Nissan subverts species supremacy

People are fascinated by vegetarianism - and I think, somewhat afraid of it.  Every vegetarian has been asked the "why?" question countless times - enough times that if you're like me, you allow your answers to vary.  So, sometimes it's about stopping the cruelty to the 27 billion animals killed in the United States each year. Sometimes it's about protesting the unsafe working conditions of slaughterhouse laborers.  And sometimes it's about saving the planet, as animal agriculture generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.

The latter two answers - about working conditions and climate change - provoke some guilt in the meat-eaters I talk to, or they make me feel uncomfortably holier-than-thou, which is why I try to avoid these conversations.  But the first answer, about animal rights, affects people in a different way.  It doesn't make them feel guilty about their eating choices; it makes them feel threatened, because (I think) asserting the natural rights of animals challenges our dominion over the little critters.  It subverts a sense of human supremacy that dates back to the Bible, when the god character creates "every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name."

So kudos to Nissan for introducing its new electric car, Leaf, with a commercial that strikes at that hallowed sense of supremacy.  Humans are just one animal upon the earth, one that must live in harmony with it, not over and above it.  The melting ice-caps highlight the earth's fragility; it reminds us that our technological advances have not arrived in a vacuum but upon our own delicate planet.  Human choices affect others, even non-human others, and the revolutionary, even radical, message of this commercial, the one that makes our hair rise as the polar bear approaches the man and embraces him in that beautiful "awwww" moment, is that we should care.



The ad concludes: "Innovation for the planet, innovation for all."

Global warming and genocide

Check out this powerful ad, titled "You're Making a Killing in Darfur," from the Save Darfur Coalition, a fantastic and hard-working organization that sends me too much email.



The big news this week is that Al Gore (pictured) and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, headed by Rajendra Pachauri (pictured below) have been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. The Nobel choice is a reminder of how rouge leaders can manipulate ecological deprivation to foment ethnic tension. Climate change, which can bring droughts and shift agricultural lands, will augment the risk of conflict, disease, and starvation in some countries. The 2007 Nobel committee may have anticipated that some would ask why a peace prize should attend to climate change. In their press release, they explain: "Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, following the lead of Kofi Annan before him, highlighted the link between climate change and Darfur in a Washington Post op-ed this summer, writing:

Almost invariably, we discuss Darfur in a convenient military and political shorthand -- an ethnic conflict pitting Arab militias against black rebels and farmers. Look to its roots, though, and you discover a more complex dynamic. Amid the diverse social and political causes, the Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change. Two decades ago, the rains in southern Sudan began to fail. According to U.N. statistics, average precipitation has declined some 40 percent since the early 1980s. Scientists at first considered this to be an unfortunate quirk of nature. But subsequent investigation found that it coincided with a rise in temperatures of the Indian Ocean, disrupting seasonal monsoons. This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming.

As Ban Ki Moon notes, violence in Somalia, the Ivory Coast, and Burkina Faso, also "grows from a similarly volatile mix of food and water insecurity." Those problems can be traced, in part, to our own habits of consumption. The point of the Save Darfur ad, clearly, is that our actions in monetary investments can underwrite genocide in Sudan. Less appreciated though no less true is that our national ignoble disregard for the perils of climate change can have the same effect.

Climate change finally explained

Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo is really impressive. Who else would have thought to link climate change to illegal immigration? Yes, that's right. Don't target coal-burning factories; target illegal 'aliens.' I mean, seriously, can't they cross the border on bicycles?

Here's the Colorado congressman himself:

I have no doubt that global warming exists. I just question the cause and what we can do to ameliorate it. But I wonder why the Sierra Club isn't going crazy about the environmental aspects of massive immigration into the U.S. The fact is, Americans consume more energy than anyone else, so if a person moves here from another country, they automatically become bigger polluters. -- Time, May 31, 2007

What strange logic.

