I’ve been blogging a lot over the last few months. Just, not here. I attended the United Nations climate change conference, the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in Durban in November and December, and blogged about it for the New Zealand Youth Delegation and Adopt a Negotiator. I’ve also put up a guest blog on the UN Youth site.
Over the coming weeks, I will put up some reflections here on the links between climate change and both human and animal rights. I will also reflect on some of the things I have learned through the COP process.
But, first, a bit of background. New Zealand’s media has been typically quiet about the Conference. So, a quick summary. Continue reading
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
I bet it’s nice to be right every now and then. Good for the self-esteem, at any rate. However I’m not sure where you stand when publicly falsifying your own previous positions. There is a certain degree of comfort in knowing that if the new me wasn’t right, then sure enough the old one was.
This is where British environmentalist George Monbiot now finds himself. Despite previously proclaiming that the ‘only’ ethical stance in the face of coming food and climate crises was veganism, he has recently published an article dramatically titled ‘I was wrong about veganism. Let them eat meat – but farm it properly’. Continue reading
by Susy Pryde
Doth the hawk fly by Thy wisdom and stretch her wings toward the south?
Book of Job (39:26)
With the Easter holidays approaching, chances are our family will join the ‘kiwi’ holiday migration for a bit of a lie around with a novel, aiming to accomplish nothing in particular for a few days. Technically it is not a necessary ritual though we do consider it a retreat to a more hospitable habitat.
But what if migrating at certain times of the year was necessary for our survival, as is the case in the animal kingdom? Imagine coordinating an epic journey over weeks or even months, crossing multiple borders or oceans in order to breed, find food, or escape seasonal changes. Continue reading
by Jeremy Nagel
Jeremy is a fourth year Bachelor of Environmental Science student at Monash University (Australia). He has been vegan for four and a half years and enjoys sport, particularly running and cycling.
With the Copenhagen climate change summit ending with a generally accepted (if unratified) consensus that emissions cuts of at least 20% will be required by 2020 in order to avoid dangerous climate change, governments around the world are looking for ways to transition to a low carbon economy. It is often said that the best way to cushion the initial blow will be to ‘pick the low hanging fruit’ – ending blatantly unsustainable practices, for which there are readily available substitutes. Adopting energy efficiency initiatives, for example, could allow for as much of 29% of the US’s carbon emissions to be mitigated while generating a profit in the process.[1]
It is interesting to note that a measure that could deliver emissions reductions of a similar magnitude and could arguably be simpler to implement has not even been mentioned at the large climate talks and has received scant attention in the literature. This measure is veg*nism.
According to the UNFAO report Livestock’s Long Shadow,[2] animal husbandry contributes 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions. While it would be overly simplistic to suggest that if the world’s population went vegan overnight, the spectre of global warming would creep back into its cupboard, it is nonetheless true that a plant based diet places considerably less stress on the environment. Continue reading
There are many reasons for choosing the vegan way of life: Ethical, spiritual, environmental, and physical. My own motivations are a combination of the above, but one aspect that I would like to focus on here is the environmental consequences of meat and dairy production.
Many commentators (indeed, many of my vegan friends!) consider this to be a secondary consideration. They believe that it is the suffering of the animals concerned that must take primacy. Perhaps this is the purists’ dislike of anthropocentric considerations slipping in to what ‘should’ be a movement for the rights of animals. Perhaps it is a form of ‘green fatigue’ brought on by the recent trend to frame any lecture or article – on any subject and however strained – in terms of ‘climate change’.