George Guimarães

Click here to read this article in PDF format with images

June 2010

The month of June 2010 started well, with the publication of a report by the United Nations (UN) on the environmental impact of our consumption and production patterns. Produced by the International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management, which is housed by Environment Programme UN, the report clearly indicates the cattle industry as being the most responsible for global warming. Data presented only come to confirm previous reports of this and other organizations worldwide that point in the same direction, but this time in a much more clear and direct. The report 112 pages saves the reader from having to analyze it thoroughly in search of evidence on the responsibility for the production of meat and dairy in environmental damage. Thereby, literal transcription of some of its passages is sufficient to make clear the findings of the UN International Panel on the topic.

An excerpt from the report states: “The land use and emissions [gas stove] strongly depend on the diet. Animal products, both meat and dairy, in general require more resources and generate higher emissions than plant-based alternatives”. In Elsewhere, lê-se: “A substantial reduction in impacts would only be possible with a global dietary change to distance itself from animal products”. And: “The production of agricultural biomass, especially animal products, is and will remain a transformation process inefficient when compared to most industrial processes”. In other words, The production of food generates an ambient weight, the highest weight is in the production of food of animal origin.

The graphs presented in the report show the animal products as being responsible for more than 20% the global warming potential, close 68% the competition for land use and about 34% the consumption of materials in accordance with the environmental weight. To put into perspective, participation fuel (coal, natural gas and oil) in the three categories were, respectively, 24%, 06% and less than 30%. Given this, the report states that "the use of private cars for transportation, consumption of meat and dairy products and the use of electrical equipment have a disproportionately large share in the environmental impacts”.

In Brazil, the impact of the news was tiny. Unlike, Congress and its caucus threaten to change the code to allow forest clearing new areas of forest to make way for agribusiness (understand livestock), taking millions of hectares of virgin forest protection currently in force. But as just about everything is lost, federal prosecutors (MPF) launched, with the aim of combating the "meat deforestation", an advertising campaign with the right video, website and everything else. It, MPF asks that consumers do not buy meat produced in illegal areas (as if that were printed on the packaging). However, if Congress can change the Forest Code, hence the millions of acres that will be torn down to turn pasture will no longer be illegal and therefore have the approval of the MPF, who will fight for the rights of farmers in clearing these same areas that today are considered worthy of preservation. Obviously, the problem is not in "illegal meat", but in the flesh. Any meat. Moreover, in the flesh is more cool than the illegal meat, since the majority of meat is produced in a legal (or what the legislation meant by cool). The problem is the fact that the meat is cool little changes the impact it causes on the environment and consequently in the life of animals humans and non-humans who live in it and depend on it. Neither changes the direct impact of its production on the life of the animal that has been exploited for this purpose.

Anyway, however noble it was the intention of the MPF, the campaign was not well received by the Brazilian media, fez that harsh criticism, of course, not derive the same focus that weightings previous, but the defense of the interests of the Brazilian cattle sector. Ironically, the same week of the publication of the UN report, rated at the Brazilian media campaign against the "meat deforestation" as an act of "criminalization of Brazilian cattle", even accusing the MPF of irresponsibility for putting into question the source of food and jobs of thousands of Brazilian families. In short, MPF was unhappy with both ranchers and with environmentalists and animal rights advocates.

And speaking of advertising campaigns and insanities of the month, the federal government, through the Ministry of Science and Technology in partnership with the National Research Council (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development), launched an advertising campaign pro-vivisector. That's it, the bizarre month of June 2010 saw the launch of an advertising campaign funded for a million dollars (financed with public funds) which aims to misinform the public about the benefits and necessity of vivisection industry, thus guaranteeing (and the cost of the torture and death of millions of sentient animals) survival in the country this billion dollar industry that no longer finds more space in the same territory where science and ethics are gaining a new face. It also makes the cost of the health and lives of thousands of human animals who suffer the consequences of perpetuating the fallacies of this archaic industry. Leveraging the audience of the World Cup and the wave of alienation fostered by her, this bit of misinformation and reverse seems to have found the perfect time to launch.

However, the month that witnessed a new generation of juggling (and by) Brazilian media in the interests of animal exploitation industry and to the detriment of scientific information sana and rightly points to the opposite direction would not have been complete not for the treatment of the whaling issue. While the British media investigated and reported overwhelming evidence about the scandal of tuition fees by the Japanese government to small countries in exchange for votes in favor of the legalization of commercial whaling at the International Whaling Commission, the science editor of a major Brazilian newspapers signed an article entitled "Kill the Whales!”, where the unfortunate (the adjective is quite appropriate) argues that releasing the game is the best thing to do, including whales to be killed. It reduces the issue to a mere geopolitical dispute, which is nonetheless, since Japan only insists on whaling by mere nationalistic pride, considering that even the activity has been profitable in recent years thanks to the action of conservation groups. And even when the activity was profitable, had no impact on the GDP of that country.

There are other issues to consider, which go beyond the geopolitical issue, passing by ethics and environmental preservation, evidenced by the fact that currently remain on the planet only three whaling nations, one of which, a Noruega, just received (that same month ambiguous) an ultimatum from the European Union which declared that the nation will not be accepted if the bloc does not cease the activity of whaling. Especially, the fact that Japan had to resort to bribery to get maintain its position hunter leaves no doubt that, in the opinion of the international community, this activity already has his days numbered.

To close the unfortunate article, the author points out that the "sentimentality" of those who want to put an end once and for all with this practice brings obstacles to the government of that country that just makes you want to express your right to explore the ocean as you wish. Indeed, a thought which is in full agreement with the causes that led to the environmental crisis in which we live today and that, judging by swinging the harpoon vessel, only tend to aggravate.

Since we can not (nor should we) send us the planet, we can only work to transform this scenario. If there's any chance of reversing the current crisis, the animal question is at the heart of this transformation, that does not give the media, or will be operated by the government, not be supported by the overwhelming majority of the population at first. The transformation in animal consciousness, needed to revolutionize the planetary situation, will not happen at the hands of others or will be guided by intoxicating instruments of mass communication that have brought us to the current reality. She will by their hands (yes, you, reader) and for his work, using the strength and power of communication that you are able to generate. It is the individual power, not in the media or in government, lies hope for the animals and for the continuity of life in our planet. What is outside is lost. What's inside can always fruitful. Fruitful!