PETA Activists take Al Gore to task on his diet

Source: Sunday Telegraph

He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse gases.

Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet.

When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month, protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian? Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming". The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups.

"For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/09/wgore109.xml

---

Can't these people find something better to do with their time?

abusers of animals. Al Gore is one of the few leaders in the world trying to do something very important for the environment and it makes no sense for PETA to be wasting their resources on this foolish stuff. PETA is very disappointing and appears to need new leadership.

I say, kill and eat vegans...

:sarcasm:

http://artists.letssingit.com/arrogant-worms-lyrics-carrot-juice-is-murder-sdnfw88

Listen up brothers and sisters,
come hear my desperate tale.
I speak of our friends of nature,
trapped in the dirt like a jail.

Vegetables live in oppression,
served on our tables each night.
This killing of veggies is madness,
I say we take up the fight.

Salads are only for murderers,
coleslaw's a fascist regime.
Don't think that they don't have feelings,
just cause a radish can't scream.

Chorus:
I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (having their insides revealed)
Grated and steamed with no mercy (burning off calories)
How do you think that feels (bet it hurts really bad)
Carrot juice constitutes murder (and that's a real crime)
Greenhouses prisons for slaves (let my vegetables go)
It's time to stop all this gardening (it's dirty as hell)
Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade is a spade)

More at the link

They're great singers from the 51st state, Canada!

Almost 200 kicks and no recs. Interesting.

PETA is so off base it's sad on this one, or so thinks me.

on edit: clarity

That explains it. I sure didn't rec it. And Peta needs to take a chill pill. They remind me of the far right "Right to Lifers" who can only focus on telling other people what to do.

...I'm sorry if it sounded like I was asking you who would rec it - I should have figured it out I guess. :-)

to recommend but I don't it's too unreasonable or late for the Prez, Al Gore, to learn something about how he could help improve our Planet simply by improving his own diet and then talking about it someday.

None of us are perfect.

Have you ever noticed that these groups almost always goes after a *big* celeb or politician when their funds get low, and they're looking to squeeze people for contributions? Peta is NO different. In fact, they've gotten very quiet since the Vick case was resolved -- guess they couldn't get enough *face time* over legitimate cases of abuse, huh? :sarcasm:

:shrug:

NT!

if eating meat is worse for the environment than other activities, why not target EVERYONE? Why single out a man who is trying to do good? Why do we Liberal groups keep eating our own?

and in this case, it establishes PETA as even holier than Al Gore, which is a matter of collective pride.

nt

It's easier that way.

Thank goodness PETA can't actually do that.

But I do think factory farming is horrible.

Because not everyone is standing up and making a name for themselves talking about global warming and how it will doom the planet.

How does that help fight global warming? Wouldn't it be more effective to support Al Gore in his efforts to raise awareness of the problem of global warming? So what if he's not perfect? Who is?

...are doing the oil companies work for them!

decide that eating meat is not necessary and contributes to global climate change.

Being an intelligent human being he might change his diet.

have to drag him into perfection.
:eyes:
Hey,PETA. People are animals, too, and the Iraqi people are being abused so let's help them a little, first by spending the Corporate profits form Iraq to give them deceit living conditions.

But if he's TRULY interested in the facts then he should listen to them.

Am I saying that he needs to do what they say? No. Everyone has to make their own decisions. No one should be forced to go vegetarian/vegan. What I am saying is that if you're going to talk about the facts of global warming then you need to look at all the facts, not the ones that you don't think should apply to you.

while they are in the closet the whole time. When you tell others what they should do, what personal choices would be best for them and the rest of mankind then you should also PRACTICE what you preach!

Eating meat, especially cows and pigs is very bad for the environment, don't do it. I'm a vegetarian so I can recommend that. On the other hand I drive a van that gets about 22 MPG, I ride mostly alone, I could drive a hybrid or better MPG vehicle, so I don't suggest that others should. Yes, I feel I need the van to haul my work shit, but I COULD get along with a smaller vehicle; it would be an inconvenience. The only reason to eat meat is that you like the taste. Al is selfish in that regard, he must like the taste of meat and eats it even though he MUST know the environmental impact.....I wonder what he drives, I wonder how big is his personal residence, how many square feet of home per person does he heat and cool? Does Al lead by example or just preach? Does he walk the walk or just bullshit the gullible? I really don't know....do you?

Question EVERYTHING, EVERYTIME!

...yumm.

and they are going for the Republican "holier than thou" approach by trying to be holier than Al Gore, one of the few people who are actually doing something to help the earth.

PETA, in my opinion, is no better than the people who stand outside of planed parenthood with pictures of aborted fetuses. Shock and awe are not the way to create change... it just pisses everybody off. I really don't like the notion that because I eat meat I am not a compassionate person, which is something they've stated implicitly in their campaign videos.

If they don't want to eat meat, don't eat it, but they need to stop trying to tell people how to live. They're worse than the fundie Christians who think because they believe something, everyone should believe it.

It's like homosexual marriage. If you don't like it, don't marry a homosexual, but shut up about it and let others do as they want to do and live as they want to live.

Why do so many people want to run other's lives?

Sometimes PETA is just plain STUPID.

Don't like eating meat, don't eat meat. Don't like wearing fur, don't wear it.

I tell PETAns the same thing I tell fundies of any stripe, hold to your beliefs, but don't expect others to follow them.

I just don't get it. Why do some people think they've got the perfect answer and everyone else should just fall in line?

Why get up in my business, my pollution, my problem right?

While I do find PETA a tab bit obnoxious, I find your post a lot more obnoxious.

By your logic banning smoking in public buildings is equivalent to not letting homosexuals marry. I'm the last person to care about what you put in your body, but what you put in the air is everyones business.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

even if I don't eat your meat I am still affected by global warming (duh.)

Asking everyone to cut back on high impact activities is the only sane thing to do in the face of what we have done (duh.)

By your logic the couple next door with the matching hummers shouldn't piss me off cause I don't have to drive their Hummer. WAKE UP that isn't the point "it is the environment stupid" as they say.

Take freedom from some and you take freedom from all.

will undoubtedly lead to disaster and death (ask the people about New Orleans about rising water) and perhaps even lead a total ecological collapse Un-American?

Does American mean stupid to you? Do you have problems with the government mandating fuel standards too? Cutting down the rain forests to feed our desired for beef is totally fucking insane and no one rational can argue with that.

