On Cow farts and Fasting

Some time ago I posted about the rather ingenious (if not sometimes ridiculous) measures being taken to tackle bovine emissions. There is a very informative article with heaps of links here at Grist News. I can't help but quote one short section,

According to an EPA FAQ about methane and livestock in the U.S. alone, cattle emit about 5.5 million metric tons of methane per year into the atmosphere—20 percent of U.S. methane emissions. And there 1.5 billion belching cattle here on earth, a number that is expected to grow rapidly as earth’s meat-hungry population expands.

It’s perhaps not surprising that scientists all over the world are trying to figure out how we can have our meat and eat it, too. Their attempts to make cattle emit less methane include alterations in diet, breeding, and even a vaccine.

What was surprising (at least to me) is that grazing, grass-fed cattle—those happy cows we all like to celebrate, and some of us (hi, Ed) like to eat—will, according to Eshel, emit four to five more methane than corn-fed cattle.

But wait—that doesn’t mean that you should reach for a CAFO burger.

The answer, upon reflection, is NO. But I think that this question emerges as a natural one ought to reveal the sort of scientific reductionism which massively limits our imaginations and binds us to certain ways of thinking. If we try to graph the equation it might look something like this:

(emissions of 1.5 billion cattle) x (CAFO Corn-fed diet) > (emissions of 1.5 billion cattle) x (grass-fed beef)
= CAFO cattle are more 'environmentally friendly'/ produce less emissions, etc.

What this logic fails to discern (and is arguably unable to discern), is the actual possibility of consuming less beef in the first place. Of course we need to consider how diet might effect the cows emissions, but what this implicitly blinds us to is accepting the current levels of consumption. And if you have an ear for it, you will find this sort of logic everywhere. It pervades most all of the discussions around the 'green' movement, "how can we save the planet and ensure that the economy continues on a path of exponential growth?" The (il)logic of this economic wrangling was a discussion point in my earlier post and has been wonderfully noted here:

Just because corn-fed cows emit less methane does not make them better, says Eshel, and the idea that we can convert cows into low-methane systems by feeding them corn is like asking a giraffe to graze on grass. “It’s evolutionary advantage is lost,” he says. He contends methane is a normal end-product (actually, a product of both ends) of healthy, grazing cows. Re-plumbing cows to emit less methane is, he says, absurd. “Maybe what we need to do is consider the scope of our reliance on those animals, rather than trying to re-evolve them into something that is advantageous to us,” he suggests.

What this logic simply cannot account for, but what is desperately needed, is serious personal and collective discipline. And yet this falls squarely outside the bounds of business. Just think of what would happen if the beef industry advertised a plan to reduce emissions that included fasting from meat one day a week. Imagine if the CAFO's lobbied the government to pass a law prohibiting the sale of beef on Sundays. Possible? Hardly. What sort of business would go for such things? Yet, these same businesses are now funding studies to shove tubes up the rear ends of cows to 'collect' their emissions for processing. Hmmm.

If we honestly look at the harmful effects our consumption has on our bodies, minds, and souls, I believe fasting is one important act of personal repentance. It is also one of the greatest resources which our tradition has to offer our out-of-control world of consumption, a world which I find myself continually caught up in. We simply cannot continue to "have our cake (or in this case, cow) and eat it too". Not with 6 billion people. Not with 1.5 billion cows.

The UN and WHO report there are currently over 900 million people living without the necessary nutrients to sustain life. That number is only surpassed by the 1.5 billion among us who are overweight and an additional 400 million who are obese. Yes, on this planet, 1 billion have too little to survive, while 2 billion have more than their bodies can process.

What do we do as people of faith, in light of these facts?

Could fasting be one action that we consider?

Over the last few months Roxy and I have adopted a diet that is 90% Vegan. For us, this means that meat and dairy products (yes, cheese and eggs too) make up less than 10% of our weekly diets, and we have reserved eating meat for special 'feast days' on the weekend. I have found this incredibly challenging, but also deeply rewarding. We are (re)learning to cook with real, whole foods. Since the majority of processed foods in the grocery stores include some form of milk products, our meals no longer include them. We are finding vegetables and legumes which we never knew existed now comprise much our daily diet. What is more, there is a certain solidarity that we feel with those who cannot afford the luxuries of meat as we voluntarily eat less.

