but the report concludes that keeping meat eating to levels recommended by
health authorities would not only lower emissions but also reduce heart disease
and cancer. “The research does not show everyone has to be a vegetarian to
limit warming to 2C, the stated objective of the world’s governments,” said
Bailey.
The report builds on recent scientific studies which show that
soaring meat demand in China and elsewhere could tip the world’s climate into
chaos. Emissions from livestock, largely from burping cows and sheep and their
manure, currently make up almost 15% of global emissions. Beef and dairy alone
make up 65% of all livestock emissions.
Appetite for meat is rocketing as the global population swells
and becomes more able to afford meat. Meat consumption is on track to rise 75%
by 2050, and dairy 65%, compared with 40% for cereals. By 2020, China alone is
expected to be eating 20m tonnes more of meat and dairy a year.
Two recent peer-reviewed studies calculated that, without severe cuts
in this trend, agricultural emissions will take up the entire world’s carbon
budget by 2050, with livestock a major contributor. This would mean every other
sector, including energy, industry and transport, would have to be zero carbon,
which is described as “impossible”. The Chatham House report concludes:
“Dietary change is essential if global warming is not to exceed 2C.”
The consumer survey in the report, covering 12 nations including
the US, China, India, Brazil and the EU bloc, found a link between the
awareness of climate change and its impacts and the willingness to change
behaviour. Acceptance that human activities cause climate change was
significantly higher in China, India and Brazil than in the US, UK and Japan.
The good news, said Bailey, was that “the majority of future
demand appears to be in the countries [like China and Brazil] that are the most
receptive to change”. He said it was “pretty disappointing” that in developed
countries, where meat and dairy eating is highest, awareness of livestock’s
impact on the climate is low and willingness to change is low.
Brigitte Alarcon, sustainable food policy officer at WWF said:
“Our LiveWell project has shown we can cut a quarter of our climate emissions
from the European food supply chain by eating more pulses, fruit and vegetables
and by reducing our meat consumption. National governments should improve food
education to encourage healthy eating habits and environmental sustainability
as a first step.”
A spokesman for the UK government said: “Greenhouse gas
emissions from the UK agricultural industry have fallen by more than 20% since
1990. While food choices can have an impact on emissions, well managed
livestock also provide many environmental benefits including supporting
biodiversity.”
A separate survey by the Eating Better alliance,
also published on Wednesday, shows that UK consumers are beginning to eat less
meat. The YouGov poll found 20% saying they have cut the amount of meat they
eat over the last year, with only 5% say they are eating more.
Prof Keith Richards, at the University of Cambridge and one of
the researchers behind the two key scientific studies, said: “This is not a
radical vegetarian argument; it is an argument about eating meat in sensible
amounts as part of healthy, balanced diets.”
Eating Less Meat Is World's Best Chance For Timely Climate Change, Say
Experts
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michellemaisto/2012/04/28/eating-less-meat-is-worlds-best-chance-for-timely-climate-change-say-experts/
Stuffed
eggplant is a healthy, inexpensive, meatless entrée option.
Shifting the world’s reliance
on fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is important, certainly. But the
world’s best chance for achieving timely, disaster-averting climate change may
actually be a vegetarian diet eating less meat, according to a recent report in World Watch Magazine. (While I’d happily nudge the world toward a vegetarian diet, the
report authors are more measured and simply suggest diets containing less
meat.)
“The
entire goal of today’s international climate objectives can be achieved by
replacing just one-fourth of today’s least eco-friendly food products with
better alternatives,” co-author Robert Goodland, a former World Bank Group
environmental advisor wrote in an April 18 blog post on the report.
A
widely cited 2006 report estimated that 18% of worldwide greenhouse gas
emissions were attributable to cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, pigs and
poultry. However, analysis performed by Goodland, with co-writer Jeff Anhang,
an environmental specialist at the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation, found that figure
to now more accurately be 51%.
Consequently, state the pair,
replacing livestock products with meat alternatives would “have far more rapid
effects on greenhouse gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations — and
thus on the rate the climate is warming — than actions to replace fossil
fuels with renewable energy.”