But I do believe that telling smokers they can't smoke is different from "saving the rain forest".

There go the beans in the vegan diet!

There is NO reasonable excuse for them to be protesting Al Gore specifically, other than to be unbelievably belligerent.

Fight the nation if you think the meat industry is the #1 cause of global warming. Not one of the biggest guys trying to fix it-if you want his support, send polite letters. Fight for partial cloning for petes sake. If we can grow an ear we can grow a freaking leg muscle.

Fight for the dogs that are systematically being set on fire in Atlanta. There has got to be something constructive they could be doing with their time. Especially since the PETA scandal and the Death Van incident. They should be ashamed.

Would be a boost to the candidate.

According to NRDC US contributions are 1st coal-fired power plants, then internal combustion vehicles:
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp

PETA people seem to me to be like religious fundamentalists. It doesn't really matter what the facts are, because ideology has eliminated reasonable discussion. Having made their own decision that all animals are sacred, it wishes to impose that view on everyone else.

I've heard the argument - it's methane from cows. Well what about the methane from billions of humans eating beans? (grin) The truth is it is humans at the root of the issue, and that is largely due to our huge numbers and petro-based society.

Poor Al - no matter what he does, he's going to be a target. If he flies on an airplane, he's contributing. If he uses a vehicle, he's contributing. If he eats, he's contributing. If he uses light after dark, he's contributing. If lives in a heated or cooled home, he's contributing.

And there are large amounts of oil-based fertilizers and insecticides in modern agriculture, so simply being a vegetarian doesn't make you holier-than-thou. Unless you are growing your own food, organically, and by hand (can't use a tractor), your food contributes.

This kind of hysteria plays into the petro-based corporate complex by diverting our attention away from demanding changes from that sector that will help us address the problem in ways that have a reasonable chance of success and acceptance.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html

Humans' beef with livestock: a warmer planet
American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide per person than vegetarians every year.

As Congress begins to tackle the causes and cures of global warming, the action focuses on gas-guzzling vehicles and coal-fired power plants, not on lowly bovines.

Yet livestock are a major emitter of greenhouse gases that cause climate change. And as meat becomes a growing mainstay of human diet around the world, changing what we eat may prove as hard as changing what we drive.

It's not just the well-known and frequently joked-about flatulence and manure of grass-chewing cattle that's the problem, according to a recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Land-use changes, especially deforestation to expand pastures and to create arable land for feed crops, is a big part. So is the use of energy to produce fertilizers, to run the slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants, and to pump water.

"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems," Henning Steinfeld, senior author of the report, said when the FAO findings were released in November.

Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation.

The latter two gases are particularly troubling – even though they represent far smaller concentrations in atmosphere than CO2, which remains the main global warming culprit. But methane has 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2 and nitrous oxide has 296 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide.

Methane could become a greater problem if the permafrost in northern latitudes thaws with increasing temperatures, releasing the gas now trapped below decaying vegetation. What's more certain is that emissions of these gases can spike as humans consume more livestock products.

As prosperity increased around the world in recent decades, the number of people eating meat (and the amount one eats every year) has risen steadily. Between 1970 and 2002, annual per capita meat consumption in developing countries rose from 11 kilograms (24 lbs.) to 29 kilograms (64 lbs.), according to the FAO. (In developed countries, the comparable figures were 65 kilos and 80 kilos.) As population increased, total meat consumption in the developing world grew nearly five-fold over that period.

Beyond that, annual global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tons at the beginning of the decade to 465 million tons in 2050. This makes livestock the fastest growing sector of global agriculture

(snip)


It's not only deforestation, but the method and areas of deforestation which increasingly occur in the "emerald necklace"-the world's rain forests. Those rain forests have acted as the planet's lungs for millions of years. When the trees are burned, massive amounts of CO2 are released into the atmosphere. Forests are not only being burned for ten years worth of pasture land, but also for soya and corn production that feed cattle, not humans.

I was baffled as to why Gore left beef production as a leading cause of greenhouse gasses out of "An Inconvenient Truth". He did state that his family had been black angus farmers. I hope that that fact wasn't the reason why he has avoided speaking about the effects of beef production on the planet. That said, he's still my top choice for president if he enters the race.

As the price of corn goes up, which it is doing due to the use of ethanol as fuel, we'll go back to feeding our cattle grass again.

Deforestation of the rainforests is a real problem, but cattle grazing is only an end phase of it.
They cut down some forest and can grow crops there for a while. When the soil is to played-out for crops, they graze cattle.
If they weren't grazing the cattle, what would they do? Cut/burn more forest sooner?

Yes, they burn forest for pasture and crops for cattle constantly. At all times. Right now. Beef consumption IS NOT down. From the article:

Beyond that, annual global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tons at the beginning of the decade to 465 million tons in 2050. This makes livestock the fastest growing sector of global agriculture.

Animal-rights activists and those advocating vegetarianism have been quick to pick up on the implications of the FAO report.

"Arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products," writes Noam Mohr in a report for EarthSave International.

Changing one's diet can lower greenhouse gas emissions quicker than shifts away from fossil fuel burning technologies, Mr. Mohr writes, because the turnover rate for farm animals is shorter than that for cars and power plants.

"Even if cheap, zero-emission fuel sources were available today, they would take many years to build and slowly replace the massive infrastructure our economy depends upon today," he writes. "Similarly, unlike carbon dioxide which can remain in the air for more than a century, methane cycles out of the atmosphere in just eight years, so that lower methane emissions quickly translate to cooling of the earth."

Researchers at the University of Chicago compared the global warming impact of meat eaters with that of vegetarians and found that the average American diet – including all food processing steps – results in the annual production of an extra 1.5 tons of CO2-equivalent (in the form of all greenhouse gases) compared to a no-meat diet. Researchers Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin concluded that dietary changes could make more difference than trading in a standard sedan for a more efficient hybrid car, which reduces annual CO2 emissions by roughly one ton a year.

"It doesn't have to be all the way to the extreme end of vegan," says Dr. Eshel, whose family raised beef cattle in Israel. "If you simply cut down from two burgers a week to one, you've already made a substantial difference."

Run your info through this calculator http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.asp then do the same changing only your diet answer to a vegan diet, and note the difference.

makes me feel like a real fat ass.