Before you write us off as freaks, consider again the facts. 1 billion undernourished, 2 billion overweight/obese. To my mind, this is not a mere matter of food production or even of distribution. It is about the cultural myths which lie deeply in our minds that somehow we do not have enough, that we need more, when in actual fact, we have enough right here, right now. It is the myth of scarcity in a creation of plenty, and I believe it is a serious call to action and reflection.

Eating Mercifully.

I've just watched this 25 minute video put together by the Humane Society. After reading countless books on food and industrial agriculture, I've already been convinced that the facts presented here in relation to animal farming are true. But the video images of some of the mistreatment takes this to a whole new level.

WARNING: There are some disturbing images here of the treatment of animals. I think it is essential that we become people of truth-telling, which means to face the facts rather than hide behind slogans like 'that can't be true - farmers wouldn't do that'. This is a call to action and faithfulness which demands thoughtful reflection and creative action.

The video includes some good thoughts from Greg Boyd on theological implications for animal husbandry and Christian faithfulness.

Watch and pray.

10 Myths and Facts about Christianity and the Environment: a new project

As part of my work towards a class I'm teaching in September, (entitled Theology, Ecology, and Earth-keeping), I am now working to develop a lecture entitled:
"10 myths and facts about Christians and the Environment".

I have conducted an informal survey to try and find the 10 most common responses given by Christians when discussing the environment. (Thanks to the 30 or so of you who responded, and if any didn't yet or want to take part, please email me.) This includes the too oft-quoted theological brilliance of, 'Why should we care if its all gonna burn?'

In reading the responses I have become ever more convinced that this is a very serious discussion that needs to take place. Many important questions have been raised through these responses which probe the meaning of living faithfully in our world today. Take, for example, one respondent - 'doesn't Paul say to seek the things which are from above and not the things of this world?' (hence, things like 'environment' are not what we should be thinking about) - and yet the fact remains that many of these reactions reflect what I think can be legitimately called a 'half-baked' theology. (Yes, of course Paul says to 'seek the things from above' but he surely doesn't mean we should neglect washing our clothes, cooking supper, or loving our spouses! Much less does he mean we should stop caring about the health of our communities and ecosystems, or things like clean air and water!) To put it sharply, conversations like these, (which I find as vital as often frustrating), reflect a theological laziness and biblical illiteracy which plagues our churches and exposes the cultural captivity of the Gospel in our time.

I believe Peter Harris, founder of A'Rocha, is right when he recently wrote,

"So even though the core beliefs of the Christian faith and the texts that inform them are before our eyes, we simply haven't appropriated them in a way that does them justice. Either we don't think they are important, or the authentic Gospel lays such a sharp axe to the root of the cultural trees which shelter and sustain us that we cannot easily open our lives to its challenge." From(Kingfisher's Fire (Oxford: Monarch Books, 2008), 101.

Just take another response, which I have heard countless times, 'If we did live in a more earth-friendly manner we’d have to all become Amish, (and I don't want to give up the advances in health and technology which we now enjoy).' Another way this is often expressed is something like, 'It's not like we can all move back to the farm' or 'Do you just expect that people can be so concerned about nature to stop making money', etc. Now, I respect the complexity of these issues, (I don't suggest that we all a priori become Amish, move back to the Farm, or give up our jobs), but I think these sorts of responses are dangerous and deceptive in the way they defend the status quo as the best and normal way of life. I think we should be very nervous about implicitly accepting our current way of life as the norm, and aware of the dangers of blindly living this without allowing Scripture to call it into question.

