Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
R. Sandler (2014)
Food Ethics: The Basics
Katie McShane (2016)
Anthropocentrism in Climate Ethics and PolicyMidwest Studies in Philosophy, 40
S. Newmyer (2005)
Animals, Rights and Reason in Plutarch and Modern Ethics
Christopher Morgan-Knapp, Charles Goodman (2015)
Consequentialism, Climate Harm and Individual ObligationsEthical Theory and Moral Practice, 18
W. Willett, J. Rockström, J. Rockström, B. Loken, M. Springmann, T. Lang, S. Vermeulen, S. Vermeulen, T. Garnett, D. Tilman, D. Tilman, F. DeClerck, F. DeClerck, A. Wood, M. Jonell, Michael Clark, L. Gordon, J. Fanzo, C. Hawkes, R. Zurayk, Juan Rivera, W. Vries, Lindiwe Sibanda, A. Afshin, A. Chaudhary, A. Chaudhary, M. Herrero, R. Agustina, F. Branca, A. Lartey, S. Fan, B. Crona, Elizabeth Fox, Victoria Bignet, M. Troell, M. Troell, T. Lindahl, T. Lindahl, Sudhvir Singh, S. Cornell, K. Reddy, S. Narain, S. Nishtar, Christopher Murray (2019)
Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systemsThe Lancet, 393
Angie Pepper (2018)
Adapting to Climate Change: What We Owe to Other AnimalsJournal of Applied Philosophy
P. Scarborough, P. Appleby, Anja Mizdrak, A. Briggs, R. Travis, K. Bradbury, T. Key (2014)
Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UKClimatic Change, 125
(2015)
Limits on locavorism
Joseph Poore, T. Nemecek (2018)
Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumersScience, 360
A. Norcross (2004)
Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal CasesPhilosophical Perspectives, 18
P. Taylor (1986)
Respect for nature
E. Spijker, A. Anger-Kraavi, H. Pollitt, D. Ven (2020)
Evaluating integrated impacts of low-emission transitions in the livestock sectorEnvironmental innovation and societal transitions, 35
Brian Henning, Zack Walsh (2020)
Climate Change Ethics and the Non-Human World
W Sinnott-Armstrong, W Sinnott-Armstrong, R Howarth (2005)
It’s not my fault: global warming and individual moral obligationsPerspectives on climate change
D. Jamieson (2021)
Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other AnimalsThe Philosophical Review
Stefan Wirsenius, F. Hedenus, Kristina Mohlin (2011)
Greenhouse gas taxes on animal food products: rationale, tax scheme and climate mitigation effectsClimatic Change, 108
P Singer (1980)
Utilitarianism and vegetarianismPhilosophy & Public Affairs, 9
(2019)
Nobody ’ s fault ? Structural Injustice , food , and climate change
Ben Almassi (2011)
The Consequences of Individual Consumption: A Defence of Threshold Arguments for Vegetarianism and Consumer EthicsJournal of Applied Philosophy, 28
Cheryl Abbate (2019)
Veganism, (Almost) Harm-Free Animal Flesh, and Nonmaleficence
Gerard Dalcourt (1983)
The Methods of Ethics
A. Lamey (2019)
Duty and the Beast: Should We Eat Meat in the Name of Animal Rights?
T. Regan (2023)
The Case for Animal Rights
Mark Bernstein (2020)
Duty and the Beast: Should We Eat Meat in the Name of Animal Rights? by Andy Lamey (review)Journal of Animal Ethics, 10
J. Driver (2015)
Individual Consumption and Moral Complicity
Cheryl Abbate (2019)
Save the Meat for Cats: Why It’s Wrong to Eat RoadkillJournal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 32
Peter Wenz (1984)
An Ecological Argument for Vegetarianism, 5
N. Roht-Arriaza (2010)
"First, Do No Harm": Human Rights and Efforts to Combat Climate ChangeThe Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 38
L. Voget-Kleschin, Christian Baatz, Laura García-Portela (2019)
Introduction to the Special Issue on Individual Environmental ResponsibilityJournal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 32
A. Lamey (2019)
Duty and the Beast
P. Kain (2018)
Kant on AnimalsOxford Scholarship Online
Donald Bruckner (2015)
Strict Vegetarianism Is Immoral
P. Singer (2016)
Utilitarianism and VegetarianismFilosofia Unisinos, 17
Matthew Tomlinson (1996)
AfterwordHAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 7
K. Saja (2013)
The moral footprint of animal productsAgriculture and Human Values, 30
Michael Clark, D. Tilman (2017)
Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choiceEnvironmental Research Letters, 12
Mark Budolfson (2015)
Consumer Ethics, Harm Footprints, and the Empirical Dimensions of Food Choices
Stijn Neuteleers (2011)
Environmental Refugees: A Misleading Notion for a Genuine ProblemEthical Perspectives, 18
Christine Korsgaard (2018)
A Kantian Case for Our Obligations to the Other Animals
Michael Clark, M. Springmann, Jason Hill, David Tilman (2019)
Multiple health and environmental impacts of foodsProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116
F. Ziegler, U. Winther, E. Hognes, A. Emanuelsson, V. Sund, Harald Ellingsen (2013)
The Carbon Footprint of Norwegian Seafood Products on the Global Seafood MarketJournal of Industrial Ecology, 17
(2018)
Veganism is ’ single biggest way ’ to reduce our environmental impact on planet , study finds
(2000)
Opportunistic carnivorism
Brian Henning (2011)
Standing in Livestock's 'Long Shadow': The Ethics of Eating Meat on a Small PlanetEthics & the Environment, 16
Climate change compels us to rethink the ethics of our dietary choices and has become an interesting issue for ethicists concerned about diets, including animal ethicists. The defenders of veganism have found that climate change provides a new reason to support their cause because many animal-based foods have high greenhouse gas emissions. The new style of argumentation, the ‘climatic argument(s) for veganism’, may benefit animals by persuading even those who are not con- cerned about animals themselves but worry about climate change. The arguments about the high emissions of animal-based food, and a resulting moral obligation to abstain from eating such products, are an addition to the prior forms of argument for principled veganism grounded on the moral standing of, and concern for, nonhuman animals. In this paper, we examine whether the climatic argument for veganism is convincing. We propose a formulation for the amended version of the argu- ment and discuss its implications and differences compared to the moral obligations of principled veganism. We also reflect upon the implications of our findings on agricultural and food ethics more generally. Keywords Climate ethics · Food ethics · Low-carbon diets · Ethical eating · Food waste · Animal ethics Introduction plant-based food is perceived to be significant and the dif- ference in emissions between ruminant meat and plant-based Our dietary choices matter greatly for climate change related food may even be 100-fold (Poore and Nemecek 2018; Clark ethical considerations. Food production, processing, and and Tilman 2017). Henceforth, both activist and research consumption activities contribute approximately to 30% of voices call for cutting down meat and dairy consumption human-caused climate emissions and aggravate other envi- by means of policy measures such as a meat tax (Wirsenius ronmental problems like freshwater withdrawal, nutrient et al. 2011) and dietary approaches like a ‘planetary health pollution, and biodiversity degradation (Clark et al. 2019). diet’ (Willett et al. 2019). Joseph Poore, the lead author This makes food systems a significant issue for climate miti- of a much cited Science article on the matter (Poore and gation. Particular attention has been paid to cattle, who are Nemecek 2018), pointed out that “a vegan diet is probably estimated to cause approximately half of the food related