Spiritual/Temporal concens and questions about veganism.

October 12, 2009 11:47 AM

How does one reconcile vegan principles with environmental concerns?

A number of vegan friends (some of them are actually Jains) lead wholly vegan lifestyles to the best of their abilities. This means in addition to dietary restrictions: no leather or suede, no silk, etc.

Not being a vegan or vegetarian myself, I am curious about something that runs through my head and I want to wrestle with a bit:

If one is avoiding all animal products, they will probably be using man-made products. Vinyl instead of leather, polyester or rayon instead of silk, and so on. I am thinking functionally, perhaps not ideally.

It seems to me that these choices are more demanding and detrimental to the environment and to humanity in the long run because of the industrial process and carbon footprint that goes along with their manufacture.

I also wrestle with the environmental impact as it relates to the distant future - My leather soled dress shoes if left on a hill-top will be dirt in 100 years. My vinyl dress shoes with a rubber sole will not.

I know that living naturally is possible with hemp, bamboo, cotton, ramie, and so on, but I am also trying to think about functionally living in urban areas and what is available (for example: bamboo fabrics are expensive as yardage and it seems a poor vegan would be more likely to buy a few yards of poly knit for $2 a yard than bamboo for $15)

So here is my question - does anyone have any links or references to this? I am not looking for the meat packing industry's position paper on why vegans need to be force fed Black Angus, nor am I looking for a vegan paper that declaims the plight of factory farms.

I want something broader and more scientific or thought out. I am curious, but not looking for points to argue to convert folks one way or the other.

Personally, my own outlook is that one should not abuse their position on the food chain or place in the world, but rather take care of it by living well. For me this means that I do not gorge on meat, never allow plastics in my life if I can help it, recycle what I can, buy used if I can find the same thing or better, and in general try to be thoughtful about my own place while balancing out what the future impact is on humanity and the earth.

I also understand that I may be incredibly biased in the way I have framed the question in my own mind. It just keeps popping up as I go through the thought process.

What I am not looking for: Fun-making of vegans or vegetarians or anti-meat rants. I know I probably don't need to say that here, but I usually avoid talking about this because people feel so strongly one way or the other. Vegans (and especially Jains) get 100% respect from me because of the discipline and effort their lives take.

I am sincerely trying to figure out what information is out there from an environmental living-with-the-earth perspective. Is this something that vegans think about but decide the spiritual payoff is worth the cost of the process? Is this something I am off the mark about?

Thoughts? References? I need to educate myself about this so I know what compromises I am willing/need to make for my own life.

posted by Tchad to Religion & Philosophy (21 answers total)

I don't have any figures handy, but I've read several places that the environmental impact of raising cattle is equal to or perhaps greater than that of automobiles. I don't know how to answer the question of biodegradability but I really think the environmental benefits of having less cattle on earth far outweigh that.
posted by downing street memo at 11:51 AM on October 12, 2009

It seems to me that these choices are more demanding and detrimental to the environment and to humanity in the long run because of the industrial process and carbon footprint that goes along with their manufacture.

Do you have any evidence for this opinion? My understanding is that the raising and killing of industrial animals is the single most environmentally destructive process currently occurring on earth. I'd be interested to see any evidence that giving up meat, regardless of what you replace it with, is more taxing to the environment than the raising of animals for human consumption.
posted by decathecting at 11:51 AM on October 12, 2009 [2 favorites]

We can't all be No Impact Man. Living like that is incredibly stressful and difficult in today's modern world. When I was vegan I got a lot of people challenging me with WHAT ABOUT THE CARROTS DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THE POOR CARROTS and WHAT IF YOU STEP ON A BUG and listen, it's not about completely eliminating your environmental impact on the world, it's about reducing it. And yes, it doesn't make a huge difference but if everyone reduced their impact a little, the world would be better off for it.

I think a lot of us make compromises. I do this everyday. No, I can't afford to buy all organic, but I'm not eating meat. Yes, I ride the train and the bus, but I don't own a car.

It's not an all or nothing approach. Every little bit helps.
posted by Juliet Banana at 12:06 PM on October 12, 2009 [11 favorites]

Response by poster: No, decathecting, sadly I don't. That is why I asked. I was raised rurally around small cattle farms and so my sense of it is very pastoral. I am really wrestling with this and trying to read what I can, but so much of the information seems biased one way or the other and a lot of it is hyperbolic.

In my sense of it, the entire cow is biodegradable and natural and the manufacture of man-made fibers isn't. But, like I wrote, I am not sure that my sense of it is correct and would like information about it. I am completely open to being wrong.
posted by Tchad at 12:06 PM on October 12, 2009

My leather soled dress shoes if left on a hill-top will be dirt in 100 years. My vinyl dress shoes with a rubber sole will not.