Furthermore, I think it is essential that we see our own cultural moment as one of great danger for those who seek to witness to the Gospel. The totalitarian regime of Walmart, MTV, and Burger King (Have it your way) have so co-opted our minds and imaginations that we have trouble living into something different. The cultural logic of late capitalism which provides an ever-shifting stream of desires and impulses for 'More-Bigger-Better' proves insatiable and yet oddly addictive. These principalities and powers are at work in our world in a way that is far more deceptive and seductive than ever before, and the really scary part is the way that many of our contemporary churches blindly participate. Like a fish in water, we have been so formed by the dominant ideologies of our time as to be blind to their destructive effects and blind to the Gospel call for metanoia (meaning repentance, changing/re-forming one's mind, going a different way).

It is on this note that I'd like to begin this series. For faithful response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ is at the heart of my concerns. This is no call to join Greenpeace or the environmental movement. In fact, I aim to avoid as much as possible the language of 'environment' and 'nature' but prefer rather to speak of 'Creation'. For it is Creation which beckons us back to its Creator. Living faithfully as creatures who are made in the image of God is that which most drives this discussion and the theological and exegetical work which guides it.

I invite comments, questions, and responses to each 'myth and fact' as they are so mentioned and look forward to fruitful engagement!

An Easter Prayer

O Lord God, our Father.

You are the light that can never be put out; and now you give us a light that shall drive away all darkness.
You are love without coldness, and you have given us such warmth in our hearts that we can love all when we meet.

You are the life that defies death, and you have opened for us the way that leads to eternal life.

None of us is a great Christian; we are all humble and ordinary.

But your grace is enough for us.

Arouse in us that small degree of joy and thankfulness of which we are capable,
to the timid faith which we can muster,
to the cautious obedience which we cannot refuse,
and thus to the wholeness of life which you have prepared for all of us
through the death and resurrection of your Son.

Do not allow any of us to remain apathetic or indifferent to the wondrous glory of Easter,
but let the light of our risen Lord reach every corner of our dull hearts.

We pray this through Jesus Christ, our risen Lord, Amen

--Karl Barth


(the blogging is on hold as the end of term quickly approaches. To be continued...)

Friedman, Marx, and the conservative(s)

At risk of being written off as a 'damn communist/socialist', I offer a brief excerpt from Marx's Manifesto. My only defense is that i ran across it in a book of a very different era and kind - Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat (2005). Friedman has been a senior Foreign Affairs correspondent for the New York Times. This book represents his lengthy reflections upon Globalization after the turn of the millenium. (More to come on Friedman, as his latest book represents a major shift in tone - this Hot, Flat, and Crowded finds the great challenges facing us as a planet and, in contrast to the previous work, doesn't believe that global expansion and deregulation will solve things.)

Recall that Marx penned these words in 1848...


All fixed, fast, frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life and his relations with his kind. The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe.

In the place of old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures there arises a world literature.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves.

In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

Friedman then provides some commentary on this passage, noting in particular the resemblance between a world which had begun to see the Industrial Revolution, and one which now faces the Global Flattening Revolution. He quotes a conversation with Harvard political theorist Michael Sandel,

"...a flat, frictionless world is a mixed blessing. It may, as you suggest, be good for global business. Or it may, as Marx believed, augur well for a proletarian revolution. But it may also pose a threat to the distinctive places and communities that give us our bearings, that locate us in the world. From the first stirrings of capitalism, people have imagined the possibility of the world as a perfect market - unimpeded by protectionist pressures, disparate legal systems, cultural and linguistic differences, or ideological disagreement. But this vision has always bumped up against the world as it actually is - full of sources of friction and inefficiency. Some obstacles to a frictionless global market are truly sources of waste and lost opportunities. But some of these inefficiencies are institutions, habits, cultures, and traditions that people cherish precisely because they reflect nonmarket values like social cohesion, religious faith, and national pride. If global markets and new communications technologies flatten these differences, we may lost something important. That is why the debate about capitalism has been, from the very beginning, about which frictions, barriers, and boundaries are mere sources of waste and inefficiency, and which are sources of identity and belonging that we should try to protect." (pg. 204)

It strikes me that this debate also draws out a range of responses - the scale of which is broader than simply 'liberal' and 'conservative'. (The caricature being that the liberals want to sit and sip coffee while the governments hand out checks to everyone, while the conservatives want governments to get out of the way so that we can all compete.) While there are echoes of truth in these caricatures and we need to think about them very carefully, I have become increasingly convinced that there are (at least) two kinds of conservatives.