--------
How often do you eat animal based products? (beef, pork, chicken, fish, eggs, dairy products)
Never (vegan)
Infrequently (no meat, and eggs/dairy a few times a week)
--------


errr... how about vegetarian and eggs/dairy a couple times a *month
though it actually makes no difference if I choose 'Never' or 'Infrequently'

12.1 acres, 4,9 hectares en français

I take the train to work when I go into the city called Toulon that is 50 miles from my house I take the train most of the time (one day of the week I drive because I finish work late and would have to wait 2 and a half hours for a train)
Most of the meat I buy is locally produced (chicken and the like). I ride my bike to visit friends, or I walk like I do when I go shopping downtown (butcher, bakery, open air fruit and vegetable market).

This is my new pace in France, I will check my old american pace out now for the hell of it.

I was at 26 acres in my American life, 10,5 hectares en français.

Wow, more than double what I use now in France. It's not like a made a concious decision. It is just the European lifestyle. Downtown is packed, it is easy and short to walk to the shops, the movies, friends houses. Train service is great. Seeing as I live in a town with 40,000 people in the south of France (where there are lots of vegetables and fruits grown) I often buy local grown. I also get local grown organic fruit and vegetables from a farmer I know. We get honey from a guy we know that makes it. Our meat comes from the butcher shop most of the time, it is more expensive but it is mostly locally produced open air raised animals (turkey, chicken, goat, sheep).

Like I said it is the European lifestyle. The average French person uses 5,3 hectares or 13 acres. The average american uses 24 acres 9,7 hectares.

and althought I myself have yet to totally kick the meat habit (I'm workin' on it), PETA happens to be right on this one . . . I'm not sure I agree with just going after Gore when ALL the candidates are no doubt meat-eaters, but the fact remains that the meat industry is a huge contributor to all sorts of environmental problems . . .

but, hey -- there's no such thing as a perfect candidate, and I still hope that Al gets into the race, drumsticks be damned . . .

But is that what this is all really about? I shouldn't be surprised.

I'm so tired of their over-the-top bullshit campaigns. It's why so many people don't take them seriously.

One of them tried to spray-paint me once in New York and ended up being spray-painted themselves. Some of the PETA people go way beyond acceptable behavior. I eventually got rid of my coats but not the memory of the wild-eyed asshole on Madison Avenue.

Sorry, Ingrid, but take it elsewhere. I am really far more concerned with the plight of human beings than the plight of chickens.

As for the theory that all the poop has somehow caused global warming, well, if everyone stopped eating meat the birds and the cows would still be pooping all over the place. They procreate just fine on their own. They don't need the chicken farmers or the cattlemen to show them how. I think fish poop too. I prefer not to think about poop, thank you. Particularly poop in the ocean. Mainly because there's probably more people poop in the ocean at this point than there is fish poop. Everything poops. Get over it.

Which brings to mind a Yiddish expression which to me sums up PETA best. Gay kakken af en yam. Go take a shit in the sea. Roughly translated, it means only the sea could handle such a load of crap.

"Meat is teh yummy! Stop being so mean!"

If they're so wrong, you'd think somebody'd have evidence of it by now. :shrug:

How's your morning going?

When you have diarrhea so bad that you have to make sure every bite is loaded with protein and not just roughage because most of what I eat is going to end up in the toilet flushed into the sewage. I don't have the luxury of being able to eat what I please when I please and I get so damned tired of people not getting that not everyone is capable of eating a vegan diet and thriving.

It's sad that some people cannot understand that not everyone has the same circumstances as them.

And please don't give me the same shit another person did and tell me I didn't do vegetarianism right. I had three different dieticians try to help me come up with a diet that would keep me from wasting when I excluded meat products from my diet and they ALL failed.

Maybe I should die so the peta people can feel superior?

I haven't the feintest clue how to design an anti-wasting diet and wouldn't in a million years even try because I'm not qualified to do so. Even if you have a definite medical need to drink veal shakes through a straw three meals a day I don't see how that in any way lessens the ecological impact of meat production or the necessity for those who have no such medical concern to eat a more responsible diet.

Playing the moral superiority card is not very attractive.

Try to have an open mind and realize that not everyone's argument can be reduced to "Meat is teh yummy! Stop being so mean!"

It's a slap in the face to those of us who have tried vegetarianism and failed due to factors you haven't even bothered to consider in your self-satisfaction with your own choices and options.

Go guilt trip somebody else, you bore me.

I rest my case.

FWIW, I am not a member of peta.

Not one person in this thread had made that argument.

And let's be honest here. PETA is not doing this because of some high-minded concern about global warming. They attack ANYONE who eats meat for whatever reason.

They should just be flat-out honest with themselves and us. Their real issue is that people eat meat which offends them and they will find ANY reason to cast aspersions on someone who eats meat.

Their bottom line is "You can't be an environmentalist if you eat meat".

One wonders how many of PETAs vegetarians are eating only organic foods that are not grown on farms that hurt the environment.

Truth to tell, our worst problem is eating our own more than it is eating meat and I am offended by the fact that they are attacking someone who is actually doing something to make a difference.

Is it any wonder we can't get anything done to when we are so busy nosing into the idealistic purity of people on our own side that we spend almost as much time fighting one another who are least sympathetic to each other's causes than the corporate interests that are doing the real damage to our environment.

And sure, you can be an omnivorous environmentalist. You can be a union supporter who shops at Wal-Mart too (my late stepdad lived that little bit of self-contradiction.) The issue is whether you're (general you) shooting yourself in the foot when you do so.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and know how hard it can be to put on protein, maintain weight, red blood cells, and generally counteract the various shit that comes with the syndrome.

My 'thing' with AIDS was invasive esophageal candidiasis for years. I was unable to eat anything that required swallowing a bolus, had any kind of sugar or acid. Whatever I ate had to slide down, as is. I ate greasy slivers of chicken breast, large curd cottage cheese, soft scrambled eggs and slivered, soft green veggies - cucumbers were great, and cool, as well as steamed squash.

I appreciate your choices, but sometimes others can't make the same call as you. It just is what it is.

NT!

!

You'd argue that there are folks are NOT making the simplistic argument that:

"Meat is teh yummy! Stop being so mean!"

It has less to do with the poster, it appears, than the intent of some of the posts.

pot

Nice try, though.

what?

Great way to win converts!

of People Eating Tasty Animals!

I love animals!

Had to work on that all morning, didya? Probably gave you a good chuckle, too.

Funny.

But thanks for asking!!!

And, no, I never get tired of it either...

How're you enjoying your leather shoes and belts?

I'll have to ask others to properly credit you when they use it. It's only proper.