(via NYT composite of presidential candidates on climate change)

Going veg for the planet

Global warming is one more reason to go vegetarian (among the ones I listed before) in a sea (read: melting ice-caps) of others.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's report, "Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options" (November 2006), found that animal agriculture generates an extraordinary output of greenhouse gas emissions - indeed, more so than all forms of transportation combined. The report addresses livestock's role in climate change, air pollution, and water depletion. I would especially refer you Table 15 in Annex 2, which tracks the CO2 emissions of major meat trade flows. So, for example, the US shipped 2 million tons of poultry meat to China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Mexico, and Canada, from 2001-03, generating 137,000 tons of CO2 emissions. And that's just the USA. But the bulk of CO2 emissions comes from the burning of fossil fuels to produce nitrogen fertilizer for feedcrops (Table 3.4). This practice emits 41 million tons of CO2 worldwide, with the USA contributing almost 12 million. A skeptic might say that plant agriculture also generates CO2 emissions. But it is still far more efficient for a person to consume vegetarian products than to cycle food calories through an animal before finally consuming it oneself.

Now comes the scandal, and hence the NYT article, "Trying to Connect the Dinner Plate to Climate Change." The article disgusts me. We don't have to try. The evidence is there, though the NYT mostly ignores it. Instead, the NYT covers the following debate: Some have argued that one can't be an environmentalist without also being a vegetarian. See, for example, "How Environmentalists are Overlooking Vegetarianism as the Most Effective Tool Against Climate Change in Our Lifetimes." It suggests that our anti-climate change work should include vegetarian outreach, say in school lunch programs. To that end, animal welfare organizations have been running ads like the one above (by the Humane Society) or the one below (by PETA). Yes, their ads may seem opportunistic since these organizations clearly care more about reducing cruelty to animals than reducing CO2. But so what? Why deride this rather neat alliance?

Cruisin' with the Pope

Earlier this week to great fanfare, the Vatican issued a "10 Commandments" for driving, or in Catholic-speak, "Guidelines for the Pastoral Care of the Road." Here they are:

1. You shall not kill.
2. The road shall be for you a means of communion between people and not of mortal harm.
3. Courtesy, uprightness and prudence will help you deal with unforeseen events.
4. Be charitable and help your neighbor in need, especially victims of accidents.
5. Cars shall not be for you an expression of power and domination, and an occasion of sin.
6. Charitably convince the young and not so young not to drive when they are not in a fitting condition to do so.
7. Support the families of accident victims.
8. Bring guilty motorists and their victims together, at the appropriate time, so that they can undergo the liberating experience of forgiveness.
9. On the road, protect the more vulnerable party.
10. Feel responsible toward others.

I'm impressed, although I don't really think of cars as an "occasion of sin." Maybe it only applies to cars with spacious backseats. In any case, it's tempting to say: "Doesn't the Vatican have more important things to do?" But the truth is: It probably doesn't. It could pray more, but the mass is already quite long. Plus, driving causes a lot of suffering: Every year, 1.2 million are killed and 50 million more are injured. So for once, I'm pleased to have the Vatican as a back-seat driver.

In fact, I wish they'd do more of it. So here are ten others. Suggestions welcome.

1. Thou shall carpool.
2. Thou shall purchase safe carseats for thy kids.
3. Thou shall have the transmission checked every ten thousand miles.
4. Thou shall use public transportation whenever possible.
5. Thou shall not smoke with closed windows.
6. Thou shalt not apply make-up while driving.
7. Thou shalt not be distracted by thy cell phone.
8. Thou shalt not disturb fellow travelers with loud music.
9. Thou shalt not beep at cyclists. (Who knows, maybe it's the new white donkey.)
10. Thou shalt not get fewer than 37.5 miles to the gallon (as Europe requires).
    

On that last item, the Vatican's document is pathetic. In fact, its lead author Cardinal Renato Martino is known to question the reality of climate change. The Church ought to be more concerned with the pastoral care of the environment. What Jesus drives is at least as important as how he drives it. Allow me to direct every good Christian to read about "creation care" at the excellent website, "What would Jesus drive?" It's the entry ramp to the road of salvation.

