although I generally favor of petrochemical based clothing and shoes incontestably no good to wildlife animals at all, recyclable polyester and cloth/shoes of recycled material are surely a greener and animal friendlier choice than leather and wool produced by non-organic farming.

i don´t know petas policies but this supposedly biggest European animal right activists web shop is absolutely aware of green issues and in addition only sells clothing that is sweatshop-free.
http://www.rootsofcompassion.org/newshop/catalog/index.php?cPath=21_53

i don´t agree with peta activists who think whole mankind should switch for vegan diets but reducing the consumption of meat and milk-based product is very reasonable in regard to global warming as we all got to know at the latest by the (2nd? part of) ippc report.

there is neither a culturally acceptable nor a reasonable way for Inuits to become vegetarian or vegan. but the needless overconsumption of meat by the global rich (i.e. whole western population and parts of other territories too) has to be stopped.

to ask gore for reducing meat and milk consumption would be absolutely fine to me if he has not yet (who knows?). admonisher whose own lifestyles are not sustainable/universal endanger the credibility of the message.

people who buy all green and at the same time consume a lot have a even worse impact than those who do not consider buying green at all but consume much less.

admonisher's for global warming need to be role models for both buying green and limiting consumption of generally greenhouse gas intensive products like meat and milk.

Good for them. Meat eating environmentalist = hypocrite. Unless of course you're eating it out of a dumpster or scraping up roadkill.

Where are half of all antibiotics used? - The petri dishes we call slaughter houses.

Where do 1/3 of all US natural resources go? - The transportation and production of animal food.

What's the number one cause of rainforest destruction? - Grazing land for cheap beef.

If your goal isn't to prevent suffering, just what the hell are you fighting for? - ....

It amazes me how much infighting there is among the green movement. It strikes me that the oil companies, who have a reason to fight (profit), get along better than we do.

== author's response follows ====
Exactly. Defeat snapped from the jaws of victory by handing a talking point to the fossil fuel lobbyists: "hypocrite."

For those not into US politics, here is another way of thinking about the letter. How would you feel if a complete stranger sent you a letter, asking you to change your behavior, while simultaneously turning it into a press release?

It's one thing to attempt to start a dialog with a climate celeb; but, quite another to boost one's "relevance" by whatever means are at hand at the same time. Admittedly, by posting on the topic we are increasing that exposure; although, once the cat is out of the bag so to speak, and the spin underway (which it is), it becomes something that the broader environmental community needs to think about. Specifically, 'persons living in glass houses, etc.'

To be fair, I think it should be recognized that a plastic belt or pair of shoes that you keep for years and years has a very small footprint compared to what you eat every day, and eating lower on the food chain IS a lot less energy intensive.

Going veggie probably can't be the main solution to global warming, but it is a good way for individuals to reduce their footprint, and it also has other benefits for animals and for your health.

http://www.alternet.org/story/12162

PETA's letter reasonably points out a key issue that is highly related to global climate change: the harmful effects of mass meat and dairy production on the environment. I agree that as one component of a broad effort, people concerned about climate change and social equity should consider reducing or eliminating animal products from their diets.

I usually enjoy reading Treehugger, unless the posts read as if they were written with the help of the National Cattlemen's Association talking points. Hopefully in the future, John Laumer and other Treehugger contributors can better avoid falling into the anti-environmentalists' divide-and-conquer strategy.

There is no single solution to global warming; there are many facets of the solution. Switching to a healthier diet that at the very least reduces your consumption of animal products is one component of the overall solution. These changes that must occur will likely not conform to our previous standard of living; you must learn to accept this. Some of these changes will not be convenient. Simply saying I can’t give up my burger is like saying I won’t give up my SUV, it lacks logic and reeks of hypocrisy. Look at the figures and facts and then reassess your decision. The solution will also be regionally based. Arizona will use PV to generate electricity while New York will use hydropower. Inuit will eat what is sustainable and can be produced in their local environment. The typical American must change their eating habits. Please think carefully before posting, you have a great deal of influence.

"Close on the heels of several personal criticisms of Al Gore for his home energy use by...well, we'll just call them denialists... "

That you suppose a demagogue like Gore should be immune from criticism is unsurprising. However, to label anyone who makes such arguably valid criticisms "denialists" (whatever that's supposed to mean?), is really uncalled for, and betrays an unbending lack of tolerance for any deviation from the party line.

=== author's response follows ===
I agree that no one who takes a proactive position on climate science is immune from criticism: hopefully constructive criticism. The "denialist" term was used to characterize those who disagree with the most recent IPCC report's conclusions, regardless of the basis of disagreement (scientific or political).

Are you inferring that the IPCC report represents a political sort of "party line?" If so, which political parties might the authors of the report represent? Please help us understand your point.

I think this is a pointlessly attention grabbing move by PETA and I wish they'd step down to let a more feminist-environmentalist-less hypocritical-and-actually-vegan group take the fore... but they have a point too.

Al Gore is neither inuit nor a goatherder so far as I'm aware.

Change has to start someplace and it was my impression that this blog was for making as many changes as possible towards helping the environment... even if the whole change isn't possible. Not everyone is going to change their lightbulbs or use solar energy... does that mean I shouldn't? Though I'm capable of doing so?

PETA should place some emphasis on encouraging people to use sustainable vegan wares but with or without them the vegan community is increasingly aware and leather/wool alternatives are becoming better and more conscious everyday as we are demanding them.
=== author's response follows ===
Great points. To further clarify my analogies about other cultures, eating is a sacred human ritual with oft times very old familial tradition setting the menu. A very difficult thing to achieve familial, national, and international consensus on the need to change these traditions with any speed .

Who knows what the Gore family actually eats? Who knows what they are all working toward in dietary practice? Who knows what their individual medical requirements might be? I see very little to be gained in making a public issue of the family diet. Let it be.

The fact is it is better for the planet and the ecosystem and our heath when we eat a plant-based diet. Does that mean every single human has to be a strict vegetarian? Nah. Just as every single human being isn't going to give up their gas guzzling car, or their jacuzzi, or their plans for having twelve kids. Telling people the benefits of a healthier and more sustainable lifestyle should be the norm, while also understanding that people are free to make their own choices, as long as they aren't breaking the law.

So let PETA promote an herbivorous diet, and let Gore promote, um, whatever he promotes, and don't worry about it. Life is too short to be such a worrier :-)

Are you inferring that the IPCC report represents a political sort of "party line?"

In case you might not be aware, the United Nations is a political organization. As such, it has it's own political agenda. It always has -- or didn't you notice?

"How we eat determines, to a considerable extent, how the world is used.” -Wendell Berry

I wholeheartedly agree with ott:
meat eating environmentalist = hypocrite

I even know some very high-profile folks in the space who just simply can't get over this one hurdle...and it burns me up to no end.

As someone who has - somewhat reluctantly - attended a PETA educational event, they present statistics which argue that simply adopting a vegan diet will pretty much zero out the bulk of your environmental impacts. (no, the plastic belt doesn't really have much of an impact)

It's all to easy to look at relatively simple, external things -- what kind of car you drive, switching to renewables, etc.. It's much harder to change something (meat eating) which has been your routine almost your entire life.

My name is Ashlyn, I am in year 8 and i am doing a research assignment on world issues i have decided to choose the animal cruelty issue and i need some more accurate information so if you could please contact me on my email address with some information it would be much appreciated. please contact me as soon as possible because we are starting orals in a short period of time. Thankyou alot. Ashlyn Wright.