I don't have any leather shoes nor leather belts, so I can't say that I'm enjoying any per se.

:shrug:

And before you ask, yes, all of my shoes are vegan, as is the only belt I own, ditto handbags, coats, etc. My car has cloth interior. No, I don't wear wool or silk.

...more intensive protein than veggies provide. It seems to be the way I'm built (very muscular).

I eat about 2-4 oz animal proteins a day, if that (this includes meat, eggs, cheese and yogurts). I buy organic, grass fed, free range, you name it.

I buy from local purveyors; I DO NOT buy stuff that is shipped all over the planet, as I'm trying to help. To be brutally honest, I'm still trying to figure out vegans/vegetarians who think it's cool to ship things halfway around the world so they can indulge their veggie obsession throughout the year. As a gardener, I (my opinion only) believe that vegans/vegetarians in northern climates should be eating dried beans, root-cellar veggies (onions, potatoes, garlic, carrots, turnips, rutabegas, parsnips), hardy greens (grown in greenhouses) and squashes during the winter, along with canned/frozen summer vegetables. But I'm not going to call them on it. Why? Because I believe we all have our reasons, and we should live and let live.

As for me? I eat in season. I'm a big gardener. I freeze/dry/can foods from my garden to supplement me through the winter months (I'm in Michigan). I buy NO vegetables from warmer climes during the winter months. I simply make do with what I have on hand, and it's usually enough (barring a bad growing season; then, and only then, do I capitulate - which translates to one year out of the last seven).

As you mentioned, I also have a car with a cloth interior. So where do I rank in the abusers of societal resources? I'm really curious.

:popcorn: :popcorn: ?

DU is doing PETA's work for them. The more it gets talked about...

It's not like PETA are getting covered in glory on this thread is it?

I can't see how fellow liberals queueing up to shout "screw PETA" aids the vegan cause.

There are estimates of 50 million buffalo in North America in the 1800's, which also consumed grass, yet the oxygen content in the air when the first settlers arrived was much greater than now.

There simply isn't enough to fed them, and it's not economical because the weight gain is slower. They're eating corn (which they don't digest very efficiently at all, but it's cheap) and soy, And shredded newspaper, chicken shit, and all kinds of other weirdass stuff, but mostly corn and soy. This is enormously inefficient, so all the fossil fuels used to produce the many pounds of soy or corn needed for one pound of meat, plus the fuels need to transport the animals from the breeding facility to the grow-out facility/ feed lot/dairy barn/ etc and then to the slaughtering house and then to the distributor and then the grocer makes them extraordinarily carbon inefficient (and also extremely wasteful of water.)

So, we've more than doubled the number of large livestock in North America alone. Then you have to factor in the number of hogs we raise (over 60 million to date). White-tail deer numbers are several times larger now (30 million) than when white men arrived (5-10 million) due to forest fragmentation that benefits their population size. PLUS, bison grazing on grass produce much less methane than cattle or hogs fed grains, since their digestive systems didn't evolve to deal with such rich foods as corn and soybeans.

Basically, the number of grazing animals and livestock present in North America has increased dramatically since the 1800's.

Instead of using Al Gore's name to get yourselves publicity. Seems a lot of that going around lately. Makes them look TOTALLY discredited in my eyes.

http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/nspills.asp

While I personally have not eaten meat for quite some time that is my personal choice. People have been eating meat since the dawn of time. It isn't the eating of meat that is the problem, it is how it is raised and these FACTORY FARMS that exacerbate emissions and pollution. If PETA was a credible organization they wouldn't be attacking one man over an entire industry that has polluted this planet for years, they would take it to the source and they would also be talking about the ever growing population of this planet and the ratio to dwindling resources that must be addressed on the whole. Of course, then they wouldn't get their faces in the spotlight. Looks to me like this entire ad campaign on their part is just a bum 'steer' (pardon the pun.)

They are going after factory farms. Have been for years. Most of the good documentary footage on how animals are treated in those farms comes from their hidden camera investigations.

From their website, with only a few seconds worth of nosing around:

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=103

http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming.asp (go veg is one of their sites)

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=cattle&Player=wm

They may make some good points, but this smear campaign of theirs does not endear them to me at all.

For all of his talk (which I agree with) about the seriousness of this issue and the need for dramatic change for forestall disaster, it's odd that he's not making even very small changes in his own life or suggesting others do the same. Almost nobody who saw AIT can run out and get a hybrid, or quit driving. Most of us can afford to change our light bulbs. All of us can afford to buy a bag of lentils instead of a tray of chicken for dinner, and dollar for dollar it does much more difference.

And do you know what he eats? Have any pictures of him with blood dripping from his lips? Oh yes, he is such an evil person for raising the level of awareness of this crisis to a level it was never at before. Please spare me the self righteous rhetoric. He has done much to walk the walk, and why PETA would choose to do this now is very suspicious. It is a smear plain and simple and looks like something only a group out to discredit the entire message would be a part of. You don't attack the one person who is doing so much already for this world in the fashion they are doing it if you wish to look credible...which they don't.

If they wanted to smear him they'd mention his SUV and plane rides as well. They only want to bring the importance of diet on carbon footprint into the discussion, and since it's his signature issue you really can't bring that up and get it in the media without addressing Gore's arguments.

The stunty nature of the campaign is because the media likes spectacle and conflict. Nobody's going to hear about it if they issue a white paper on the matter or request a private meeting with Gore. They have enough cash they could buy time to get the message out, but nobody will let them because the meat and dairy industries are big advertisers and politically powerful.

If they wanted to just bring the importance of diet on carbon footprint into the discussion they could well have done it in a more professional way. What would have been wrong with a meeting or even God forbid a reasoned debate on the topic? And of course they won't bring any other aspect of his life into it because it makes THEM look like hypocrites. How much carbon will they expend to stalk him at his speeches now? They can then I suppose stand right next to the Lyndon LaRouche stalkers since they are on the same side now. And oh yes, of course they must conform to the spectacle and bs hype of the media to get attention, because that is what it is all about. Thanks for admitting it has no purpose in fact or in actually giving a damn about the environment... only about hyping themselves with a cheap and petty shot which does absolutely nothing in the end to serve any good purpose. And I know he can take it because he is so above the sophmoric tactics of a group of people who would rather attack than discuss.