The pair describe several areas
related to anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gases that have been
overlooked or underestimated. For example, livestock breathing. They explain:
[L]ivestock
(like automobiles) are a human invention and convenience, not part of pre-human
times, and a molecule of CO2 exhaled by livestock is no more
natural than one from an auto tailpipe. Moreover, while over time an
equilibrium of CO2may
exist between the amount respired by animals and the amount photosynthesized by
plants, that equilibrium has never been static. Today, tens of billions more
livestock are exhaling CO2 than in preindustrial days,
while Earth’s photosynthetic capacity (its capacity to keep carbon out of the
atmosphere by absorbing it in plant mass) has declined sharply as forest has
been cleared. (Meanwhile, of course, we add more carbon to the air by burning
fossil fuels, further overwhelming the carbon-absorption system.)
The human population is
expected to grow by 35% between 2006 and 2050, while livestock numbers are
expected to double during the same period.
“This would make the amount of
livestock-related emissions even more unacceptable than today’s perilous
levels,” states the report. “It also means that an effective strategy must
involved replacing livestock products with better alternatives, rather than
substituting one meat product with another that has a somewhat lower carbon
footprint.”
Food companies, Goodland and
Anhang believe, have at least three incentives to respond to current risks in
their industry. The first is that companies already suffer from disruptive
climate events — floods, hurricanes, etc. — and so it’s in their best interests
to not worsen the situation.
Second, they expect the demand
for oil to rise to point of collapsing “many parts of today’s economy.” One way
in which this will be particularly troublesome for livestock producers will be
that crops grown for feed will be refocused on biofuel sources.
A third incentive is to offer
“alternatives to livestock products that taste similar but are easier to cook,
less expensive and healthier, and so are better than livestock products.”
Sales of just soy “analogs,” or
alternatives to livestock products — such as ice cream, milk and cheese —
totaled $1.9 billion in 2007. That same year, sales of U.S. meat and poultry
products totaled $100 billion — which they optimistically suggest means there’s
much room for growth.
“Worldwide, the market for meat
and dairy analogs is potentially almost as big as the market for livestock
products,” they write.
Still further motivation,
they note: “Meat and dairy analog projects will not only slow climate change
but also help ease the global food crisis, as it takes a much smaller quantity
of crops to produce any given number of calories in the form of an analog than
a livestock product.”
Plus, meat
alternatives would help to alleviate the global water crisis, since
livestock production uses a tremendous amount of water; it could have health
and nutritional benefits; and, given that meat alternatives are more labor
intensive, they would create both more jobs and more skilled jobs — while
workers in the livestock industry could be retrained for jobs in
meat-alternative industries.
“The case for change is no
longer only a public policy or an ethical case, but is now also a business
case,” write Goodland and Anhang. “We believe it is the best available business
case among all industries to reverse climate change quickly.”
Want to have a real impact on climate change? Then become a vegetarian
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/04/climate-change-impact-vegetarian
Millennials who care about the environment should put their money
where their mouths are and stop eating meat
These cows don’t know that they’re destroying
the environment. But they’re cows. What’s your excuse?
Monday
4 August 2014 06.45 EDTLast modified on Wednesday 20
August 201416.50 EDT
Between widespread economic
disparities, population growth, unsustainable agriculture and climate change, a
study partially funded by Nasa predicted that civilization as we know it could
be steadily heading for a collapse within the next century – and the
window to create impactful change is narrowing. That means millennials are
potentially the last generation during which creating meaningful change is
possible. But how do we accomplish this?
It’s time to start a dietary
revolution.
Millennials represent $200bn in economic worth, and if a statistical
majority of our generation become vegetarians or vegans, or at least eat
significantly less meat than previous generations, we have a chance to have a
real economic – and thus environmental – impact.
In 2012, there were roughly 70bn animals raised as livestock for 7.1bn people. And a study published in July by the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences shows that livestock production is among the most
destructive forces driving climate change: it degrades air quality, pollutes
waterways, and is the single-largest use of land.