the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, climate emissions due to land use impacts and methane not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophi- produced by ruminating animals. The overall average dif- cation, land use and water use” (Petter 2018). This is in line ference between the climate impacts of animal-based and A food system involves supply chains (from farm to fork) and activities that directly influence supply chains, like food policy. Food system emissions usually include supply chain emissions: the pro- * Teea Kortetmäki duction, processing, transportation, retail, and consumption of food, teea.kortetmaki@jyu.fi including the emissions from the land use impacts of agriculture and food waste emissions. Markku Oksanen ‘Animal-based food’ refers to edible goods that intentionally con- markku.oksanen@uef.fi tain animal ingredients. Food that unintentionally contains material from non-plant sources (insects, birds, or small mammals that ‘pol- Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University lute’ crops in harvesting accidents) still counts as plant-based. of Jyvaskyla, PO Box 35, 40014 Jyvaskyla, Finland The quote was stated in the Independent feature ‘Veganism is ’sin- School of Resource Wisdom, University of Jyvaskyla, PO gle biggest way’ to reduce our environmental impact on planet, study Box 35, 40014 Jyvaskyla, Finland finds’ (June 1, 2018): https ://www.indep enden t.co.uk/life-style /healt Department of Social Sciences, University of Eastern h-and-famil ies/vegan ism-envir onmen tal-impac t-plane t-reduc ed-plant Finland, PO Box 1627, 70211 Kuopio, Finland-based -diet-human s-study -a8378 631.html. Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 730 T. Kortetmäki, M. Oksanen with a much earlier statement by the ethicist Brian G. Hen- animal-centred arguments for veg*nism can be a justifiable ning (2011, p. 86) that “the morality and sustainability of normative approach to food ethics for other than climatic one’s diet are inversely related to the proportion of animals reasons. and animal products in one’s diet”. The public discussion has witnessed arguments for both Animal activists and theorists have seized the opportunity vegetarian and vegan dietary choices because of climate to advocate their cause with climatic arguments that may change (as well as more flexible demands for reducing meat persuade even those who are not convinced by animal-cen- consumption). To complicate the terminology, philosophi- tred moral arguments for veganism. At the moment of writ- cal arguments for veg*nism have historically been leaning ing, websites like climatevegan.org and thesavemovement. towards obliging vegetarianism, even when the argumenta- org explicitly state that the adoption of a vegan diet is a criti- tion itself quite clearly implies vegan consequences (e.g., cal part of climate actions. People for the Ethical Treatment Wenz 1984), whereas the recent debate commonly involves of Animals (PETA) has adopted climatic arguments stating the endorsement of veganism. We focus on veganism for that “Of course, eating vegan foods rather than animal-based several reasons: animal movements that have adopted the cli- ones is the best way to reduce your carbon footprint.” The matic arguments often promote veganism; the vegan diet has legal scholar and radical animal rights advocate Gary L. been present in public discussion and raises more objections Francione argues, “The bottom line is clear: we are facing than other proposals due to its demandingness; and vegan- imminent disaster. If we really want to save the planet from ism is empirically sounder than vegetarianism regarding the climate catastrophe, we must promote a grassroots effort climate impacts of diets. with a clear normative directive: stop eating animal products and adopt a vegan diet.” Climatic arguments for veganism have not been criti- The conventional ethical arguments cally analysed. Yet, it is not obvious that climatic arguments for veganism result in moral obligations identical with the obligations that arise from animal-centred arguments for principled The conventional or ’traditional’ ethical arguments for or ‘list-of-ingredients’ veganism as it is most commonly veg*n diets appeal either to the benefit or harm (of various understood. In this article, we investigate to what extent dietary choices) to humans or, more commonly, to the harm veganism can rest on the argumentation from anthropogenic to animals used for food. The human-centred arguments climate change. We approach the issue by asking: what have come in many forms, from ideas of moral integrity or would a convincing argument for the moral obligation to excellence to visions of kinship (on ancient views, New- a low-carbon diet look like and what are its dietary impli- myer 2006, pp. 19–21; on modern views, Abbate 2019a, pp. cations, compared to animal-centred, principled veganism? 557–558), to ideas of positive societal impacts, like ‘freeing’ We aim to show how the arguments from climate change land from feed production to edible crops or for other uses for veganism are vulnerable to certain weaknesses and do (Sandler 2015). The animal-centred arguments allege that not always support choices obliged by animal-centred argu- eating animals is wrong independently of the consequences ments for veg*nism. However, this does not rule out that to humanity. This reasoning has been grounded on two distinct lines of justification, utilitarian and (neo-)Kantian (though Kant himself is considered an anthropocentrist who condemns cruelty to animals on human-centred grounds; see Kain 2018). https ://www.peta.org/issue s/anima ls-used-for-food/globa l-warmi ng/ Utilitarianism builds on the principle that takes seri- (visited 12 Sept 2020; the other webpages mentioned were visited in ously “the greatest happiness of all sentient beings”, as September 2020). https ://mediu m.com/@g ar y.fr anc ione/v eg an -or -die-t he-im por tance -of-confr ontin g-clima te-chang e-c08e3 1e56d b8 (visited 16 Sept 2020). Validity refers to the logical consistency of an argument, sound- Veg*n obligations are commonly understood to imply a list of pro- ness to the empirical truth value of its elements. A recent meta-anal- hibited foods, resulting in a kind of ‘list-of-ingredients’ approach to ysis (Poore and Nemecek 2018) estimates the mean GHG impacts food choices (Lamey 2019, p. 65). (CO eq/100 g protein) of cheese and eggs to be 11 and 4.2 kg, respec- When we discuss at a more general level or refer to earlier philo- tively, whereas the mean emissions of all compared plant protein sophical discussions (that often talk about vegetarianism), we speak products (tofu, groundnuts and nuts, legumes) are ≤ 2.0 kg. of veg*nism to refer to different diets involving abstinence from at Ethical arguments appeal to the consequences of an action for oth- least some animal-based foods. We do not consider the impacts of ers whereas prudential arguments appeal to self-interest. agricultural production methods or inputs like manure though the ‘full’ veganisation of the food system would imply, among other The land use point resembles ecocentric requests to decrease agri- things, animal-free fertilisation. Moreover, we focus on food and do cultural land use to protect wilderness or other characteristics of a not consider other (e.g. clothing-related) aspects of veganism. non-cultivated landscape. 1 3 Is there a convincing case for climate veganism? 