Rubber comes from trees.
posted by contessa at 12:11 PM on October 12, 2009

The environmental effect of raising cattle varies significantly depending on where they are raised. For example, it's common in the US for cattle to be corn-fed for a significant portion of their lives, and this requires all the resources associated with growing, harvesting and transporting the corn. In other parts of the world, cattle are entirely grass-fed on hillsides which would otherwise not be used, and so have a far small environmental footprint. So a lot depends on where you source your meat and meat by-products.

There are also arguments about economies of scale. Large-scale industrial processes often produce, in balance, less pollution per amount of product than the equivalent local, small-scale processes. Issues of environmental impact are often incredibly complex when you delve into the details, and can sometimes lead to counter-intuitive conclusions.

And veganism, like most lifestyle choices, comes in flavours. For some people it's about 'Mother Earth' or other spiritual beliefs. For some it's a moral decision. For others it's purely about the environment, or about physical health, or is an exercise in self-discipline. Your agenda as a vegan will almost certainly hinge on your reasons for becoming one.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 12:12 PM on October 12, 2009

As far as I understand it, while the production of synthetic vegan materials can be environmentally detrimental, if the environmentally-unsound aspects are weighed against the same aspects of meat and animal-related production, the synthetics production comes out slightly better. That is, vegan shoes are less harmful in an environmental context than the production of animal meat and other animal products. Sorry, can't help with actual statistics.

Also, regarding the biodegradability of synthetic vegan materials, I've heard very adamant arguments that vegan production is relatively easy to recycle and reuse. For example, the fabric on the single pair of vegan shoes I own could be melted and reused as could the soles, but those soles could also be ground up and used for potting or other such uses.

Vegan or not, the production of plastic is pretty environmentally harmful and I don't see a lot of people giving that up as you have tried to do.

That said, I was a vegan for a few years and am now a vegetarian that tends to stay away from dairy still. I was never able to reconcile the environmental aspect of veganism with the fact that a good portion of my wardrobe wasn't "vegan," and I couldn't justify the expense of replacing my leather jacket or coat, my shoes or other items with vegan alternatives. So while I ate vegan, I didn't wear vegan, which was fun when it came to talking to other people :D
posted by neewom at 12:16 PM on October 12, 2009

I think it's safe saying that the assertion that the environmental impact of eschewing the use of animal-derived products in favor of (if it can't be done without or replaced with a plant-derived product) synthetic hydrocarbon-derived ones would be worse than just accepting leather/silk whatever into one's life would not be uncontroversial. The raising of cows and the manufacture of leather have carbon and other environmental impact. Google something like "environmental impact leather" (w/o quotes) and you can read about how leather manufacturing is terrible. I'm neither a vegan nor vegetarian but it highly unlikely that the environmental benefits (if any exist) of not using animal-derived non-food products is substantial compared to the benefits of, say, not eating meat. One's driving habits and how much climate control you require probably vastly overwhelm either.

I understand that you would like to find more objective, scientific life-cycle assessment of the impact of these products. Having actually once been a science-based researcher specifically in the field of replacing hydrocarbon inputs with plant-derived inputs in good manufacturing (google "carbohydrate economy" w/quotes and the first results will be the project I was a relatively minor part of - you may find the actual data there interesting) I will tell you a couple things.

First, you will not find any substantial body of research in this area that is not driven by an agenda to argue one side or another. There is no money in objectivity in this sort of research. What research there is tends to be much more big picture stuff rather than specifics like leather versus vinyl or silk versus rayon. If anyone is producing analysis like that I guarantee you they are doing so to bolster a viewpoint they already subscribe to.

The second is that this kind of life cycle analysis is incredibly tough, which is why, for example, you can find hugely disparate figures from sources relatively equivalent in background and reliability about whether corn-based ethanol produces a net energy gain in terms of hydrocarbon inputs. I know more than anybody who is going to show up in this thread about that topic and I can tell you it's virtually unknowable. It's too damn complicated. People are following what they believe in the first place and it shows in the research. My opinion is that trying to engineer your lifestyle choices at this sort of resolution is useless. There is big obvious stuff to deal with first, always - it's like trying to up your bran intake when you're smoking a pack a day.
posted by nanojath at 12:19 PM on October 12, 2009

I admire how you are tackling these questions head-on. While (as you say) "the entire cow is ... natural" remember that whether you support the meat industry with your dollars is not just about whether the animal is natural or not. (How can an animal be unnatural?)