Precisely how much livestock contributes to climate change
remains up for debate: studies show numbers ranging from 18% (a 2006 UN food report) to 51% (a 2009 World Watch study). Most other studies
fall somewhere in that range but, in each of them, the advice is the same:
humans need to eat less meat to curb climate change and resource scarcity.
Raising animals to eat produces more greenhouse gasses (via methane and nitrous oxide) than
all of the carbon dioxide excreted by automobiles, boats, planes and trains in
the world combined. Over a 20-year period, methane has 86 times more climate
change potential than carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide has 268 times more
climate change potential, according to the 2006 UN report. Radically reducing
the amount of methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere can produce discernable
changes in the greenhouse gas effect within decades, while the same reductions
in carbon dioxide take nearly a century.
Yes, quitting meat can reduce your carbon footprint
significantly more than quitting driving.
Besides the methane and nitrous oxide released during livestock
production, industrialized livestock contributes to roughly 75% of deforestation (to give animals grazing grounds and
grow soybeans used in feedstock).
Raising cows, of course, has the biggest environmental impact.
There are roughly 1.5bn cows raised as livestock, and they consume 45bn gallons
of water and 135bn pounds of food every day,according to the documentary Cowspiracy.
Comparatively, 7.1bn humansconsume roughly 5.2bn gallons of water and 21bn pounds of food
daily. To put this in digestible terms, producing the meat for a
one-third pound hamburger patty as much as 18,000
gallons of water depending
on the farming method, according to the US government.
In comparison to chickens and pigs, cows require 28 times more
land, 11 times more water and cause five times more greenhouse gasses, according to a study led by Gidon Eshel of Bard College.
Looking at foods commonly found in vegetarian and vegan diets, like potatoes,
rice and wheat, his report finds that, per calorie of beef, cows
require 160 times more land and produce 11 times more greenhouse gases.
The resources needed – and sacrificed – to raise livestock is
ridiculous; we simply need to stop breeding so many animals for slaughter. You
can take all kinds of other small steps to reduce your environmental footprint:
commuting to work by biking or walking, monitoring
electricity usage by
installing energy-efficient appliances, using less
water via low-flow
faucets and toilets, buying fromenvironmentally-conscious
companies - but
researchers argue that none of that on its own will be enough to reverse
climate change. If you really want to make a difference, then look at what’s on
your plate.
As Albert Einstein said, “Nothing will benefit human health and
increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to
a vegetarian diet.” If you’re not willing to go vegetarian or vegan, even just
significantly reducing the amount of meat in your diet can have an impact: for
instance, instead of adhering to “meatless Mondays”, make it “meaty Mondays”,
when Monday is the only day that you eat even a small portion of meat.
Putting this off for another generation – the way our parents
have – just isn’t feasible. Millennials have the opportunity to use our
economic power and personal choices to effect real change, and it’s our
responsibility to do so.
Besides, if we don’t stop and reverse climate change, all we’ll
have left to eat – if we’re lucky – is fish. Whoops – looks like we’re running out of fish, too.
OneWorld TV:
Family Planning - The 'All in One' Development Solution OneWorld.net: Latest News, Groups
Working on Population and
Climate Change
POPULATION, WOMEN’S RIGHTS, FAMILY PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT
MOVEMENT, CLIMATE CHANGE
Women’s rights are the right way
to approach the population issue 30
by Lisa Hymas 9 Jun 2010 4:59 AM
Read More About
Suzanne Ehlers,
president of Population Action International.Suzanne Ehlers, the new
36-year-old president of Population
Action International, likes to talk about "the magic of family
planning." If you give women around the world contraceptive tools
and information, they'll limit the size of their families of their own free
choice, and that makes their families healthier, wealthier, and better able to
thrive in a climate-changed world.
PAI, a Washington, D.C.-based research and advocacy group, focuses on a
"voluntary and rights-based" approach to family planning, as Ehlers
describes it. I talked to her recently to find out how the population
movement intersects with the broader environmental movement and the fight against
climate change.
