Most environmentalists don’t deny the ecological disaster that is animal agriculture. So we have to ask, why isn’t veganism, or at least abstention from all products of factory farming with an eye to end it, axiomatic in our platforms designed to address global warming, for example? As detailed here and here and here, an environmentalist who eats flesh would seem to be inherently contradictory.

I suspect that one reason for this contradiction goes to undercut the normative aspect of “going green.” What I mean is, are people acting sustainably merely because it is fashionable to do so? 

Going vegan is undeniably the right thing to do, normatively, if you accept some of the more fundamental premises of the environmentalist movement. People seem to work off the assumption that our actions are causing damage and for whatever reasons we ought to change our habits to reduce the impact. Changing what we eat therefore, if it greatly lessens our ecological “footprint,” would seem to strongly follow.

I suspect that some would qualify this argument to circumvent this inconsistency with something like: As long as these changes in my habits don’t require real sacrifice, it’s the right thing to do. Self-interest is a force, and our ethical reasoning doesn’t often escape its pull. Changing light bulbs then, or driving a different vehicle, doesn’t require the sacrifice of a significant interest and therefore we ought to do so.

Consider this. A carbon cap and gasoline tax are often cited examples of things we should be doing to combat global climate change, things which would require some sacrifice, and yet, it is strongly favored legislation nonetheless.

What about our diet? We certainly have an interest in eating, but that can be satisfied with any food items that supply the necessary nutritional components. According to the American Dietetic Association (ADA), veganism is healthy at all stages of the life-cycle. So the real fundamental interest in eating can be satisfied in a much more environmentally-friendly way. What we are left with is a lifestyle change.

What other interests are at stake here? Taste? Convenience? The question is: Do these interests, which most assuredly so can be satisfied without flesh given a minor psychological adjustment, trump our fundamental first principle that for whatever reasons, ensuring a healthy environment is an important enough goal that some personal suffering is not only ethically acceptable but perhaps demanded of us.

If we are “green” because it’s in, then self-serving reasoning such as

“But I like the taste so much, so…”

will find a good home in some of our discourses.

I must add to this a comment about veganism itself. If I choose to drive a hybrid, few people would challenge my decision. But if I went vegan, many people would undoubtedly question why. If I’m an environmentalist because it’s fashionable, having to defend my veganism may be the last thing I want to do and therefore that’s a step, necessary though it may be, that I won’t take.

(Image taken from PETA)