I don't think so. Since growing prosperity is cited as cause of increased meat consumption, maybe prosperity should be attacked, too! Again, this plays into the hands of those who hate Al Gore for what he is saying. Gee Thanks! All that might happen is Al Gore's message gets diluted, people aren't going to change their dietary preferences.

I mean, every vegan kills for his/her food. That's just an unavoidable fact.

and harvest by hand, fossil fuels are used for the farm equipment that does the bulk of the work. If they don't eat 100% organic, the fertilizers and pesticides that are used come from fossil fuels as well.

Yes, fossil fuels are used in farming. We all know that. Now, add on all the fossil fuels, fertilizers and pesticides (remember to include the ones that are banned for human consumption but a-okay for animal feed) that are used to feed the animals raised for food.

Fossil fuel consumption is greatly reduced with a veg diet, and I think doing less harm is worth something.

That's why I eat fish most of the time, and grass fed beef and cage free poultry when available.

I also believe that we are omnivores by nature. We have canine teeth for a reason. Do you recommend a vegan diet for cats and dogs?

A vegan diet simply uses less in terms of resources--fuel, water, land. No one suggests that it uses no resources.

Really, what you believe about humans being omnivores is your own business. Having seen my canine teeth compared to my dog's...well, we're probably just going to have to disagree on that one.

And the cats and dogs question: are you really making a comparison between humans and an obligate carnivore? People aren't cats or dogs or turtles. That makes no sense.

Al isn't any better than the person on the TV commercial hawking a product they either never used or never believed in; they're just doing it for the money.

Some people think what Al says is not bad. Why some people don't like Al Gore is because Al refuses to do what he tells other people to do. This is called "hypocrisy" and it darn well is very fair to point it out.

And hypocrisy does more to prevent change than anything else.

:think:

...Adolf Hitler.

flame away. just a fact.

on edit-

but PETA is correct about the meat production carbon footprint debate.

And even if he was, who cares? George Bush eats meat. Neener neener.

I know they TECHNICALLY count as meat, but still...

:shrug:

http://www.geocities.com/hitlerwasavegetarian/

most quotes taken from the book "HITLER'S TABLE TALK: 1941-1944". Enigma Books.

It's the net equivalent of self-published books. Some of the info is good, some is bad, most is horribly presented.

Hitler's doctors advised a vegetarian diet to treat his problematic flatulence. While I'm fairly sure this is a sign his doctors were either incompetent or hated him (vegetarians smell less but have more gas due to carbohydrate digestion- maybe they were addressing an odor issue?) the records from his chef show that his favorite foods were capon (small birds- think cornish game hen) and that stereotypical german favorite, sausage.

He did find it convenient to show an image of asceticism during the war, that's likely where the misunderstanding comes from.

There are some telling quotes on the matter here: http://www.actionforanimalsnetwork.org/hitler_not_veg.htm

"I do not mean to spoil your appetite for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler, who dined in the hotel often." -Dione Lucas, Hitler's cook

Speer describes Hitler's meals with close advisors "Hitler usually appeared in the lower rooms late in the morning...The day actually began with prolonged afternoon dinner. The Food was simple and substantial: soup, a meat course, dessert..." and his more ascetic front for general audiences "Such was the 'Merry Chancellor's Restaurant', as Hitler often called it...The food was emphatically simple. A soup, no appetizer, meat with vegetables and potatoes, a sweet.....Hitler was served his vegetarian food...and those of his guests who wished could imitate him. But few did... It was Hitler himself who insisted on this simplicity. He could count on its being talked about in Germany,"

A biographer conculdes that "Hitler's asceticism played an important role in the image he projected over Germany. According to the widely believed legend, he neither smoked not drank, nor did he eat meat...Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently, had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages...

His asceticism was a fiction, invented by Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self control...He could claim that he was dedicated to the service of his people.

In fact, he was remarkably self indulgent... Although Hitler had no fondness for meat except in the form of sausages and never ate fish, he enjoyed caviar..."

i share your thoughts on geocities sites re their reliability AND the presentation- it's awful.

the main reason i chose that particular page was the many quotes attributable to him directly. it occurs to me that even if he DID say these things verbatim it's probably as truthful as W saying he doesn't drink.

thanks for the civil tone in this sub-thread and also thanks for the alternative sources. when i do research it's like that line Marc Maron uses- "of course it's true- i read it in a book written by a guy... who writes books."

It comes up a lot, so I looked it up a few years back to find out what the story was there.

The contradictory accounts don't really make sense at first until one looks at the asceticism as a political expediency, much like Bush's teetotaling image for the public and his social drinking in power circles or simultaneous claims to being a born-again who got saved by Billy Graham himself, appealing to the red state masses, and a mainline protestant of a respectable denomination, the blue bloods would look down on anything else. It was only after figuring that out on my own that I found out his biographers tend to see the matter that way as well.

They're douchebags.

what did you expect from Blood and Gore Al ?

A diet of Tofu and bean kurd to be the official meal of ther DNC ?

:rofl:

It's bean curd. And saying "bean curd and tofu" is like saying "coagulated fermented milk fat and cheese"- it's redundant.

they get their just bean deserts

Is Al the ONLY one eating meat? PETA ... shooting yourself in the foot would have been a more productive marketing plan. Riding on Al's coattails - or dragging them down more like it - is a despicable thing to do. And I usually support your positions.

It seems to me that the problem is less about "eating" meat and more about how the so called "conventional farming" raises the meat that the majority of people in the US eat.

The feed conversion ratio of beef, from what I've heard, is far less that it is for other animals that are used as a meat source. Goats are supposed to be much more efficient when it comes to how much meat they gain and how fast they gain it from an acre of land when compared to how much meat and how fast cattle gain on an acre of land.

My understanding is that the corn/soy/newspaper/chicken poop/"refined" animal proteins are feed in the feed lots (an entirely different location, usually owned by an entirely different person than the farmer that raises the cattle) all of which mess up the cattle's rumen system which requires the use of massive amounts of antibiotics to keep the animal alive and not loosing weight. Stressed out animal + steaming piles of cow poop = excellent condition for disease outbreak.

The age old practice of not feeding animals that are going to slaughter 24 hours before processing, allowing the animal time to completely empty its bowels, doesn't seem to be followed in the larger meat processing facilities. Butchering an animal with a full bowel, full of liquidy diarrhea feces from being fed foods its digestive system was never meant to handle, increases the chances of contaminating the meat with disease as well as creating a nice slippery environment for the worker wielding the knife used to gut the carcass.