-----
Q. Population is a touchy and
misunderstood topic. What message do you most want to get out to people on this
issue?
A. I consider PAI's bread-and-butter
issues to be family planning and reproductive health first and foremost, and
then population. I believe that it's a totally mainstream issue, and that
it has way more support than anyone gives it credit for. We're trying to help
women overseas determine their own paths and journeys -- with partners if they
have one, and with children if they choose to bear them. Not using
"choice" because it's such a charged word, but just giving people
options and autonomy.
Q. So conservatives are more open
to this message than some might think?
A. Yeah, we do find that --
particularly to the family-planning agenda. If conservatives' core
mission is to prevent abortion or reduce the need for abortion, the way to do
that is to reduce unintended pregnancies, and the way to do that is by
offering access to reproductive-health services and family planning. The core
message of prevention and education -- that's a mainstream issue right there.
Q. It would be hard for a sane person
to argue against women or couples having the tools and freedom to determine the
size of their families. But if we're looking at a rising population and
worrisome resource-consumption trends, is that enough? Is there a need to
spread the word, of course not in a coercive way, about the potential benefits
of smaller families, whether from an environmental standpoint or maybe a
personal standpoint?
A. I'm glad to see that conversation is
alive and well in a lot of politically diverse ways. It's not where PAI plays
its strategic hand. There are 215 million women
[PDF] out there who say they want access to family planning and basic
contraception and don't have it. So let's work to meet their needs. I really
trust women to take care of it themselves. You find that in [developing]
countries when you give people access to education and services, they achieve
kind of the same thing that you've just described. They do tend to have smaller
families, they do want to see all of their children go through school, they do
absolutely put a priority on girls' education, and the woman in the family does
often return to work and engage in the professional sphere. It's the magic of
family planning. We in the West take for granted these options and this
autonomy, and we forget all that flows out of it.
I think of myself. I'm 36 and I'm nine-and-a-half-months pregnant with my
second child; I obviously delayed childbearing. If I had started having kids
when I became sexually active in my late teens and early twenties, God knows
how many children I would have by now. I certainly wouldn't have the career that
I have. I was able to delay childbearing until I was in a partnership that I
felt well-supported in and we decided together that this was something that we
wanted to pursue, as opposed to this kind of reproductive destiny that many
women around the world feel beholden to. The only reason I enjoy [parenthood]
as much as I do is because it was totally my choice -- a choice I was ready
for, a choice I could afford, a choice that I had a partner with whom I could
pursue it. It has certainly enhanced my life in untold ways, but it's not
singularly what I'm about, and it's not singularly what most women in the world
want to be about.
So when people ask me, "How did you get where you got? Good mentor?
Maybe you went to Cornell?" I'm like, "All that's fine, but I had the
Pill. I didn't have kids when I was 19." Having my first child absolutely
convinced me that the work I do is the mission I'm dedicated to for the rest of
my life.
Q. Do you feel like the population
movement is part of the broader environmental movement?
A. I guess that depends on how you
slice it. Do we have incredibly supportive and positive partners within the
broader mainstream environmental movement? Absolutely. A lot of groups who get
it, a lot of groups who have dedicated part-time or full-time staff positions
to interfacing and liaising with our reproductive-health community because the
issues are so intertwined.
Q. What groups do you collaborate
with?
A. The Sierra Club, Audubon, Izaak Walton
League, Natural Resources Defense Council,
World
Wildlife Fund, and Conservation
International in the past -- some really great groups who have sent staff
on a regular basis to monthly meetings of the International
Family Planning Coalition, an umbrella group that PAI hosts. I don't think
that we're the top priority of any environmental group, nor probably should we
be, given that we have our own movement.
There are some groups who are much more comfortable taking on a pure
population-growth argument, and then there are those who are very clear about a
rights agenda and are interested in justice from an environmental lens, so as a
piece of that, they are interested in justice from a women's-health lens.