731 Henry Sidgwick (1906, p. 431) maintains: roughly put, it is veg*n cultures and religions: actual practices have changed a moral duty to maximise overall good in the world and the only little. It is therefore not surprising that the potential of interests of all sentient beings count in this calculation. The climate-change-based arguments for helping spread vegan consideration of sentient beings in utilitarianism does not practices have been happily welcomed by many animal eth- necessarily prohibit meat-eating and killing categorically, icists and animal rights advocates. Climate change could since calculation concerns the sum of individuals’ happi- provide arguments for achieving effects these groups have ness resulting from actions: unless non-utilitarian limitations been striving for but which appeal to a broader audience: for acceptable outcomes are introduced, the killing of one namely, those who are not convinced about the moral stance animal for the gustatory pleasure of, let’s say, ten people of individual animals (and who may be interested solely in results in a greater sum of overall happiness. Peter Singer human beings and humanity), yet are concerned about cli- has famously defended the view that utilitarian considera- mate change. However, has this argumentative addition been tions imply the moral obligation for veg*nism (Singer 1980, inferred too hastily from general empirical observations? 2016); however, it has been suggested that, at some points, Does climate change provide a foundation for promoting Singer permits eating painlessly killed meat. In short, the veg*nism in the sense endorsed by animal ethicists? Is there utilitarian argument for veg*nism states that because (1) ani- a convincing case for climate veganism and are its arguments mals can suffer, (2) it is wrong to cause avoidable suffering, and implications similar or different from the conventional, and (3) eating meat causes avoidable suffering, eating meat animal-centred arguments for veg*nism? (or animal-based food in the vegan argument) is wrong. The argument has been criticised as being impotent: “the seem- ingly indisputable fact that our individual purchases rarely Analysing the ‘climatic argument actually yield positive (or negative) consequences to[sic] the for veganism’ good (and bad) agricultural and labour practices we mean to affect” (Almassi 2011, p. 397). Here we assume that the By the ‘climatic argument for veg*nism’, CAV for short, we impotence objection has been sufficiently addressed to make refer to the argument that essentially appeals to anthropo- consequentialist reasoning for ethical, animal-centred argu- genic climate change in defence of the claim that one has a ments for veg*nism meaningful (Norcross 2004, pp. 232–33; moral obligation to be a veg*n. The essential appeal means Almassi 2011; see also Morgan-Knapp and Goodman 2015 that the argument is contingent on climate-related, scien- for similar points in climate ethics). tifically verifiable views. If climate change were suddenly In the (neo-)Kantian view, animals are experiencing resolved, or the atmosphere started cooling down due to subjects-of-a-life and have thereby inherent value and the natural causes, or the connection between food choices and right to be treated in a way that respects their inherent their climatic impacts were no longer true, the CAV would value. Meat-eating violates that right; thus, “vegetarian- no longer hold. An important consideration is that while ism is not supererogatory; it is obligatory” (Regan 1988, CAV relies essentially on climatic concerns in its formu- p. 346). Respecting the moral value of nonhuman animals lation, motivations behind it are diverse: a distinction can means treating them not “as a mere means to your own ends” be made between ‘animal-motivated CAV’, where animal (Korsgaard 2018, p. 223). Some authors suggest this implies protection advocates add climatic reasons to their argumen- abstinence from eating meat (Goodnick 2015), whereas oth- tative toolbox, and ‘environment/human-motivated CAV’, ers argue it implies veganism since the production of any where the motivation for veganism on climatic grounds rests animal-based food treats animals as mere means. primarily on concerns for the impacts of climate change on In both utilitarian and Kantian forms, animal-centred humans and/or the environment. veg*nism is a self-standing moral stance. Its justification Climate ethics has yielded a rich discussion on the moral needs no climatic or other additional arguments (though it duties of individuals regarding climate change (e.g., Sin- allows them, and many may be veg*ns for several reasons). nott-Armstrong 2005; Voget-Kleschin et al. 2019). Climatic Its conclusions are non-contextual and applicable to all duties are generally grounded on the premise that anthropo- situations. genic climate change has overall negative consequences for Animal-centred ethical argumentation has convinced present and future humans. Reasoning about climatic duties a relatively small audience outside the (few) traditionally is generally based on human self-concern and is also pru- dential; human-centredness manifests in much of the public discussion on climate change and in the IPCC and UN state- ments (McShane 2016). Some (but not many) ethicists have See Lamey 2019 (Chapter 5) for the debate. Singer argues for recently brought non-anthropocentric tones to the climate vegetarianism in his earlier works but does not address dairy produc- ethics discussion by addressing the suffering of nonhumans tion (among other things). The status of insects remains unclear, too. Singer’s more nuanced views are not relevant for our examination. 1 3 732 T. Kortetmäki, M. Oksanen due to climate change (Henning and Walsh 2020; Pepper on the validity of the argument, the intuitive force of the 2019). normative claims and the truth value of empirical premises. Structurally, the CAV can be assumed to resemble other For empirical reasons, the argument necessarily remains ecologically concerned arguments for veg*nism (Wenz open to alternative conclusions that we discuss later. 1984; Taylor 1986; Sandler 2015) that are mainly conse- Second, the argument assumes that the duties entailed by quentialist and grounded on concerns for the impacts of climate-friendly diets are negative (duties of abstinence): human food production on ecosystem health (Wenz 1984) eating certain foods is morally prohibited because of their and land use (cf. Taylor 1986). Sandler (2015, p. 87) sum- climatic impacts. This kind of approach is common to ethi- marises the ecological argument as follows: “EP1. We ought cal dietary guidelines. Whether climatic arguments could to act in ways that reduce the ecological impacts of our diet. also yield positive dietary duties (‘eat your potatoes!’) has EP2. Adopting a non-meat diet would significantly reduce not been studied to our knowledge, though positive duties the ecological impacts of our diet. EC3. Therefore, we ought have occasionally been discussed in animal-concerned food to adopt a non-meat diet.” However, the climatic aspect calls ethics in suggestions that the usual arguments for veg*nism for an immediate revision, because although cheese is not actually imply obligations to consume and collect roadkill meat, it has one of the highest GHG footprints among foods (Bruckner 2016, p. 43) or to enrich vegan diets with some and is common in non-meat