It is worse than the way industrial farming raises chickens for human consumption. Businesses like Tyson have done a good job creating a process where the only time the chickens are outside is when they are on a truck being transported from one place to another. I'm sure the lack of sunlight, lack of grass (and other fresh foods, like bugs), stress caused by overbreeding for only a few characteristics, packing thousands of birds into a single chicken house, and the feeding of arsenic to the birds to increase their appetite (to keep their weight up) don't make for meat that is all that healthy...

Ah the wonders of being surrounded by farmers, chicken houses, and having an entire building at the local state University named after Tyson. The things you can learn.

So, I don't see the issue as one of "meat eating is bad" but that the way we decide to allow the meat we eat to be raised and handled is not a way that should engender confidence in the conventional food production system.

These are good reasons to become vegetarian. Unfortunately they are not the reasons behind the reasons given by PETA which believes that all life is sacred. Which it is.

However, in a world in which cruelty against fellow human beings is commonplace, it is ridiculous to devote so much energy to cruelty against animals. In some states, assaults committed against animals is a felony while assaults committed against people are misdemeanors. Something is wrong with that. Every time I read about charges being filed with regard to starving animals I wonder who will be charged with regard to starving human beings.

As for the message of PETA to respect all life on the planet, learn to live the peaceful life yourself. Then expand that outward. Set an example. Spray painting people and their coats is not an example and that is the example most commonly associated with PETA and with Ingrid Newkirk.

As for the matter of how animals are raised and slaughtered, one can go kosher. Although in most cases, kosher ain't so kosher anymore in terms of how they are raised. I guess we will see organic grass-fed non-caged kosher soon.

There is no ritual slaughter of fish and shellfish is not kosher so most Jews don't get a thrill out of dropping crabs and lobsters into big pots of boiling water the way everyone else does. I no longer eat crabs or lobsters. I don't want someone dropping me into a big pot of boiling water in the next life.

Nothing wrong with being kind to animals. Something wrong with not being kind to people.

...and you can avoid most if not all of the environmental issues associated w/ meat-eating. Now, the moral ones are another story but that's not what PETA is grousing about by going after Gore. They're grousing about environmental factors.


I'm personally vegetarian, but I see a lot of folks where I live choosing to buy meat from local, organic farms who implemented sustainable, and more humane farming practices - and they do that to avoid buying from the conventional, commercial farms. They all say the meat tastes better anyway and is better quality.

But fuck them all. The Vegan diet is an unnatural and unhealthy diet that must be supplemented with Vit.B-12 because the only source of B-12 is from animal products. And don't give me that crap about yeast or whatever other crap you can get B-12 from. We wouldn't have canine teeth if we weren't meant to eat animal products.

Now go and pick on the meat and dairy industry and not Al Gore. Changes need to be made in the farm industry. So get off your high horse (or do you oppose riding horses too?)and do some real good instead of throwing red paint on fur coats and making your movement a laughingstock instead of a real influence for positive change.

That's the only thing it comes from, actually. There's more bacterial action on dead flesh than dead veggies, is all.

And vegan diets have much better outcomes than omni diets (for further info on this, read The China Study.)

Statement of the American Dietetic Association and Dieticians of Canada on Vegetarian Diets (you'll see in the quote they include vegans) to follow:

"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Approximately 2.5% of adults in the United States and 4% of adults in Canada follow vegetarian diets. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat, fish or fowl. Interest in vegetarianism appears to be increasing, with many restaurants and college foodservices offering vegetarian meals routinely. Substantial growth in sales of foods attractive to vegetarians has occurred, and these foods appear in many supermarkets. This position paper reviews the current scientific data related to key nutrients for vegetarians, including protein, iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin D, riboflavin, vitamin B-12, vitamin A, n-3 fatty acids and iodine. A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, use of fortified foods or supplements can be helpful in meeting recommendations for individual nutrients. Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence. Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer."

Nice work!

is showing. Some people have very healthy lives being Vegetarian/Vegan..To Each his/her Own.

In your 2 weeks here it seems that all you've done is slam Dems. What's up with that? Do you support any Democrats?

think that it is harmful that our some of our leaders leave themselves open to easy charges of hypocrisy. I will support the nominee but will not wear blinders. ever.

again I ask, which Democrats do you support?

I like Dodd and Clinton, Clinton will be our nominee.

Al Gore is not out there saying we have run around in homemade hemp loincloths and live like prehistoric humans with no modern conveniences. What he is saying is that we can live well and do so with less impact on the planet.

I'm good with the notion of not raising animals in inhumane conditions, but I am not blinded as to where my food comes from. I grew up on a farm and have raised and eaten farm animals (and slaughtered them as well).

But when we get people on the left that blast our own people who are trying to do some good (such as this idiocy with Al Gore eating meat, Edwards having a large home, saying we should not have any animal testing of potentially life-saving pharmaceuticals and such), it gives fodder to those corporate tools that want to portray us wanting to disassemble our entire civilization and make us all live like Luddites which makes the general public less receptive to the real message that progress and raping our planet do not have to go hand in hand.

not by a long shot. they're fundamentalists.

This is getting more and more ridiculous.

Al Gore rides on a plane! Al Gore rides in a car. Al Gore eats meat!

I'm not sure *who took them over... probably some factory farming lobby.
"Make all the pro vegetarian people look like loonies"

Sorta like I'm pretty sure Fred Phelps ( www.godhatesfags.com ) is really funded by some lefty group to make the religious right look crazy.

Personally, I think PETA has done more to promote meat eating than any McDonald's commercial.

- so says this 20+ year vegetarian ;)

They manage, time after time, to show themselves as fanatics who aren't worth any serious attention.

One of the best things about Gore's approach has been his urging to just do one thing. Of course, one leads to another. But that incrementalist approach in this case, opens the doors wide and invites every single person in.

PETA OTOH, is doing exactly the opposite with their usual self-righteous zeal.

And look at the exposure to this issue this is receiving. I really don't think there's anything wrong with asking people to take a look at the issue, and maybe cut back a little on the amount of meat they consume if they can. It's one way to make a difference that doesn't have to hurt if you do it in moderation. And if you do more, but not eating meat at all, so much the better.

Why so much venom directed at vegans?

Because on DU, vegan=peta=asshole.

Variance from said formula is not allowed.

have such a strong dislike of PETA

As a politician, I think he knows that the majority of people are not going to give up a lot of things, but he also thinks that's not necessary.