I tried googling for information about how antibiotic use in cattle is causing resistant strains and the escalation of antibiotic use, and how that's harmful for humans in the long run, but sadly like I imagine in your own google searches I found a bunch of stuff at choir-preaching sites like "milksucks.com" talking about how there's pus in milk or something.

Cefquinome use seems to be the latest debate on this front.
posted by fritley at 12:21 PM on October 12, 2009

Also it would depend on what meat your eating. YEs cows are bad since they arent natural to North America . Now Bison used to roam all over nortth america and they thrived here till we made them go extinct now we are starting to raise and eat them again so it cant be that bad since you are raising an animal that is native to the area.

Also being VEgan might still be bad for the environment. They have to get there vegetables organically. Non organic vegtables have pesticides and are fertilized with cow manure and things anyway.

Mowing down forests to plant vegtables is not good for the environment either.
posted by majortom1981 at 12:23 PM on October 12, 2009

Rubber comes from trees.

Not necessarily.
posted by Solomon at 12:25 PM on October 12, 2009

I'll only discuss the meat aspect of your question, not clothing/fabrics/etc. (since I don't know much about that):

- Any halfway-decent vegetarian or vegan website will have a section like this with lots of info on the deleterious effects of meat on the environment.

- If you're concerned about climate change / global warming, here are some recent findings on carbon emissions resulting from different types of food:

From a climate perspective, beef is in a class by itself. It takes a lot of energy and other natural resources to produce cattle feed, manage the animals’ manure (a major emitter of methane, a potent GHG), get the livestock to market, slaughter the animals, process and package the meat, dispose of the greater part of the carcass that won’t be human food, market the retail cuts, transport them home from the store, refrigerate them until dinner time, and then cook the beef.

Tally the GHG emissions associated with all of those activities, Sonesson says, and you’ll find it’s the global-warming equivalent to spewing 19 kilograms of carbon dioxide for every kg of beef served. Swine are more environmentally friendly. It only takes about 4.25 kg of CO2 to produce and fry each kg of pork. At the other end of the spectrum are veggies. The climate costs associated with growing, marketing, peeling and boiling up a kg of potatoes, by contrast, is just 280 grams...

- Here's a sobering NYT article by Mark Bittman (who's veggie-friendly enough to have written a vegetarian cookbook, but isn't a vegetarian himself and is far from a vegetarian activist). The whole thing is worth reading, but here's an excerpt:

Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests. ...

Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation. ...

Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States.

The environmental impact of growing so much grain for animal feed is profound. Agriculture in the United States — much of which now serves the demand for meat — contributes to nearly three-quarters of all water-quality problems in the nation’s rivers and streams, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Because the stomachs of cattle are meant to digest grass, not grain, cattle raised industrially thrive only in the sense that they gain weight quickly. This diet made it possible to remove cattle from their natural environment and encourage the efficiency of mass confinement and slaughter. But it causes enough health problems that administration of antibiotics is routine, so much so that it can result in antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten the usefulness of medicines that treat people.

Those grain-fed animals, in turn, are contributing to health problems among the world’s wealthier citizens — heart disease, some types of cancer, diabetes. The argument that meat provides useful protein makes sense, if the quantities are small. But the “you gotta eat meat” claim collapses at American levels. Even if the amount of meat we eat weren’t harmful, it’s way more than enough. ...

Perhaps the best hope for change lies in consumers’ becoming aware of the true costs of industrial meat production. “When you look at environmental problems in the U.S.,” says Professor Eshel, “nearly all of them have their source in food production and in particular meat production. And factory farming is ‘optimal’ only as long as degrading waterways is free. If dumping this stuff becomes costly — even if it simply carries a non-zero price tag — the entire structure of food production will change dramatically.”

Finally, I'd like to second nanojath's observation that objective, comprehensive research about the questions you're asking just doesn't exist. It's admirable that you're looking for research that carefully avoids a slant in the direction of either vegetarian/vegan activists or the meat industry, but everyone in the world has some kind of slant. Vegetarians (like me) and vegans have an obvious bias. Meat-eaters can't help but have an urge to defend their behavior as ethical. Moreover, anyone who's writing for a general audience (rather than writing for vegetarians/vegans or trying to convert people into vegetarians/vegans) has a bias toward assuring their readers that meat-eating isn't so terrible. No one is trustworthy, and we can't figure out the best way to live with razor-sharp precision. At best we can only make rough guesses about how to best choose among the different imperfect options that the modern world presents to us.