diets. This is also noted by the meat for the animals’ sake (for further introduction and criti- advocates of climate veg*nism whose statements were pre- cal examination of these views, see Lamey 2019). sented in the introduction. Following those statements, the What can be said about the CAV? We assume that indi- climatic argument for veganism (CAV) would have the fol- viduals’ dietary choices have been proven to be a significant lowing structure: matter of moral considerations in food (and climate) ethics and we do not question that point. However, the CAV is CAV-P1 We ought to act in ways that significantly unconvincing and even unsound in the above form (the use reduce the climatic impacts of our diet. of ‘vegetarian’ in the conclusion would make it even more CAV-P2 Animal-based foods have significantly high cli- so). Next, we elaborate some problems regarding the CAV, matic impacts. amend the argument to make it more convincing and sound, CAV-C Therefore: we ought to adopt a vegan diet. compare the new amended argument with the initial formu- lation and reflect upon the implications of the revision from In this form, the CAV argument arranges in a formal dem- the viewpoint of the proponents of climate veganism. onstration the statements made by vegan advocacy sites and public figures known for previously advocating strict prin- Underdetermination cipled veganism and/or animal rights (see the Introduction) and now advocating veganism for climatic reasons; their P2 of the CAV, “Animal-based foods have significantly high argument represents ‘animal-motivated CAV’. The CAV climatic impacts”, is empirically untrue: not all animal- can also be adopted by anyone who is concerned about the based foods have high climatic impacts. Sustainable fresh- impacts of climate change on humans or nature generally water and ocean fish catches, as well as the most sustainably (‘environment/human-motivated CAV’) like Joseph Poore produced liquid dairy products and insects, have a carbon who stated in the Independent interview that “a vegan diet footprint that is close or equal to or even lower than average is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on plant-based proteins. The same point regarding general planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases”. Both camps advo- environmental impacts was noted in the first versions of the cate a vegan diet on similar, climatic grounds. ecological argument for veg*nism (Wenz 1984). Conse- Two features of the CAV are worth noting now. First, quently, veganism is not the only reasonable conclusion from the argument has both normative and empirical premises, P1. The challenge lies in the fact that the continuums of the which is typical in applied ethics. Its soundness depends carbon footprints of vegan and non-vegan products overlap, These aspects have received little attention compared to the con- cern about humanity (Korsgaard 2018, p. 194). The same applies to utilitarian arguments for veg*nism that are Taylor’s account is mainly deontological, yet he also appeals to the grounded on the obligation not to inflict suffering: the invention of land use impacts of diets. ‘totally suffering-free’ meat production would make the argument lose its power. We will later discuss what’significant reduction’ means. The advo- cates of climatic veganism, quite clearly, talk neither about just any For example, the estimated emissions (CO eq/100 g of protein) reductions (for that would be insufficient and would not imply any of Norwegian mackerel and herring are ca. 0.6–0.7 kg (Ziegler et al. kind of veganism), nor about minimizing one’s dietary emissions (for 2013) whereas that of tofu is 2.0 kg (Poore and Nemecek 2018). Even that would require very difficult asceticism). moderate margins of error do not change the point. 1 3 Is there a convincing case for climate veganism? 733 even if the average emissions of these product groups differ honey, butter, or a splash of coffee milk). Given the amount significantly (see also Budolfson 2015). of food an individual eats daily, it is unconvincing to argue What is more, future food production developments might that coffee milk or honey would make any significant dif- challenge the CAV. Consider the possibility of some meat ference on the climatic impacts of one’s diet. The animal- production to become relatively low- or even zero-carbon. concerned and environment/human-concerned proponents This is not a mere fantasy: some big ruminant operators in of the CAV likely differ in their views here: the latter likely the food industry, with governmental support, have already see no problem with calling a diet vegan while allowing such announced aims to become carbon neutral. This develop- deviations. However, the animal-concerned proponents of ment would appear uncomfortable to the animal-motivated the CAV who have previously been arguing for principled CAV: the emergence of low-/zero-carbon meat would turn and strict list-of-ingredients approach to veganism, or vegan- the argument they have used against their initial purpose, ism in its commonly defined sense, may struggle to give in to implying that climatic concerns still allow (or perhaps even such deviations, for that would require them to loosen their support) the consumption of certain meats. definition of veganism. A potential response is that expecting any animal produc- Another counterexample concerns ‘occasional car- tion to become low- or zero-carbon is unrealistic. Moreover, nivorism’ and can best be explained with a simple calcula- because climate change materialises quickly, it may still be tion based on the mean GHG (CO eq) emissions listed in better to significantly reduce or even give up raising ani- the meta-analysis (Poore and Nemecek 2018, p. 988). The mals for food in industrialised countries to have immediate emissions of a small, 100-g piece of chicken (approximately effects, instead of technological solutions that require time 1.15 kg CO eq) equals the emissions of approximately 1.1 L to develop and still may have their limitations (see also Hen- of soymilk or 500 g of tomatoes. Given that the average indi- ning 2011). Yet, the risk persists that the CAV would lose viduals’ GHG emissions in the OECD countries are around 9 its power as soon as technological solutions emerged. Nev- t/a or nearly 25 kg/day, eating a bit of chicken once a week ertheless, the first counterexample of the already existing does not signic fi antly inu fl ence one’s overall emissions, even low-carbon animal-based foods suffices to make the CAV with ambitious emission reduction schemes. (Acknowledg- underdetermined for obliging a vegan diet. edly, a similar piece of beef or cheese, be it local or not, Another aspect that relates to underdetermination and would have a multifold carbon footprint.) Animal-centred challenges the persuasiveness of the CAV rests on the rela- food ethics may judge occasional carnivorism morally unjus- tive insignificance of occasional dietary choices. According tifiable (Almeida and Bernstein 2000; Abbate 2019b). How - to this line of thought, even if the premise, “Animal-based ever, the reasons are not applicable to climate concerned foods have significantly high climatic impacts”, were gen- choices because climatic reasoning concerns not the wrong- erally true, the conclusion, “Therefore: we ought to adopt a ness of a single action but the aggregate harm impacts of all vegan diet”, does not convincingly