Morons, all of them. How many of these bozos have SUVs?

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1949645.ece
A grown moose will burp and pass so much methane gas in the course of a year that it amounts to 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide emissions.

Newspaper VG reported that a motorist would have to drive 13,000 kilometers in a car to emit the same.

Cattle produce more global warming gases than cars
mongabay.com
November 30, 2006


Livestock-rearing generates more greenhouse gases than transportation according to a new report from the United Nations (U.N.), which adds that improved production methods could go a long way towards cutting emissions of gases responsible for global warming.
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1130-un.html

Gore wins hands down.

PETA, eh.

I need to wipe down my keyboard now.

God love them.

one of Lisa's crushes if i remember correctly...

cute!

:thumbsup: :hi:

The kid they pick up hitchhiking that ends up stealing their car.

Go Al Gore! :thumbsup:

...unless of course it's an imitation, soy-based dick.

...and just HAS to tell others they're wrong if they don't embrace it. I don't care if one is a born-again Crazie (oops: Christian) or a new vegetarian, the first order of the day is to lead by example, not by preaching and proselytizing. More than anything, we're supposed to believe in the rights on individuals, of all things liberals shouldn't be telling others how to live and how to think (unless their own rights are being infringed upon)

I've been veggie for 31 years, and I've known for most of that time that cows emit greenhouse gasses, consume more land and water for less food yield and put a strain on our enviornment. And the idealist in me wishes people would consume less meat, and keep animals in less heinous conditions than the factory farm. But humans can't even take care of our own species right now, and that's a battle far more important to fight.

PETA needs to grow up and understand nuance.

If an objective of your organization is to promote vegetarianism, I would assume the higher-ups would know that politically liberal people are more likely to be open to becoming vegetarians. Why would they then decide to single out a very popular liberal political figure to attack as a hypocrite, when there are so many millions of others out there who believe in global warming and believe it is a problem but also eat meat? They may as well have Karl Rove running the organization. All a campaign like this will do is cause more liberals to turn against this (theoretically) liberal organization out of disgust, while likely accomplishing nothing significant on the front of converting meat-eaters to vegetarianism.

I'm going to eat one extra piece of veal for every goofy PETA announcement.

It's crunchy and delicious

PETA should eat MY meat.

that's hot

I wish I was as cool as you are.

For my level of coolness is unattainable.


Please educate me, my enlightened greyskinned friend.

PETA is the biggest hoax around, i don't know why more people don't see thru their shite

Good one.

No, seriously. That's a good one.

What scares me even more is all them pod people running around :scared:

If they were really trying to turn Democrats against one another and have progressives portrayed as a bunch of fucking nutjobs, they couldn't do a better job of it.

They keep going after do-gooders. First Michael Moore, now Al Gore!
Why don't they go after some right-wing assholes that vote against the
environment, animal welfare, horse slaughter, dog fighting, pesticide
spraying (hurts animals), poison approving, the FDA, fat veternarians
that approve of animal testing and the list goes on and on. Why go after
heros? Peta, I'm done with you.

You're post 125 or 126 on non LBN that was posted here. PETA's job is to get animal advocacy issues talked about.

Challenge met.

PETA is looking more and more foolish every day.


edit: you're helping

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

;)
..yet it's ok for lions on the African plains to bring down weaker herding types?

/screed

absolutely

And
1. That's your opinion;
2. Helping? Thanks for keeping this kicked, chavez.

Enjoy.

you're welcome

to look "ridiculous" as they do it well on their own.

Now, keeping the topic at hand in the spotlight, well...that would be PETA doing her job and doing it well.

since when is PETA feminine?

You want to do this all night?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

On this, I agree.

(flame suit on, reinforced and cringing at the thought of posting this)

Why won't humans "give up" meat?

I mean, I know it tastes good, and that's a decent selfish reason, knowing the facts otherwise. But barring that and the 5% of folks that can't do without it for one reason or another...

Because we are Omnivores.

So, if veg*ns aren't humans, what are we?

(As if I couldn't guess by reading this thread...)

And quite a few of us don't share your opinions on the subject - I find your moral arguments against eating meat at all (rather than sustainably) utterly unconvincing and flawed (I've expounded on this in the past, and found it pointless to try to explain to true believers).

So, humanity is unlikely to bow to your personal beliefs.

since taking up such a high-fiber vegetarian diet :evilgrin:

I power my Prius with my emissions.

Noted.

They have shot themselves in the foot so many times it is amazing they can still stand.

"Eat P***y, Not Meat"

:evilfrown:

causes them to look foolish to the public.

diet is the problem. Corn changes the pH of the cow's stomach and makes him create more gas. The crowded condition means they live in their own filth and then need antibiotics and the like to keep them relatively well. We need to move back to diversified, sustainable farming methods. If I could run the zoo I would allow the prairie land of both the US and Canada to convert to their natural grass and let the cattle go for it. The cattle's manure would fertilize the land the grass is their natural food. Make sure there are plenty of chickens and other birds living there too -- they are the natural clean up crew -- they eat the larvae that emerge from the dung and keep the fly population down. It's a win - win for everyone except the corn farmers. Corn not good for us -- it's behind much of the obesity problem in the US.

Gore doesn't have to give up meat -- but he should support grassfed farming methods.

an appearance to talk about just this exact issue.

Now, we all know Bill Maher is a PETA supporter, big time. Did he put the idea in her head as a way to get big publicity for the issue? Or did someone else? I'm betting that whoever suggested this either is Maher or watches Maher and thought this would be a good publicity stunt.

kept me from becoming a vegetarian for at least 10 years.

My family is all vegetarian or vegan and none of us like PETA at all.

He is and always has been clearly in line with the established neo-fascist view of the world.

After all, he selected who for his VP mate?

And I voted for him, and I supported Clinton because of Gore as his VP.

How can someone make a feature length documentary about climate change without pointing out the easiest, most fundamental change that any one individual can make?

(After all, how easy is it to fill up a vehicle with bio-diesel, for instance, compared to filling up one's belly with a bowl of red beans and rice?)

People in the neo-fasist states are so heavily propagandized that they truly believe that the human species harvest dead flesh from trees!

Oh, sure many won't say it out right, but they believe it just the same.

Sometimes I believe that the fact that no one has ever identified one disease or health complication that arises from the absence of animal products in the diet of the human animal is the most inconvenient truth of all.