The first is concerned to protect the small community which he is rooted in - the health of its people and land, the sense of trust neighbors have with one another, the ease with which children grow up free to roam and play. They don't particularly like politics, but care very much about which people are running their town hall meetings! The second is concerned with his or her own freedom to do as they please and with the need for governments to get out of the way. Though they also live in a relatively small community, they regard high property values and low taxes as the main reason for their being there. They see no reason why jobs shouldn't be outsourced, for it could mean - in the big picture - that we make more money at home.

This is a perplexing constrast. Friedman seems to be in the second category at least when it regards economics. He is largely positive towards the 'flattening' of the world (even if it entails the removal of the sort of boundaries that Sandel points to), believes that the less we restrict individual liberty and creativity the better it will be for all of us. And yet, 3 years later he writes a book which claims, "America has a problem and the world has a problem... it's getting Hot, Flat, and Crowded." Furthermore, our businesses haven't creatively anticipated these problems and our governments haven't shaped policy which could help businesses to move in this direction either. Individuals bicker about the demands of change in lifestyle. So where do we go from here? Well, one option is to return to an older form of conservatism which conserves the local embodied community and the virtues thereof.

I intend to blog further on Friedman as I continue reading. Feel free to join the discussion.

Michael Pollan at UBC - June 6th!!!

So here is a bit of a plug for a writer I've found extremely insightful and provocative as I've explored issues related to food - Michael Pollan.

His books, notably The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food have born a very fruitful response (no pun intended) from a wide range of readers. (If you read one book as an introduction to food issues, read In Defense of Food.)

He has written widely - both publicly and politically - urging leaders to think critically about the state of the current food economy and the necessary changes to steer things in a more ecologically healthy direction. His "Open letter to the Farmer-in-Chief" was a beautiful call for the incoming president to engage issues of food security, safety, as well as general nutrition. (For those new to the discussion of food as an ethical issue, this 10 page letter is essential reading.)

The current issue of Mother Jones magazine also includes a fairly in-depth interview of Pollan. I especially commend this interview as a basic primer on many of the interesting issues of the emerging field of 'food ethics'.

If you are interested in Pollan, listen to him here and here. Videos are available here and here. The first of these is a 45 minute with Bill Moyers.

He is now coming to speak at the UBC Farm on June 6. More info is available at the farm website. I have become increasingly aware of the need for these sorts of locally supported small-scale farms as a witness to that which truly sustains us and have found Pollan an important ally in this move. I encourage those within and near Vancouver to consider signing up for the event!

Also, if you are living in Vancouver and haven't gotten to know our local Farmer's Markets, it is about time! Most of these open in May, but there is a winter's farmers market happening here on April 11 and 25.

20th Anniversary of Exxon Valdez

Well, I'm only a few days behind here as Tuesday marked the 20th anniversary of the tragic 1989 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.

There have been a slew of articles across the web these past days, evidence perhaps of an important and ongoing debate as to the guilt or error of the Texas-based Oil company (who netted $48 billion last year alone) and, more to the point, of the inherent dangers of our world-wide oil addiction. As this brief piece from the NYTimes notes, "Still, there are lots of important questions related to humanity’s 150-year love affair with petroleum. Can expanded oil extraction take place responsibly in Arctic waters? Should the United States drill more in its own waters to rely less on oil from, say, Nigeria?" These important questions generally slip in and out of our collective consciousness, but I hope that the memory of events such as this can help us to re-member a different way of being in the world.