follow. We next discuss actions, or keeping the overall footprint under one’s ‘harm some counterexamples that bear real-world relevance. budget’ (cf. Budolfson 2015). Of course, attention should A vegan diet is commonly defined on a ‘list-of-ingre- be paid to the aggregate impacts of the actions of all indi- dients’ basis, as principled abstinence from food items of viduals: there is certainly a limit after which ‘occasional car- animal origin (Lamey 2019, p. 65). This also excludes the nivorism’ (if it can be called occasional anymore) becomes food industry additives like gelatine, colouring agents, and a significant source of climatic emissions. beeswax, and ingredients used in such tiny amounts that they comprise a small percentage of the final product (like The advocates of an omnivorous yet low-carbon diet may want to emphasise that ‘animal products’ is too general as a category: mean emissions of the highest-impact animal products are more than ten-fold compared to those of lower-impact products (Poore and This point differs from the impotence objection that questions any Nemecek 2018). significance of individual choices. See, for example, news in Finland, https ://www.valio .com/artic les/ Year 2016 estimate data, https ://data.world bank.org/indic ator/ valio -aims-at-carbo n-neutr al-dairy -by-2035/, and in New Zealand, en.atm.CO2e.pc https ://www.thegu ardia n.com/world /2020/jan/01/from-red-seawe ed- to-clima te-smart -cows-new-zeala nd-leads -the-fight -again st-metha ne One unsound argument against veganism suggests that local meat is environmentally superior to vegan, non-local products. However, Similar definitions, based on categorical abstinence from all prod- transportation matters much less than agricultural phase for the life- ucts of animal origin, are provided for ‘vegan’ in, for example, the cycle emissions of a food product (Poore and Nemecek 2018). Cambridge English and Merriam-Webster dictionaries and PeTA web page. Lamey (2019) prefers defining veganism in terms of harm In this sense, climatic reasoning for food ethics clearly represents a reduction but acknowledges that this is a less common approach. consequentialist approach. 1 3 734 T. Kortetmäki, M. Oksanen (2) Peter avoids deceiving himself; and (3) Peter does not Discrepancy: climate‑friendly choices in a non‑ideal world risk the consistency of his future actions: deviating from veg- etarianism may increase the likelihood of future deviations. One problematic aspect of the CAV concerns its variants that We think that none of these factors would require Peter to discard pepperoni in the CAV context. Only the risk of drift- adhere to (strictly or even relatively) principled definitions of ‘veganism’. Different motivations behind the climatic ing into omnivorism in the future (the gateway drug effect?) could be relevant for climatic considerations though not fully argument for veganism likely yield different definitions of veganism. While environment/human-concerned propo- convincing (we acknowledge individual variation). Eating the ‘accidental pepperoni’ that would otherwise be wasted nents of the CAV may interpret veganism in more flexible ways, it is reasonable to believe that most animal protec- is consistent from the climatic viewpoint and supports the aim to reduce dietary emissions. We argue that adherence tion advocates who have previously argued for principled veganism for animal ethical reasons and now harnessed the to a climate-friendly diet permits eating meat in such cases (instead of considering that as a self-deception) and may CAV to support their cause, are less willing to make such deviations from their initial standpoint. In philosophical make it even praiseworthy though perhaps not obligatory; this indeed raises the question whether climate responsibili- animal and food ethics discussions, veganism has also usu- ally been understood as a principled ‘list-of-ingredients’ ties may evoke prima facie positive duties regarding food actions (‘reduce waste’, not just ‘do not leave food to spoil’), approach: this very fact has given rise to debates about the status of dumpster diving meat, roadkill, and so on, based but we leave the question open here. Anyhow, in these situ- ations the permitted courses of action go against veganism on the consequences of the premises behind vegan conclu- sions. While the principled approach makes sense from the as it is commonly understood and endorsed by the animal- concerned proponents of the CAV. The unorthodox sources animal protection viewpoint, principle-like obligations and the best options in the second-best world often conflict in or opportunities for meat-eating are manifold (e.g., Abbate 2019a) and cannot be analysed here in detail, but it seems the case of climate-friendly action. The second-best world we inhabit creates numerous situations where choosing the that the climatic argument permits many of them while the animal concerned arguments do not (Abbate 2019b; Almassi lowest-carbon way to eat conflicts with principled veganism. Food waste provides an example with great environmen- 2011). tal significance. Wasted food (about one third of produced food) causes emissions ‘for nothing’. Wasting animal-based Insufficiency objection: veganism is too much but not enough food is the worst of bad cases: products with a high carbon footprint and nutrient intensity are discarded. Whenever the Empirical findings confirm that the avoidance of animal- possibility to prevent food waste occurs, the premise P1 “We ought to act in ways that significantly reduce the climatic based food improves the climate-friendliness of a diet on average but does not guarantee it, even if we reject the fan- impacts of our diet” should encourage reducing the overall food waste by eating otherwise discarded food, be it animal- ciful examples of vegan ‘avocadoholics’ or the examples that involve cherry- or, rather, quinoa-avocado-berry-picking based or not, since food waste reduction helps combat cli- mate change. (Budolfson 2015, p. 170) introduced to debunk arguments for veg*nism motivated by harm reduction. Because high- This is not a problem for the environment/human-moti- vated CAV, but it is for the animal-motivated CAV, as the protein and high-fat foods, vegan or not, generally have much higher carbon footprints than carbohydrate-based case below illustrates. Defending principled vegetarianism, Ben Almassi argues for discarding the ‘accidental pepper- foods (Poore and Nemecek 2018, p. 988), a vegan diet with lots of fast food can have a high climatic impact even if oni’ that has been accidentally added to, say, Peter’s vegetar- ian pizza (Almassi 2011, pp. 407–408). Almassi provides average vegan diets are much lower-carbon than omnivorous diets (e.g., Scarborough et al. 2014). A further point is that three reasons to throw the meat away: (1) staying consistent with vegetarianism, Peter can advocate vegetarianism more regardless of the product-level emissions, the overall amount effectively and honestly (cf. Almeida and Bernstein 2000); A further question is whether climate-related reasons actually in some circumstances create an obligation to, for example, conduct dumpster diving, the most active form of food waste reduction. Admittedly, some animal-concerned vegan advocates follow a less principled interpretation about veganism. Lamey (2019, p. 65) men- No reason exists why an avocado maniac would more likely be a tions the Vegan Outreach group’s founder as one example. These are, vegan than an omnivore. however, exceptions rather than a norm in the definition of veganism. Poore and Nemecek use different functional units for protein-rich Weightier, like health-related, reasons against eating some of the and carbohydrate-rich foods; numbers cannot be compared without to-be-wasted food may sometimes exist. conversion. 