As the world gasped in collective disbelief, Donald Trump defiantly withdrew the US from a 200+ country strong Paris climate accord amid a chorus of boisterous condemnation as impassioned as it was inevitable. Yes, these are the deeply self-interested actions of someone with a flagrant disregard for scientific consensus on the manmade nature of global warming. Yes, this is a shameful and troubling step in the wrong direction. And yes, through our daily actions we are potentially just as guilty and complicit as he is.
By many accounts, animal agriculture is the most lethal contributor to environmental destruction. Harvesting animals for their flesh contributes to more climate change causing greenhouse gas emissions than all transportation systems combined. It's also the single greatest contributor to water pollution and rainforest encroachment. Eating one hamburger equates to the same water expenditure as 2 months of showers. Going one year without paper saves 8.5 trees while going one year without beef saves 3,432 of them. 91% of the destruction to the Amazon is attributable to animal agriculture. These are all staggering and inconvenient truths that many of us choose to rationalize or ignore, as a concern for animals would directly conflict with our invested desire to eat/wear/use said animals. But as widespread and ritualized as meat eating is, if we are to protest thoughtfully against eco-injustice and environmental desecration, shouldn't we forego our own self-interest (as we had hoped Trump would his) and make sure we are pursuing a personal course of restraint that's consistent with our own stated objectives? How can we credibly lay claim to a deep concern for the environment while ignoring the hefty methane-generating elephant leading to its demise? Only fair to point that out right? Apparently not.
A common refrain that meat eating environmentalists will invoke is an expectedly defensive one. It goes along the lines of "You vegans shouldn't pressure or guilt me. My decisions are my own. Live and let live." Which naturally begs the question - if vegans shouldn't impose their convictions on others, might the polluters of the world say the same of people who condemn their selfish opportunism and vigorously rally support to curb or shut down their operations? Aren't they remarkably similar courses of action borne of the same well-meaning and noble intentions? So why does speaking on behalf of one cause invite such broad sweeping praise while advocating for the other cuts so deeply and incites such defensiveness and vitriol? Why is it so much easier to wave our moral fingers at a commonly recognized villain while overlooking the villainous behavior that lurks within us all?
Recently, I was confronted by thoughtful questions from an animal loving friend on her own cruelty-free journey. Admittedly she continues to struggle with her own gastronomic temptations despite running a farm sanctuary that rescues animals from slaughter. And she was profoundly convinced that plastic use was as violent and egregious as slaughtering animals for food. And while I personally feel that an active and deliberate intention to harm makes for a greater and more violent sin, I recognised her point as she squinted warily at me as I drank from a plastic water bottle. It really shouldn’t matter what’s bad and what’s worse - harm is harm and we have a moral obligation as self-anointed shepherds of the earth to minimize our negative footprint, carbon or otherwise. We all have room to change and grow, and we ought to maintain an openness to bettering ourselves if we seek the same in others. Whether we approach things from an ethical or environmental point of view, if we wish to spotlight and condemn injustice, go right on ahead, but be fair enough to identify our own blind spots and work to align our own actions with our purported values. Only then will we bring about a true climate of change. The good kind.