It's fun when you have those synergies, where you're both really out for
protecting the world's most marginalized, and somebody's coming at it from a
sustainable-forestry perspective, and you're coming at it from a basic
reproductive-health-supplies perspective, and you've got such a broad area of
overlap -- I think that's the some of the best work of the movement when that
happens.
Q. How would you describe the link
between population growth and climate change?
A. I think the most important way that
we've pursued in recent years has been on the adaptation side of climate
change. We're seeing huge environmental devastation, and it typically
hits hardest those who are most vulnerable and least able to adapt to change,
which are the poor and most often women and their families. I go back to the
215 million with unmet need. If you give people access to the services they have
said they already desire, you make their families healthier, you therefore make
their families wealthier, you make them better able to adapt to the impacts of
climate change, they're more resilient, they're less vulnerable.
The more complicated side of the two issues' intersection is
mitigation. People, including PAI, have been doing new modeling around
population growth and climate-change mitigation, and I think it's a very
important area of inquiry. I just think we have much lower-hanging fruit on the
adaptation side of the equation that we haven't fully taken advantage of yet.
Q. That's
interesting. I would assume that what you would talk about most is that if you
give women the power to control their own fertility, many of them will have
fewer children and you would have fewer people contributing to the climate
problem.
A. Where the science is sort of
lacking right now, and what we're hoping to contribute to, is how much of an
impact that will really make overall in climate-change mitigation efforts. I
don't disagree that if you meet the need that those 215 million women say they
have, that that would result in perhaps an overall slowing. You have to think
of population growth and demographics as a fast-moving machine with a lot of
momentum. It takes some time for us globally to start to experience a slowdown,
or different kinds of projections of where population growth might head.
Q. You called for U.N.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to seriously
consider appointing a woman as the new head of the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate Change, and he did. What kind of new perspective do you
hope that Christiana
Figueres might bring to the job?
A. I think the fact that she hails
from the global South is great, I think it's an important perspective.
[Figueres is from Costa Rica
Q. It's looking
highly unlikely that we will get a real climate treaty out of the next big U.N.
climate meeting in Cancun in December. But
what would you want out of one, in relation to family planning and women's
rights, or what still might be achievable without a treaty?
A. This may sound relatively simplistic
and fundamental, and it is: We want to get more attention paid to the issues of
population and family planning within the larger debate, and an appreciation
for what I would consider to be cost-effective intervention on behalf of
women's health. Openness wherever mechanisms are developed or created, or a
mandate for how some of the new financing will be made available. I hope I'm
not setting the bar too low for us, but I know what a complicated process the
UNFCCC is. I saw what happened in Copenhagen
POPULATION CONTROL,
CONTRACEPTION, REDUCING WARMING
I really appreciate the content and
tone of this article so I am sharing it with all of you. http://www.alternet.org/story/142709/can_condoms_save_us_from_climate_change
Joanna.
Can Condoms Save Us from Climate Change?
The greenest technology available to us may not be solar panels,
but instead contraception, according to a new report.
September 19, 2009 |
What's
the greenest technology we have? It may not be electric cars or solar panels
but actually good old fashioned contraception.
According
to a new report from the London School of Economics and commissioned by Optimum
Population Trust (OPT), using contraception to fight climate change saves
nearly five times as much money as your typical low-carbon technology. Carbon
credits for condoms, anyone?
Quite
logically, fewer children means less carbon emissions (and less strain on
diminishing natural resources). Environmentalists concerned with population
growth have been saying as much for decades (or centuries if you go back to Thomas Malthus).
But the report, "Fewer Emitters,
Lower Emissions, Less Cost," breaks down the numbers.
The study
looks at what would happen if all the "unmet need" for family
planning was addressed. "Unmet need" is defined as women who want
access to contraception but don't currently have it.
"One
recent estimate put this figure at 200 million," OPT reported. "U.N.
data suggests that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce
unintended births by 72 percent, reducing projected world population in 2050 by
half a billion, to 8.64 billion. Between 2010 and 2050, 12 billion fewer
'people-years' would be lived -- 326 billion against 338 billion under current
projections."