1 3 Is there a convincing case for climate veganism? 735 of eaten food matters for the overall emissions. Given that In sum, the CAV as an argument for obliged veganism on most of the adults in the OECD area are overweight or obese climatic grounds is unconvincing, regardless of whether it is – they eat more than they need to satisfy their basic needs— interpreted strictly, to entail a principled list-of-ingredients this issue has received surprisingly little attention in food type of veganism, or with some flexibility. On the other ethics. hand, the problems do not appear to undermine the argument Of course, the CAV concerns only one set of prohibited fundamentally but call for revising it. We take these prob- food choices (that which happens to match animal-based- lems into account and suggest a more convincing, amended ness) even in the list-of-ingredients form. Multiple moral version of the argument (ACAV): guidelines are often used anyway to inform responsible dietary choices (concerning, for example, social fairness ACAV-P1 We ought to adopt a diet that is low-carbon or nationalistic sentiments related to food production). The (with emissions below the threshold of a cli- proponent of the CAV may argue that climatic considera- mate-harming diet) to significantly reduce the tions, too, can evoke additional restrictions. For the CAV harmful climatic impacts of our diet. argument this means that there would also be additional ACAV-P2 Eating high-impact foods must be restricted so climate-concerned restrictions, like the ‘CAV2′ prohibiting as not to cross the threshold of harmful dietary carbon-intensive vegan foods. The CAV proponents could emissions. thereby present veganism as a necessary but not a sufficient ACAV-P3 Most animal-based foods have high climatic principle for low-carbon eating. This strategy, however, may impacts. weaken the persuasiveness of the argument of those who ACAV-P4 Most plant-based foods have low or moderate wish to promote principled veganism on the basis of the climatic impacts. CAV: it depicts veganism as a demanding yet insufficient ACAV-P5 A predominantly vegan diet is the only way to principle for climate-friendly eating. keep a diet on average below the threshold of a climate-harming diet. ACAV-P6 There are exceptional circumstances in the sec- Implications for making the case for climatic ond-best world (like reducing the food waste of veganism sound and convincing others) where eating high-impact foods makes no difference or may benefit the climate. Above, we discussed problems that reduce the persua- ACAV-C Therefore: we ought to follow a predominantly siveness and soundness of the CAV as such. To recapitu- vegan diet with the permitted exceptions that late, there are at least two kinds of basic problems. First, can be made without crossing the threshold of the CAV is underdetermined. It does not follow from its a climate-harming diet. premises that a fully vegan diet would be the only way to construct a low-carbon diet. Moreover, the premise “We The ACAV is sound and consistent with the present ought to act in ways that significantly reduce the climatic empirical information about the climatic impacts of food impacts of our diet” does not oblige the complete exclusion products and food system activities. It could be labelled of higher-impact foods (that are often animal-based) due ‘pragmatic climate veganism’ because its rule of thumb is to the overall insignificance of the occasional consumption general adherence to veganism. Yet, ‘pragmatic’ implies that of higher-impact products. Second, there is a discrepancy this diet is sensitive to contexts and acknowledges that food between the suggested principles and climate-friendly action emissions comprise a comparative continuum, rather than in real life. In the second-best world, climate-ideal choices categories. The ACAV still allows following animal-centred, may in some actual circumstances be non-vegan. While this principled veganism (while moderating the consumption of is unproblematic for some CAV proponents, it is uncomfort- high-impact vegan foods)—exceptions to veganism are per- able for the animal-motivated CAV because the observation mitted but not required—but does not oblige it. Notably, the even encourages the consumption of non-vegan products in ACAV is nevertheless more restricting than a conventional certain circumstances. Third, the obligation of veganism is vegetarian diet where cheese products may often serve as insufficient for guaranteeing a climate-friendly diet, which may reduce the persuasiveness of the CAV. Defining this threshold is a task of empirical sciences (combined with normative ones to define ‘harmful’). It should consider the over - all threshold for individual emissions (emissions per capita to avoid the risk of dangerous climate change) and allocate it reasonably to Whether climate-concerned food ethics should say something different spheres of life. The IPCC statement (IPCC 2018) that global about the amount of food eaten is an interesting question but cannot emissions should fall by 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 be examined here. illustrates the scale of the needed changes. 1 3 736 T. Kortetmäki, M. Oksanen a common protein source. This highlights the difference mitigation and adaptation, important as they are, cannot be between common vegetarianism and veganism from the cli- taken at the cost of violating rights. matic viewpoint. The Rights First response implies that we ought to act The ACAV may be inconvenient for the proponents of the to reduce the climatic impacts of our diets but only to the animal-motivated CAV who are primarily concerned about extent that doing so does not compromise more fundamental animals and want to harness climatic arguments for promot- values, that is human and animal rights. The argument for ing their cause. Climatic concerns do not provide consistent climatic veganism with this addition is as follows: reasons for the exclusion of all non-vegan products and in some circumstances the non-vegan choices may be the most RFCAV-P1 We ought to act in ways that significantly climate-friendly ones available. The proponent of the ACAV reduce the climatic impacts of our diet unless also has to accept that in some possible future there may be doing so compromises fundamental human no climatic reasons to abstain from eating a certain range and animal rights. of animal-based food, if new technological developments RFCAV-P2 Eating animal-based foods violates animal radically lower their carbon footprint. Such changes may rights. not create a positive duty to eat animal-based food, unless RFCAV-C Therefore: we ought to adopt a diet that is both that would be the only way to keep one’s dietary emissions low-carbon (with emissions below the thresh- under the harm budget threshold. old of a climate-harming diet) and vegan. Rights considerations set limits to the role of animal pro- Can the animal‑motivated climatic veganism duction in the future low-carbon food system. Even low-/ (and the animals) be saved? zero-carbon