One other interesting feature as noted on the website of the ITOPF (the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation - yes, this actually exists) is that the Exxon Valdez was not one of the major spills in the recent past - not even in the top 10! In fact, it is #35 in the worst spills on recent record. In first place, and occurring just 10 years prior to Exxon Valdez, is the Atlantic Empress, which collided with another boat in July of 1979 and exploded. The boat caught fire and a vigorous fight was brought to extinguish it. It was then towed towards deeper water by tugboats, but a week later massive explosions erupted again and the oil slick surrounding the boat caught fire. The tow line was dropped and the whole thing burned for another week before sinking into deep water.
See the map below for locations of many of the 'top' spills in recent years.

As the article claims, "Nobody will ever know what was burned and what was dispersed by the sea. No significant shore pollution was recorded on the nearest islands. No impact study was carried out, either by the surrounding countries, or the international community, as awareness regarding marine pollution was less developed then than it is today." This is a significant point. For as surely as the Exxon Valdez spill was major (37,000 TONS of crude is still quite a lot to pour into our waterways, even when compared to its larger counterparts) the attention it attracted was, in part, due to its proximity to our home. The same year as the Exxon spill, another spill double in size occurred just North of the Canary Islands, but it didn't wash over nearly 400 miles of Alaskan shoreline.

Doug Struck, a writer who covered the original spill for The Baltimore Sun has written this article which argues that the effects of the spill continue still 20 years later. "The Trustee Council found 17 of 27 monitored species have not recovered. For example, researchers concluded that the high-pressure hoses used on the beaches did more harm than good. The pressure destroyed interlocking layers of gravel and flushed away fine sediments that scientists now know provided a kind of armor for the beaches during storms, helping to protect clams and mussels. The damage to the shellfish, in turn, slowed the recovery of otters, which feed on the mollusks."

What might we learn? Without getting preachy, I think there are 3 important points to be taken here.

1. As in First Aid, the first rule is "Do No Harm". Our hubris often blinds us to this as we rush in to 'save the planet'. An analogous example hails from our relationships with one another. I have found myself continually making the 'new husband' mistake of rushing in to 'fix' whatever seems to be ailing Roxy before taking time to listen and learn the intricacies and complexities of her day, what and who might be involved, etc. It is rather likewise with our nonhuman neighbors. While technology is a great help - we can disperse quite a bit of oil that would otherwise sit on top of the ocean - we must be slow and careful in utilizing it. What is frightening to me is our capacity to swoop in and miss the bigger picture is even greater in the case of the environment than in our marriages. (The clams and mussels under the sand don't pipe up and say 'hey you idiots, don't power-wash our house or you'll kill us!' whereas my wife has no problem telling me I'm being a jerk and not listening to her.) Listening is key, and learning the languages which are spoken. We need (each of us) to develop what David Orr calls 'ecological literacy'. Perhaps if we have ears to hear even the rocks will cry out.

2. Related to the first point, prevention and good old-fashioned wisdom are paramount. This has immediate import when we hear of plans to open up drilling in the Arctic or in a more local example - the possibility of building a pipeline across BC. We must think carefully 'what is the worst case scenario?' and not let our own hubris - as in 'technology can fix it' - get in the way. Some good old fashioned wisdom is in order here, as always. Any reader of Proverbs ought to know where the beginning of wisdom is found. Recalling our humanness is central to understanding our place in the world.

3. The Creation is a complex entity of which we are but one part. Certainly we hold a special role in creation, but we are prone to cause great pain and confusion if we consider our special place in the creation somehow 'primary' or 'more important' than the whole. We live in an ecosystem - eco- derives from the Greek Oikos, meaning 'household'. The doctrine of creation tells us that God is Creator and we are His creation. He has made all of it, every nook and cranny. (Have a glance at the Psalms or the latter part of Job for starters!) It is truly our household.

Yet it is more, for the 'environment' which 'environs' us is also within us, in some profound ways. Scripture tells us it is out of the very dust of this good creation that we ourselves are made - we are adam (mankind) from adamah (the earth), human from humus. We are, as Loren Wilkinson likes to put it, 'earthlings'. Faithfulness to God involves our coming to know who we our and our place in the world just as we must know who God is and what is His place in our world.