If this
doesn't sound like a lot -- here's how it actually breaks down by carbon
dioxide and dollars:
"The
34 gigatons of CO2 saved in this way would cost $220 billion -- roughly $7 a
ton. However, the same CO2 savings would cost over $1 trillion if low-carbon
technologies were used," OPT wrote. "The $7 cost of abating a ton of
CO2 using family planning compares with $24 for wind power, $51 for solar,
$57-$83 for coal plants with carbon capture and storage, $92 for plug-in hybrid
vehicles and $131 for electric vehicles." That's a heck of a lot of
savings.
And the
carbon and cost savings could be even greater. "Unmet need" considers
only couples who are married, but the United Nations Population Fund points out
that, "community studies suggest that between 10 and 40 percent of young,
unmarried women have experienced unwanted pregnancy," so, if family
planning services are able to reach those populations, we're in even better
shape.
Should We
Put a Cap on Kids?
The study
has been causing quite a stir, especially by people who missed the main point
(not that we should put a cap on kids, but that we should provide family
planning to people who want it), but it's also not the first to look at the carbon footprint of having kids.
In the
journal article "Reproduction and
the Carbon Legacies of Individuals," Paul A. Murtaugh and
Michael G. Schlax of Oregon
State University
While
population growth is obviously a key component of projections of carbon
emissions at a global level, there has been relatively little emphasis on the
environmental consequences of the reproductive choices of an individual person.
Obviously, the choice to reproduce contributes to future environmental impacts.
There are the immediate effects caused by each offspring over his or her
lifetime, but should the offspring reproduce, additional impacts could
potentially accrue over many future generations.
OMNI’S Place in
a Unified Theory of Resistance to Climate Change
During the early decades of the
twentieth century much progress was made in understanding the nature of the
universe. By the time Einstein was a
young man, physicists understood the nature of mass and of energy, but the
relationship between the two was not understood. Einstein solved the problem by his
equation: E = MC2.
The conditions of climate change, its
causes and cures, are similarly nearing
full understanding. Lester Brown in Chapter
13, “Saving Civilization,” in World on
the Edge, for example, offered an early comprehensive model he called “Plan
B.” His “basic social goals” are
stabilizing population and eradicating poverty; his “earth restoration goals”
include planting trees and protecting topsoil.
He would pay for his plan by reducing the military budget and
transferring the money to saving civilization.
We in OMNI should be asking: How do our
activities relate to these goals and cohere in ways that contribute to helping
the world cope with the increasing C02 and temperature and their consequences?
Most obvious are five related OMNI activities
that resist rising C02 and warming temperature:
1. Support for Climate Change Lobby’s carbon
fee-dividend campaign.
2. Annual Earth
Day and related environmental events during the year.
3. Numerous
activities and newsletters against US militarism and imperialism. E.g., OMNI’s National/International DAYS
Project to replace militarist celebrations with peace and justice.
4. Vegetarian Potluck and Vegetarian Action Newsletter in
opposition to meat production and consumption.
5. Population
stabilization cooperation with national and international organizations—Planned
Parenthood, Population Connection--working to slow then stop population
growth.
Contents Vegetarian Action #23, November, 2015
The Food Industry
Meat Industry Monopoly versus Health, Compassion, and Climate
Nutrition, Health
Senn, Vegetables and Protein
Vegetables and Protein Google Search
Center
for Biological Diversity: Restaurants
UN
World Food Day, World Hunger, and US Food Waste: Connections with Vegetarianism
Dangers of
Meat: PBS, Frontline, “Hunting the Nightmare
Bacteria” (Oct. 22, 2013). http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hunting-the-nightmare-bacteria/
Animal Rights, Protection,
Compassion
Veganism
Google Search
VegNews
See
OMNI Newsletters: MARCH 26, 2011,
ANIMAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTION, HUMAN WAR AGAINST ANIMALS, NEWSLETTER #1;
NO KILLMovement, http://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/2015/10/no-kill-perspective.html
Global Warming, Climate
Change
Change
the Unsustainable Food Pyramid
No comments:
Post a Comment