Based on the available information, I'm convinced that there are more than enough reasons for the world to, at the very least, significantly reduce its meat consumption. I'm a very tiny part of the world, so the best thing for me to do to nudge things in the right direction is to totally omit meat from my diet.
posted by Jaltcoh at 12:40 PM on October 12, 2009 [5 favorites]

On preview, what Juliet Banana said.

There is a common (at least on MeFi) assumption about vegans that, because we don't eat or use animal products, we therefore eat only processed foods and wear vinyl belts and aren't generally conscious of the ramifications of our actions as long as they don't hurt animals directly. This isn't true. In fact, because vegans tend to be conscious people in general, it's often the opposite.

I'm a vegan, so I don't eat animal anything. But I also ride my bike (even though gas doesn't come from animals), I try to buy organic cotton shirts, I wear a hemp belt and a hemp hat, and I try to just not consume much at all, to the extent that I can.

Meat production - in the industrial form it largely exists as today - is extremely detrimental to the earth. Yes, it produces more harmful byproducts than the entirety of the vehicle industry. But many things which happen to be vegan in that they don't involve animals are also horrible for the environment. I try to avoid both.

Just because something is 'vegan' does not mean that vegans use it, own it or endorse it.
posted by Lutoslawski at 12:56 PM on October 12, 2009 [2 favorites]

Mod note: this is not a "which is best" question, please do not make it one.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:18 PM on October 12, 2009

It seems to me that these choices are more demanding and detrimental to the environment and to humanity in the long run because of the industrial process and carbon footprint that goes along with their manufacture.

Not everyone who is vegan does so for environmental reasons. For many people the environmental aspect is also a useful data point and something that is handy in arguments, but not necessarily the main reason they are vegan. When I went vegan -- and this was just food-wise, not no-leather and other stuff -- I did it because I had high cholesterol. Most of the vegans that I know, and I don't know that many, do so because they're opposed in some sense to animal suffering. Usually they're Buddhist and so they have a somewhat faith-based approach to how to live that tells them that it's worthwhile to reduce suffering and they head forward with this idea in their heart. While being kind to the environment is definitely a part of reducing suffering, it's not the central goal. Similarly many people approach the reduction of suffering in other ways, by becoming anti-capitalist [i.e. not participating in a system that seems to cause a great deal of suffering] by joining a monastery, in all sorts of ways.

I'm sure there are ways to reduce these decisions to the point where it becomes ridiculous, but that's their perspective, that's the problem they're trying to solve. Another example from my own life is that I wanted to live in a rural environment because I value knowing my neighbors and living in a small town and whatever. That said, living here means I have to drive, a lot. That goes against some of my other values. Everyone has to make compromises. Most of the people I know or know of who live the closest to actual nature [i.e. cabin in the woods style] aren't vegans and yet they have the smallest environmental footprint in some ways.

So you have to think about not just your personal choices, but also the systems those choices are a part of. Eating meat from a supermarket means you're part, a small part, of the factory farming system. Buying apples from New Zealand at the supermarket means you're supporting the shipping and trucking industry and using massive amounts of fossil fuels with artificially low prices etc. I'm not saying this to taunt, but just that there's no absolute best way to live, everyone's balancing a number of competing desires and a number of conflicting needs.

Basically, no single person can change the entire world all at once, for a number of reasons

- what is a sensible choice to you is not seen as a sensible choice to others
- your standard of living is not the same as others' - so for example I see your list of "what are you going to buy instead?" and I guess if I were a vegan my answer would be "mostly nothing" and I don't have a problem buying mostly nothing
- realistically we live inside a set of systems now that will likely not change overnight. So you can buy second hand clothes and in some way not support the new clothing industry [and I know some vegans who go this route, no new leather, old leather okay] and other people make this argument with heirloom diamonds or secondhand furs. There are other arguments against these positions as well.

i think what it comes down to, for me, is that if you think someone is living in line with their own stated values then you can talk to them or question them about those values if they vary from your own but it's not super helpful to just berate them because they don't share values with you. If they say one thing and then do another, that's something different. So your friends the vegans, I'm not even sure if they're doing that for environmental reasons or some other conceptual framework and I think that's a necessary part of your exploration here.
posted by jessamyn at 2:30 PM on October 12, 2009 [2 favorites]

Well, this huffington post article answers your question. Yes, it was written by an officer of PETA, but I think he makes some good points. The one that I think you will find the most interesting is this:

Things are also horrible for the human workers and anyone unfortunate enough to live near a leather tannery (all poor people, you can rest assured). An animal's skin will decompose if it's not treated with a nasty stew of toxic chemicals. An animal's skin is natural, sure, but once it's turned into something that won't decompose, it's an eco-disaster many times greater than creating a synthetic leather. Turning an animal's skin into leather requires massive amounts of energy and toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde, coal-tar derivatives, and various dyes and finishes, some of them cyanide-based. And most leather is chrome-tanned. Tannery effluent also contains large amounts of pollutants, such as salt, lime sludge, sulfides, and acids.