The neo-fascist culture which ascribes character traits based on the balance of one's bank account is perfect for faux environmentalists like Gore and DiCaprio (the eleventh hour celebrity with the hefty bank account and therefore sterling character according to the neo-fascist world view).

Many of the problems identified by Gore and DiCaprio are real enough. Some of their recommendations/solutions are real enough. Both are far better at defining the problem than identifying realistic solutions. They are somewhat like Democrats in Congress who identify problems in Iraq, but who are clueless when it comes to realistic solutions. A major reason being the lies that they embrace and which they will not speak against.

Most folks are profoundly ignorant about diet and health issues. This makes it very easy for them to embrace the propaganda of the big insurance, pharmaceutical and agricultural monopolists.

The adverse effect of animal agriculture is not recently discovered, but it has been known for a very long time.

"And I did not know
And I could not see
Who was waiting there
Who was hunting me.

By the rivers dark,
Where it all goes on ..." -- L. Cohen

/me feints

Excellent post, thank you!

Hypocrisy isn't a monopoly for just "the other" political party.

I've never bought the concept of "carbon credits" and that is a sham. It flies in the face of everything Al says about the "urgency" of the issue. Just think "credit cards" and the analogy is IDENTICAL.

Some of the problems said by him are real. But if he tells everyone to _______ and he himself doesn't comply, why should anyone listen to him on the same topic?

Plenty of people do understand Gore is not as sincere as some other people want to make him out to be.



Oh look! A fire hazard, overhead light on in broad daylight, THREE monitors (which equals the power of one comparably sized CRT, but I do a lot of research work too and I don't need three monitors running all the time! Can't Macs minimize browser windows? Apparently not.) Never mind the TV in the background; most people cannot multitask between studying two disparate subjects on two disparate mediums simultaneously. And is that big printer under his desk in powersave mode? And for one individual, the size of the printer suggests it's meant for more industrial use (networked for many users; there are MANY solidly made desktop printers that use less electricity and toner and subsequently make less waste -- oh, HP also has a wonderful toner and component recycling program. Does the brand of the printer he's using down there?).

Sorry to be a geek, but that picture, and numerous articles that fairly point out Gore is not walking his talk, I will say the man's got some issues. Sorry.

Perhaps they're one patty short of a Happy Meal®.

nothing to do w. saving the world, altho they prey on the naive contributor who believes their shite

everything to do w. tearing down progressives and any progressive leader who happens to get some "buzz"

as another poster commented upthread, funny thing how they are busy tearing down al gore and michael moore

aren't there any neo-fascist republican leaders that eat meat?

what about bush or cheney? but speaking truth to POWER is not so cheap and easy as stomping on the little guy out of power

hmmmm

one day we'll be sitting around saying "who knew?" just like we did with cointelpro and the attacks on, say, martin luther king's private life

first they try to say it's wrong for al gore to travel, now it's even wrong for him to fucking put food in his mouth

these people are shameless

I'll stay out of your kitchen if you stay out of mine.

However, if you tell me I'm immoral for eating meat, we're gonna have....a "discussion" Okay?

In other words, it's none of your damn business what my diet is, or why. I feel zero need to explain it to you.

(BTW, this is not directed to any individual here...rather to the busybodys at PETA()

Begin with personal choices. The argument that eating meat is immoral is very persuasive and probably correct from a political perspective. The "stay out of my _____" is what has landed us in the mess we are in. If we are making the right choices, than no one should fear transparency.

The "right" choices?

Personally, I'm a meat eater and fish eater, but aspire to eat less than I do, because it's healthier and is better for the environment. So, sure, if Al Gore is a primary activist for the environmental movement, he has to answer to some of these questions, to adopt more of his environmental message into in his own life style. On the other hand, his base of operations, his homestead, probably needs to be more than an oardinary house to support the operation he takes on. So, I give him a pass on the size of his house. That he has purchased carbon credits to cover his CO2 emissions is nice, but he has to walk the walk a bit more than he does.

But the large picture is more than Al Gore's diet. I'd look more toward some of the teachings of environmentlist Bill McKibben as to how to eat locally and support local economies within a 50 mile radius. That's a much more important message, to get away from huge agriculture, which requires huge transportation and huge emission of greenhouse gasses.

Sure, Al Gore can take it and it's great publicity. And I think PETA can take some criticism too.

A very detailed analysis of energy inputs into food creation and distribution has been done for the US and broken down per capita. From that analysis, all energy used for a per capita food supply would be equal to the energy in 3/4 a gallon of gasoline (though most of it is electrical energy, for example 40% being home refrigeration and home cooking), the calories of the food would be 3800 Calories. So it seems if the per capita consumption of all food energy in a day equals a measly 3/4 of a gallon, it would be pretty difficult to imagine a hamburger requiring 22 gallons, especially since If this were really true hamburgers would be mighty expensive!

draw conclusions like these that somehow a pound of beef is worth an exhorbitant amount of energy, etc. when common sense will tell you that that the price of a pound of beef might on your table be worth a gallon and a half of gas at most and families will generally burn more in their cars than what they eat in a given week.

I also don't buy that all the cows farting is responsible for the climate change we've had. Increased cattle counts may have some effect but I've not seen one shred of evidence to support their grand theory. It just doesn't pass the sniff test, no pun intended. Any carbon that's released from a cow went into in the form of something it ate so the only added carbon comes from fossil fuel but like I said even the amount of beef an average family eats costs less than the fossil fuel they burn up to drive their cars or fuel the electricity they use.

This PETA bullshit is just bullshit. It's an agenda wrapped in statistics abuse.

Sure, methane is a powerful greenhouse gas but from what I've read it accts for maybe a 1/3 of climate change and cow related issues are only a portion of that (a lot of it comes from the Tundra thaw in Russia).

Even if the only cost associated with beef was the cost of the fuel it takes to raise it, how would a pound of hamburger cost less than $5 if it took $60 worth of fuel to produce it? That's not counting the cost of the feed, land use, slaughter and packaging of the meat or the cost to stores to sell it.

And all smug, self-righteous vegetarians and vegans. As far as I'm concerned they are ALL no different from anti-abortion zealots who stand outside clinics an scream vile shit holding up pictures of aborted fetuses.

And since many modern surgical procedures and medicines were developed on animals they should give up surgery and medicines, even if it's life saving.

Did I mention how much I hate these fuckers? :puke: :mad: :nuke:

I am practically a vegetarian, and my girlfriend is one. I think PETA is ludicrous (see my post below).