Did the "Shadow" Report Shed More Light on Climate Change?
A study published in Society & Animals
looks at whether a United Nations report on the role of livestock
farming on global climate change has itself changed the way various
stakeholders talk about this major environmental issue.
Study Summary:
In 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization issued an extensive report titled "Livestock's Long Shadow,"
which documented how corporate livestock farming is responsible for 18
percent of greenhouse gas emissions – the highest of any industry. The
resulting discourse relates to another social theory about what kinds of
risks the public is willing to take (or rationalize) regarding its own
well-being.
This study from the University of Windsor (Canada)
looked at documents, websites and other information put forth by
government agencies, industry groups, select print media, and several
major environmental and animal protection organizations to see if
information from the U.N. report is being incorporated into discussions
about climate change and the role of meat production (and therefore meat
consumption) in causing it.
The authors found that animal
protection organizations were most likely to note the report's findings
and advocate for less meat consumption; environmental groups and the
media noted the report to varying degrees, with limited dietary
discussions; and government agencies and the meat industry were least
likely to acknowledge the report at all, with the latter expectedly
reluctant to disparage its own products or methods.
Policy Implications:
The bad news that industrial animal agriculture (as outlined in the ASI's policy paper, "The CAFO Hothouse")
contributes more to the problem of climate change than does the
transportation sector has the unintended good consequence of allying the
animal protection and environmental movements – their deep-seated
philosophical differences notwithstanding (e.g., emphasizing individual
animals versus larger populations or species).
As this study
shows, since the publication of the U.N. report showing the CAFO/global
warming connection, the discourses of these two social justice movements
have been less at odds with each other. However, the agricultural
industry has avoided the topic, pointing its finger elsewhere;
government documents downplay it; and the media is lukewarm in its
coverage.
The authors' application of risk theory to the analysis
of these differing stakeholder discourses suggests that we still have
our work cut out for us to establish broad public acceptance of the
connection. Although part of the resistance goes to the power of the
meat industry, some of it is due to the reluctance of the public to
modify its eating habits, even when presented with scientific evidence
showing its destructive effects.
- Ken Shapiro (11/06/2011)
Published by admin on 12/26/2011 10:34:46