Dithering on climate change

China released its much anticipated report on climate change yesterday. Yet for all the anticipation, the report merely reiterates the country's refusal to cap emissions. Capping emissions, they say, would be 'unfair' to China, a country that manages to qualify as "developing." Nevermind that not capping emissions would be unfair to millions of others. Although the Chinese "strategy" calls for better energy efficiency, the plan is unlikely to actually lessen consumption, just the rate of increase. Ma Kai, the director of China’s National Development and Reform Commission (and a master of double-speak) said this: “Our general stance is that China will not commit to any quantified emissions reduction targets, but that does not mean we will not assume responsibilities in responding to climate change.”

The writing in the New York Times was a bit curious. The article reports that in the next few years, China will become the "world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which scientists say cause global warming." Scientists say?! Do people seriously disagree? This subtle layer of ambiguity obscures our moral imperative. We should get over our sheepishness and stop pretending that climate change is some sort of new and controversial discovery.

How will global warming affect China? Even the Chinese report warns of rising sea levels, , expanding deserts, and increased temperatures, as well as shrinking glaciers in Tibet. By 2030, the country's agricultural output could be slashed by ten percent - a loss that would foretell incipient unemployment, taking livelihoods as well as lives. Years from now, the Chinese (just like the U.S.) will ask themselves: How could we have known so much and yet done so little? Maybe the Chinese know as much about climate change as they do about Darfur. Reporting from China, Nick Kristof writes that people are utterly oblivious to the genocide their government is sponsoring.

News Round-Up: Global Health

Are these news round-ups helpful? On one hand, I think that blogging is a more refined art than simply regurgitating the news with pithy commentary – fun as that may be. On the other hand, I'm often overwhelmed by the news and these collections help me reflect. Also, before I started bookmarking these articles, I hadn’t realized how much I was actually reading about heath, human rights, and international development. So in an implicit way, these round-ups don’t just disseminate news, but help identify life projects. If you find them a bore, though, let me know.

The “global health” theme is indicative of a recent shift for me. I spent my undergraduate years studying philosophy and ethics. I don't regret it, not even the long 18th century treatises, but I’ve found that the ethics of the most pressing global issues have already been addressed. No one debates whether nuclear war is just. Same thing with health inequalities. With this realization, my academic concerns have become activist ones as well. I decided that if I care about rights, responsibilities, duties, and obligations – the familiar jargon of the philosophy seminar room - then I had to learn more about public health, humanitarian aid, and the global economy.

So, without further ado… and in no particular order.

Human rights are under siege in Burma. Daring reporting from the Guardian explains how the Burmese regime has thwarted political activism, shut down the free press, and expelled the Red Cross. It continues to terrorize village groups with forced labor and gang rape. Perhaps the UN could do something about it – if only Russia, which supplies arms to and buys oils from the Burmese regime, hadn’t voted to keep the situation in Burma off the Security Council agenda.

People subsisting in refugee camps in northern Thailand have no birth certificates, no citizenship, no schooling, no health care, no property, and no recourse to a better life.

War, unsurprisingly, is bad for health, and Palestine – with the regular bloodshed and economic deprivation from the intifada – is no exception. Meanwhile, the Western suspension of aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian government has hurt everyday Palestinians. It doesn’t help that 60% of Gaza’s 1.5 million people are under the age of eighteen. That makes me quite angry, actually.

A new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows that climate change will severely and negatively impact poor countries – that is, the people least responsible for it. I’ve written before about the ethics of global warming. Not only do the rich have the duty to aid those who will suffer, but far more importantly in this case, we have a duty not to harm.

The African Union hopes to produce its own medicines and reduce its reliance on the West.

The life expectancy in Zimbabwe has fallen from 60 in 1990 to 34 (for women) today.

In neighboring Zambia, rations provided the United Nations World Food Program may soon run out. Even though there is ample corn stored in Lusaka, U.S. regulations stipulate that the food it donates be grown and shipped from America. For that, we can thank American “agribusiness” and its powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. Bucking the trend, the Bush Administration has proposed that a quarter of the donated food originate in developing counties. Doing so would not only help generate business in these countries, but “could annually feed at least a million more people for six months and save 50,000 more lives,” according to USAID (NYT). For all the trouble in the world, it’s heartening to see Oxfam supporting a Bush Administration proposal.

