Carbon offsets have become a way for the environmentally conscious bourgeoisie to reconcile their values with their desire for McMansions and trips to the tropics. It's not clear whether carbon offsets really reduce emissions or are just a way for organizations to get some extra money out of projects that would have happened anyway. Regardless, the best animal-welfare organizations may be competitive with carbon offsets.

Per capita emissions from food in UK (metric tons CO2 equivalent) 2.7
Annual reduction from a vegetarian diet (tons CO2 equivalent) 0.59 (ibid.)
Cost of a vegetarian-year $11 US
Cost of preventing a ton of CO2-equivalent emissions $18.52 US

Cost of a metric ton of carbon offsets
Carbon Fund: $11.00 US
Terrapass: $13.09 US

One of Brian's essay's includes a higher estimate of what a non-meat (vegan in this case) diet prevents in greenhouse-gas emissions (the link to the study that provided the figure is dead). A vegan diet doesn't prevent much more GHG emissions than a vegetarian one, so the discrepancy may be due to differences between the UK and US or the authors' methods. If we use the 1.5 tons/year figure, the cost of preventing a ton of CO2-equivalent emissions falls to $7.33.

Vegetarians on average create more vegetarians, while carbon offsets don't create more carbon offsets. And I think the estimates also ignore people who reduce meat consumption. So donating to the Humane League may be a more effective way of reducing emissions than buying carbon offsets. Of course, there could be some problems with the survey data that we don't know about.

I wonder whether there's any way for animal-welfare organizations to attract environmentalists' dollars without changing the message. Lobbying and activism are probably more effective at preventing GHG emissions than buying carbon offsets, so animal-welfare organizations couldn't compete with environmental organizations directly. But GHG reductions would at least be a factor in their favor.

[Edited to fix the second-to-last sentence. Thanks, Alan!]

Pat wrote:I wonder whether there's any way for animal-welfare organizations to attract environmentalists' dollars without changing the message.

I'm not sure how strictly you want to stick to "without changing the message," but if your post is accurate, it would serve as a message targeted to known environmentalists (paid for by animal-welfare or animal-rights groups). I'm not sure about the cost of switching to a vegetarian diet--the cost can vary greatly depending on what the old diet was and what the new diet is.

Politicians would not accept any talk of vegetarianism because they want to get re-elected, and they know that most people are not vegetarian and that their voter base will revolt if there is any talk of vegetarianism.

There is another odd thing about global climate change: What are the real reasons for not destroying the environment? For some, the reason is to advance the well-being of humans. For those who have some concern for nonhuman life, they should START by switching to a vegetarian diet regardless of the greenhouse gas issue (and stop making babies and reduce consumption of economic goods). For those that have no concern for animals, a more effective appeal (in the short run) would be to talk about intergenerational equity and ignore the animal welfare issue. This means talking about how we have benefited from having natural resources that were not entirely destroyed by prior generations and that hogging all the resources now is essentially stealing from future generations. If somebody else consumes too much now, they are essentially stealing from your children (these are marketing-style moral claims).

Wonderful essay, Pat!

Pat wrote:so animal-welfare organizations couldn't compete with animal-welfare organizations directly.

I think you mean animal-welfare organizations couldn't compete with environmental organizations directly?

Pat wrote:I wonder whether there's any way for animal-welfare organizations to attract environmentalists' dollars without changing the message.

Yeah, this is an important consideration. We don't necessarily want lots of vegetarians purely based on environmentalism. If exposing factory farming has the longer-term effect of increasing concern for animal welfare, might exposing global warming have the longer-term effect of increasing support for conservationism?

rehoot wrote:Politicians would not accept any talk of vegetarianism because they want to get re-elected, and they know that most people are not vegetarian and that their voter base will revolt if there is any talk of vegetarianism.

Yes.

Brian Tomasik wrote:Yeah, this is an important consideration. We don't necessarily want lots of vegetarians purely based on environmentalism. If exposing factory farming has the longer-term effect of increasing concern for animal welfare, might exposing global warming have the longer-term effect of increasing support for conservationism?

I agree with Brian. My goal isn't a world with more vegetarians, but a world with more anti-speciesists (so interventions in the wild become easier). I think to promote veganism is a mean for going to a world with more anti-speciesists, but it gets that goal easier when it's not linked with environmentalism, health, or third world arguments (just animal ethics and anti-speciesism).

Brian: On the other hand, I think it's perhaps a mistake to speak about suffering in each animal product (as you do in "How Much Direct Suffering Is Caused by Various Animal Foods?"). If we think that veganism is mainly a mean for getting anti-speciesists, suffering in each product becomes less important.

Pat wrote:I wonder whether there's any way for animal-welfare organizations to attract environmentalists' dollars without changing the message.

I don't think so. Animal defense message is really a lot of different to environmental message.

Moreover, I don't think that environmental arguments makes a lot of vegetarians. I think this Matt Ball quote is interesting:

"My general impression (and I know there are exceptions to this and all arguments) is that global warming is another argument that makes sense to us, and makes us think, "Here is a great, self-interested hook I can use to convince others of veganism's superiority!" But it isn’t a question of whether veganism is the best diet for addressing global warming (as far as I can tell, it is). The bottom line has to be the actual impact of the message we choose to present. In other words: we shouldn't seek out and use arguments that seem to support veganism – veganism isn't the point. If we take suffering seriously, we must seek to present a message that reduces the most suffering.

[...] People don’t hear about a concern (especially a relatively abstract issue like global warming) and take it to the fullest extent – e.g., stop driving entirely – but rather, those motivated enough will do something (drive a bit less, drive a more fuel-efficient car) and feel good that they are doing something. (The same has held true for “the health argument.”)