Of course, the process of tanning stabilizes the collagen or protein fibers in skins so that they actually stop biodegrading -- otherwise, your leather shoes would rot right off your feet.

Like every other industry, tanneries have shifted their operations from developed to undeveloped nations, where labor is cheap and environmental regulations are lax. PETA's investigation into India's tanneries found workers in just hideous conditions, forced to breath and touch the entire gamut of toxins, all of which were then dumped into rivers for nearby villagers to drink. You can watch a video that Pamela Anderson narrated for us here; the tanneries are about two thirds into the video.

In New Scientist magazine, a lawyer for China's Centre for Legal Assistance to Pollution Victims describes conditions on one river poisoned by waste from a nearby tannery: "A few years ago, villagers could swim in the river. Now they get blisters on their hands and feet from touching the water. ... When you stand close to the river you can smell rotting flesh because the leather factory dumps its sewage, made up of animal skin and meat, untreated into the river."

Here are some EPA regulatory and background documents about the Leather tanning process.

I haven't spent time figuring out what the environmental impact of a pair of synthetic shoes is, but I can't image it's much ahead of the tanning process. More importantly, the purchase of leather provides an important source of revenue for what is probably the single most environmentally destructive industry in the history of mankind.

Also, consider this: The environmental impact of a pair of synthetic shoes sitting in a landfill is nearly identical to that of a pair of leather shoes. In fact, the biological breakdown of leather probably releases methane, which is a powerful greenhouse gas, whereas inert plastics in shoes probably won't emit much.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 2:59 PM on October 12, 2009

Response by poster: Thanks so far, everybody.

Even with the link-less responses, you are giving me terms and word combinations I may not have thought to enter into the search engine.

I also appreciate the overall tone of the responses.
posted by Tchad at 3:33 PM on October 12, 2009

Couple more thoughts:

1) natural rubber is extremely rare. Almost all rubber goods are made from petroleum based rubber anymore.

2) Hides for leather are a byproduct of the meat industry. More are generated than ever could be used. Tanning seems to use nasty chemicals but otherwise is not resource intensive.

Some of the Peta arguments don't ring true. I have seen tanned leather rot and biodegrade in my lifetime. I have yet to see a PVC pipe rot, and doubt I will ever.

I am an ethical omnivore, read into that what you will.
posted by Antidisestablishmentarianist at 4:00 PM on October 12, 2009

Some of the Peta arguments don't ring true.

As a vegan and sort of bleeding-heart liberal sort, I would like to add that I would be very wary of anything PETA has to say, especially if printed in the HuffPost (I'm not saying all of that is bullshit, but defo fact check that info, as PETA + HuffPost is a recipe for horseshit stew which, as it were, would not be vegan.)
posted by Lutoslawski at 4:36 PM on October 12, 2009

Your question didn't address this, but I think it can figure nicely into the lifestyle you're aiming for: it's very environmentally friendly to use secondhand clothing (and secondhand stuff in general). I guess it's also worth considering that well-maintained leather goods will still be in good shape 40 years down the road, whereas synthetic leather goods tend to be less durable. I have a leather jacket from the 1960s that looks great, but my vinyl "leather" jacket cracked and peeled in only 2 years.

One of my vegan friends finds leather distasteful, but she will make an exception for certain secondhand leather goods- she wears hand-me-down leather shoes, for instance, because she believes it's greener than wearing new synthetic shoes. A side note: when she can choose, she prefers obviously "vintage-looking" leather things to new-looking or modern-looking leather goods, so that her style doesn't influence others to try to duplicate the look in new leather.
posted by twistofrhyme at 6:55 PM on October 12, 2009

I hang-out/work with vegans/vegetarians, but am not a vegetarian myself (though when I'm with them I'll definitely respect them by eating vegan, or at least vegetarian.)

2nding the second hand clothes option. I also have found the website foodrenegade.com interesting, because it's almost anti vegetarian, but all about sustainable food practices. (Recently posted a scary article about soy, which made me wonder about all the soy milk that we put into food at the place where I work.)

Also, where do vegans stand on (non-dairy) yoghurt?
posted by titanium_geek at 9:48 PM on October 12, 2009