meat production would be morally prohibited because it violates animal rights. The argument remains What can those who are primarily concerned about animals ambiguous regarding the permitted courses of action in the respond to the above reasoning? We discuss two potential second-best world where the consumption of animal-based responses next, one that aligns the argument with the frame- food would help reduce GHG emissions without directly work of rights and another, more action-oriented response. violating animal rights. Reducing food waste by eating dis- carded animal-based foods and dumpster diving would rep- Rights First argument: limits to how far one can go resent such situations that divide opinions among veg*ns in saving the climate (see Abbate 2019b; Almassi 2011, and Driver 2016 for vegan and vegetarian objections to such practices). Some The Rights First argument maintains that while empirical animal rights advocates argue that the mere act of eating facts may correctly restrict the permitted foods, they do not animal-based food, regardless of origin, is disrespectful and justify extending the set of permitted foods to animal-based violates animal rights (Abbate 2019b). Although a compari- items. This addition is based on the idea that fundamental, son to the case of eating human flesh (Goodnick 2015) may rights-like principles cannot be overridden by consequen- not be fully convincing, we cannot examine this issue here tialist reasons outside exceptional circumstances. ‘Rights in detail. It is not clear that eating the already discarded First’-type responses are also relevant for human-centred food would any longer be disrespectful towards the animal discourses concerning acceptable climate action (e.g., Roht- and some could argue even the opposite: perhaps it is more Arriaza 2009). The Rights First argument coheres with the respectful to become a part of the nutrient cycle than end argument of animal rights in the context of climate change up in a waste incinerator that is the real alternative for the adaptation: animal rights may set an action-restricting nega- wasted food. Another issue is whether the animal rights tive duty not to violate nonhuman rights by adaptation meas- ures (Pepper 2019). Rights are so fundamental that climate A solely consequentialist viewpoint could lead to the acceptance of animal foods as a part of common diets especially if technical innovations are developed to allow the production of low-/zero-car- bon or even carbon-negative animal foods, especially when those can Voluntary GHG compensation payments (offered by some restau- be produced without factory farming. In such cases it could be argued rants) are a different, more problematic case: they do not reduce the that producing, e.g., zero-carbon meat yields significant benefits that emissions of the given activity but are assumed to reduce emissions outweigh the costs caused to those animals. This viewpoint may elsewhere in the future. become particularly strong and hard to challenge if the nutritional benefits of small amounts of animal-based foods are included in such Our reasoning is applicable in industrialised countries. Excep- consequentialist calculations. tional circumstances also require distinct moral reasoning (like Greenland where seal eating may be the only source for food, or arid Human and animal cases may not be parallel: animal ethi- and poor regions where cattle keeping is the only way to provide food cists rarely call for treating dead animals in a way that humans are security for one’s family). demanded to be treated after death (appropriate burial procedures). 1 3 Is there a convincing case for climate veganism? 737 approach actually implies the obligation to a fully vegan context of climate change. From the pragmatic viewpoint, diet: grounding rights on sentience, for example, may the argument for simplicity is appealing. exclude some animals from the sphere of rights. Logical consistency, however, does not necessitate (nor The Rights First argument has advantages. It resonates guarantee) simplicity. Another, more pragmatic and critical, with the idea that human rights, too, set limits for permitted point is that we are not convinced that principled vegan- actions to mitigate emissions. It helps address one particular ism would be easier to follow despite categorical simplicity. risk of low-carbonisation of animal production: entrenched The ‘list-of-ingredients’ approach to veganism necessitates instrumentalisation. Ruminants are a major reason for food- checking the ingredients of all food items and of meals related climatic impacts because of their methane burps eaten outside one’s home, putting in effort to find suitable (Poore and Nemecek 2018). The will to solve challenges foods and sufficient nourishment in situations with limited technologically increases interest in methane capturing and options, and so on. A less principled ‘least harm approach’ reuse. Such technologies render ruminants into ‘biogas gen- to veganism, as suggested by Lamey (2019, p. 65), is epis- erators’, to solve both food and fuel emission challenges. temically even more demanding. Instead of these, focusing However, it would likely imply keeping the animals indoors on the main constituent foods of one’s diet (and not wor- (to avoid methane leakages) and increasingly concentrated rying about additives and occasional exceptions) would be factory-like operation systems to maximise the biogas ben- simpler due to flexibility and sufficient from the emissions efits and energy efficiency. In addition to animal welfare viewpoint. Consequently, calling for clear boundaries does impacts noted already in empirical studies (Spijker et al. not provide a convincing reason for principled veganism on 2019), this would doubly instrumentalise animals who would climatic grounds. Interestingly, reasoning that resonates with function both as food and a source of fuel. The Rights First this flexibility (but is more permissive) has been recently argument would clearly prohibit such solutions, regardless articulated even by Jonathan Safran Foer who is known for of effectiveness, and protect animals from becoming mere actively advocating for the animal cause. Safran Foer writes means for climate action. Notably, the argument also shows on climate-friendly eating: “The average US and UK citizen why a solely consequentialist reasoning about the reduction must consume 90% less beef and 60% less dairy. No animal of climatic or other environmental impacts of food systems products for breakfast or lunch would come close to achiev- may have morally unacceptable consequences. ing that. It might not amount to precisely the reductions that The Rights First argument has weaknesses, too. First, it are asked for, but it’s about right, and easy to remember.” speaks only to those who already accept the idea of animal The question of boundaries calls for considering the place rights. Second, it may not provide a sufficient argument for of pragmatism in the ethical principles for eating. We have principled veganism (consider waste food). Third, the prob- purposely referred to the obligation to reduce one’s emis- lems of conflicts between rights are not taken into account sions below a ‘harmful threshold’ (the definition of which by the argument. Tensions between some human rights and is not just the task of normative reasoning but essentially effective climate action are likely to emerge and