In this case, though, doing "something" means eating a lot more chickens. We can say, "But being vegan is even better!" till we're blue in the face, but experience shows that this is effective only in the rarest of cases; the vast majority of people who will be moved at all about global warming are happy to be 'taking action' by eating a lot more chickens. [...]

Although the global warming / food connection seems clear to us, the bottom line is how it actually plays out in people's minds. When used on its own, the diet / global warming angle can easily do more harm (increase in chickens eaten) than good (people going veg). Instead of an oblique anti-beef message, we can present a direct anti-cruelty / pro-animal message, and convince more people to eat fewer or no animals."

http://www.veganoutreach.org/gwthoughts.html

Daniel Dorado wrote:Brian: On the other hand, I think it's perhaps a mistake to speak about suffering in each animal product (as you do in "How Much Direct Suffering Is Caused by Various Animal Foods?"). If we think that veganism is mainly a mean for getting anti-speciesists, suffering in each product becomes less important.

Interesting point. I guess there are two things I'd say:

1. Perhaps shortsightedly, I do still care about factory-farmed suffering on an emotional level, and I find it very troubling when, for example, people say, "I'm not fully vegetarian, but at least I only eat chicken and fish."
2. I don't think the suffering-per-kg analysis detracts from antispeciesism / interventionism in the same way as environmentalism does. Indeed, one of my friends thinks that the most valuable part of the essay is to help people think in more utilitarian, cost-effectiveness terms in general. Even when it comes to intervention in the wild, we're going to need to pick our battles, and that selection process should be based on similar sorts of calculations of orders of magnitude of suffering.

Perhaps your thought was that anything other than full veganism is very suboptimal in terms of spreading the idea that animal suffering matters? I'm doubtful on that point, but I could certainly be persuaded otherwise. Unlike in the case of Matt Ball's global-warming argument, the metric in my essay is still animal suffering, so it's not as though this is a distraction from what we want people to care about.

Hi Brian.

Yes, I think that anything other than veganism is suboptimal in terms of spreading the idea that animal suffering matters. Nearly all the most involved animal advocates that I know are vegan. So I can be biased here, but I see that veganism contributes more than anything other to spreading that idea.

On the other hand, I think it's important to take suffering caused by animal foods into account when people say "I don't eat meat, but fish" or "I don't eat pork, but chicken." There are a lot of people thinking that is good step. I would reply then something like: "It's not really a good step, because there are a lot of more expected suffering caused per kg demanded (fish and chickens are smaller and so on). It's better to go vegan". So I would take the suffering-caused-by-animal-foods issue into account, but I would reply strategically, trying that person becomes vegan. I wouldn't say something like "it isn't a good idea, it's better if you eat more cow and pork."

I guess Vegan Outreach thinks something similar than me about this issue. Jack Norris and Matt Ball know that there are several animal foods that cause more suffering, but they promote veganism.

Thanks, Daniel!

Daniel Dorado wrote:Nearly all the most involved animal advocates that I know are vegan. So I can be biased here, but I see that veganism contributes more than anything other to spreading that idea.

But presumably the arrow of causality goes mainly in the other direction? That is, because people are strong animal advocates, they go all the way to veganism. Veganism takes effort (or so people think until they try it ), so it's mainly people who already care about the issue who will go that far.

Daniel Dorado wrote:I guess Vegan Outreach thinks something similar than me about this issue. Jack Norris and Matt Ball know that there are several animal foods that cause more suffering, but they promote veganism.

Yes, this is true. That said, one reason for it is that most of VO's donors would stage an uprising if VO started an "Eat Mor Cow" or "Drink more milk" campaign.

But, I think you may be right that veganism is a better message for the masses, because many people don't grasp the subtleties of the suffering-per-kilogram idea. People do tend to think that if you eat meat, you don't care that much about animal suffering, and they don't realize that there are big shades of gray. In reality, vegan food is not cruelty-free, and the difference in suffering between vegan food and beef is a lot smaller than between beef and fish. But people often think, "Vegan food doesn't hurt animals; meat does hurt animals," and leave it at that.

Brian, I think the arrow of causation probably goes both ways.
I suggest that the suffering per kg idea is also not appropriate for the masses because with respect, it's calculations are uncertain, and all is made on a per-animal basis. No per-brain volume or per animal volume (a compromise) calculation has yet been provided as an alternative!
And I agree with you both that veganism is probably a good idea for those interested, although vegetarianism is also possibly a better idea for the 'masses'.

Brian Tomasik wrote:Thanks, Daniel!

Daniel Dorado wrote:Nearly all the most involved animal advocates that I know are vegan. So I can be biased here, but I see that veganism contributes more than anything other to spreading that idea.

But presumably the arrow of causality goes mainly in the other direction? That is, because people are strong animal advocates, they go all the way to veganism. Veganism takes effort (or so people think until they try it ), so it's mainly people who already care about the issue who will go that far.

I think the arrow of causalities goes both ways.

It's true that because several people are strong animal advocates, they go all the way to veganism. But there are a lot of people that don't become strong animal advocates until they go vegan. Me, for example. I only became an animal activist when I became vegan, because I felt I was being incoherent promoting veganism and animal while I wasn't vegan. This feeling is very usual.

On the other hand, I guess most people think more often in animal suffering when they go vegan, so It's more likely they become animal advocates then.

If I may for a moment engage in some armchair psychologizing, I'd say that your position about this issue is very influenced by your own acts. You aren't vegan, but you are a very involved animal advocate. So it's likely that you think something like: "it isn't necessary being vegan for being an animal advocate." But it's very strange to find a non-vegan who donates thousands of dollars to Vegan Outreach (or another similar charity), among other things. There are probably a few more people acting on this way among non-vegan rational utilitarians, but it's not usual among the non-vegan common citizens.