President Bush may have allocated $15 billion to fight AIDS globally, but his administration and Congress have imposed absurd limitations on the distribution of those funds. They require that AIDS drugs already approved by the WHO be re-approved by the FDA, that a third of all prevention money be spent on abstinence education (which doesn’t work anyway), and that no money go toward supplying drug addicts with clean needles. These restrictions are sometimes called “earmarks or budget allocations”; bioethicist Ruth Macklin calls them “shackles.”

Global warming, global ethics

The earth is heating, and it's happening as a result of excessive human emissions of greenhouse gases. Due to rising amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, we're in peril or will soon be. Hurricanes will move farther away from the equator and endanger previously safe areas, sea levels will rise, and tropical diseases - once confined to certain warm climates - will spread. It all sounds a bit apocalyptic, and when I talk about global warming I want to reach for my copy of the Book of Revelations, but that's the truth. The scientific evidence is indisputable.

The issue received news coverage last week when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded (for the fourth time) that global warming had a human cause. Public awareness is growing, partially thanks to conserve-energy campaigns and commercials like the one below, produced by fightglobalwarming.com. So far, it's received a fraction of the attention of the Super Bowl commercials, but it puts them to shame.



The ethics seem simple. The argument goes something like (1) global warming is bad, and therefore, (2) holy shit, we're screwed, unless we do something about it. But ethical complications quickly arise, especially we when realize that to halt global warming, we must drastically alter our carbon usage and lifestyle, including the food we eat and the cars we drive. Yet if the "tragedy of the commons" ever applies, it applies to the ultimate common resource: the atmosphere. With free, unrestricted access to fill the globe with carbon emissions, the United States (along with other countries) has exploited this finite resource nearly to its limit.

Let us suppose that I have an ethical duty to not harm others (I know, a very bold claim, indeed). Interpreting this principle is usually straightforward (i.e., "Eli, don't fight with your sister!"). But this conception of harm has been outmoded. When I contribute to carbon emissions by leaving the air conditioner running, I haven't committed a specific harm against a particular individual. The impact of my actions won't surface for years, and when it does, it will be veiled by the huge number of people who have collectively caused, to be precise, the lakes to dry up, mosquitoes to proliferate, and hurricanes to multiply. Can I, as an individual, bear moral responsibility for a harm committed by millions of people going about their daily business? Do we need to revise our conception of harm?

Finally, questions of distribution. The United States has 5% of the global population but generates 30% of carbon emissions. Since the developed nations committed the majority of the damage, should they be responsible for the repair? Should it matter that they didn't know about global warming when they committed the harm? Should it matter that the U.S. economy, built on carbon emissions, has benefited other countries? Yesterday, China declared that the wealthier, developed countries - the historical polluters - should bear primary responsibility for the clean-up. In general, the established ethical principle of "you broke it, you fix it" makes sense. And I hope that international pressure can persuade the U.S. to take action. But it's still sad to see such thriftiness and jockeying when, to appeal to the Book of Revelations, the day of reckoning is nearly upon us.

Saving the Planet, by Polluting It

I couldn't believe the AP/CNN headline:
"Scientists say pollution may be helpful."

Apparently, pollution shields the sun's rays, cooling the planet. In fact, some scientists think we should deliberately spew pollution into the atmosphere to expedite the process. "A massive dissemination of pollutants would be needed every year or two, as the sulfates precipitate from the atmosphere in acid rain." Sounds delightful.

The Nobel Prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen suggested that "balloons bearing heavy guns be used to carry sulfates high aloft and fire them into the stratosphere" (AP wire). Many others, including Tom Wigley, a U.S. climatologist, agreed. In the October 20, 2006 edition of Science, Wigley proposed "the deliberate injection of sulfate aerosol precursors into the stratosphere." Doing so, he wrote, "could substantially offset future warming and provide additional time to reduce human dependence on fossil fuels."

The environmental situation is now so dire that we have to take steps backward to move the planet forward. Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is all the more urgent - because in the meantime, we're cutting down the branches to save the trees.

Jay Leno lightened it up: "Today the oil companies said, 'That's what we've been trying to tell you!" And: "See, all this time we're criticizing President Bush, he was a man ahead of his time."