The New York Times has a story in the business section today on animal rights groups uniting around environmentalist arguments for vegetarianism-- and criticizing meat-eating environmentalists. I'm not a fan of the tactics Peta or HSUS uses, but this is certainly an issue we can all agree on. Meat = bad for environment, period. I'm not sure how I feel about going after Gore in particular though. I'm *not* saying he's beyond reproach, and certainly we need to talk about why the standard American diet wasn't mentioned in "An Inconvenient Truth," (ditto for the shop-happy consumerist green "solutions" getting so much press these days) but I think this is just another one of Peta's alienating tactics. By attacking an individual often seen as moving us in the right direction, I think Peta makes itself look negative and anti-people as usual. It's not as ridiculous as their letter to Michael Moore but similar in that they criticize a "liberal" for not incorporating vegetarianism (why can't we just start saying vegan already?) into their message and choose to make their arguments in a kinda nasty way rather than a "hey! you forgot this!" kind of way. You have the right arguments... so why use such yucky tactics ? I know, I know, nothing new there. Since most people think all vegans and animal people are automatically in line with Peta though (including the New York Times) it is frustrating.
Oh, and I also don't like their insinuating chickens aren't brave or something... don't they have it hard enough guys, hmm?
Read more:
*New York Times: Trying to Connect the Dinner Plate to Climate Change
*Alternet: So You're an Environmentalist; Why Are You still Eating Meat?
*Treehugger: Vegan Diets Healthier for Planet
*Go Veg: Meat and the Environment