evoke a requires empirical sciences). This interpretation clearly difficult question: what if respecting all potentially acknowl- emphasises sufficient rather than ‘climate-optimal’ action. edgeable human and animal rights prevents the effective cli- It would be an important task for scientists to propose suf- mate action needed to avoid dangerous climate change? This ficiently clear and easy-to-follow rules of thumb for climate- consequence, of course, would also violate rights, though friendly diets that take local conditions and histories into within a longer time frame and through more complex mech- account in proposing climate-friendly diets. A high-profile anisms. Whose rights should be prioritised? How, by whom, example of the latter is the idea of a Planetary Health Diet and on what grounds should these conflicts be settled? (Willett et al. 2019). We find the threshold-like approach ‘Saving’ the CAV: call for clear boundaries? Considerations about simplicity are relevant to any climatic argu- ment for dietary changes and could also be used to construct a note- The advocates of animal-centred, principled veg*nism (not worthy objection to ‘ethical omnivorism’ that is probably the epis- always veganism) also appeal to the idea of clear bounda- temically most demanding diet to follow (we’d like to thank one of ries that may be easiest to follow and communicate to oth- the reviewers for this observation). ers (Almassi 2011). The argument is that because various 36 The Guardian, 2018: https ://www.thegu ardia n.com/books /2019/ exceptions only complicate things, it is easier and clearer to sep/28/meat-of-the-matte r-the-incon venie nt-truth -about -what-we-eat. Such principles may also be practicable for a greater amount of peo- have a simple principle, ‘go veg*n’—that is, vegan, in the ple than veg*nism. Practicability, of course, does not guarantee the moral justifiability of any stance. See Morgan-Knapp and Goodman (2015) for a discussion about various thresholds in climate ethics and Budolfson (2015) for harm footprints in food ethics. 1 3 738 T. Kortetmäki, M. Oksanen sound and more feasible than arguments obliging the mini- may consider adopting a pluralistic approach. This paper misation of one’s dietary emissions. Adherence to the mini- involves a strictly climate-oriented analysis. There can be, misation principle would be overly demanding and likely and indeed are, other reasons for adherence to veg*nism: the lead to very onerous information acquisition, complex and traditional ethical views that rest on utilitarian and Kantian heavy calculations (and a very simple and light diet). It ways of thinking. Moreover, there are many other views in could also possibly raise a problem of weighing pragmati- favour of veg*nism (though not always in a principled ver- cally between the climatic and nutrition-related goals of the sion), from self-regarding health concerns (e.g., Clark et al. diet as well as between the other ethical aspects that our 2019) to aspects of the common good including social fair- dietary choices have, including the various demands of jus- ness, efficiency of land use, and ecological sustainability. tice (Kortetmäki 2019) and the impacts of such endeavours One can even stick to ecocentric arguments for veg*nism on other aspects of life and ethical obligations therein. that would grant moral considerability to ecological sys- tems, populations and/or species, rather than to individuals. According to this viewpoint, the appropriation of land for Conclusion large-scale and/or industrialised animal production degrades values in nature. On the other hand, traditional small-scale It is possible to follow veganism as a climate-friendly die- herding has produced and still maintains diverse habitats tary option, but it is not possible to consistently hold that (and highly valued cultural landscapes): there is a potential adherence to a moral obligation to avoid climate-harmful conflict between non-anthropocentric views on the desir - dietary choices would necessitate a vegan (or veg*n) diet. In ability of cattle keeping in food systems. Notably, even if other words, it is hard to formulate a climatic argument that almost none of the additional concerns listed here (health, would convincingly create a moral obligation to strict vegan- social fairness, efficiency, ecocentrism) necessitates a veg*n, ism as a conclusion. We have in this paper evaluated the let alone a vegan diet, they all point towards endorsing a climatic argument for veganism (implying principled vegan- diet that significantly reduces the role of animals in the ism), frequent in contemporary public discourse, and revised industrialised food systems and in Western diets. For some the argument to create a more convincing amended climatic animal-concerned vegans this may not be a desired outcome argument for veganism. The latter obliges one to follow a at the level of individual dietary choices, but for the animal predominantly, but not strictly, vegan diet and acknowledges kingdom and for addressing the challenge of climate change several points for permitted non-vegan actions, like eating it is certainly good news. It is not the number of vegans but (some) fish or eating otherwise discarded foods. the amount of animal production that matters. Our main result is that sound arguments for animal- Our examination demonstrates broader implications and concerned principled veganism and for climate-concerned methodological challenges for the studies in food system veganism produce partially different sets of permitted foods. values and ethical principles for individual action in these There is a fundamental categorical difference: while vegan- domains. The classical issues of food ethics often pose ism is commonly understood to imply a set of food (and dichotomous and categorical questions to which one can other product) prohibitions (Lamey 2019, p. 65), that is to answer yes or no: one’s dietary choices either violate the say a categorical criterion, climatic arguments and conse- moral value of animals or they do not. In contrast, the more quent ethical principles are essentially based on harm foot- recent harmful impacts of food systems, whether environ- prints and are therefore of a comparative nature (Budolfson mental or social, are practically never dichotomous issues 2015). This should be taken into account by those who wish but constitute a continuum of more or less significant to posit climate-concerned arguments for veganism and are harms about which empirical research informs us. Moreover, primarily interested about promoting the animal cause and the impacts of individual choices do not take place within principled veganism. Notably, the arguments for veganism isolated supply chains but in the broad context of food sys- are, nevertheless, more consistent on climatic grounds than tems. These challenges pose new kinds of problems for food arguments for vegetarianism: vegetarianism prohibits the ethics and the ‘traditional’ ways to deal with ethical eating— most notable non-vegan low-carbon foods (fish) but permits either on consequentialist or deontological grounds—may non-vegan high-carbon foods (cheese). provide empirically unsound or counterintuitive answers Some advocates of animal-concerned veganism, those when their systems-level implications are considered. This who advocate strict principled veganism, may want to reject era of new food challenges calls for collaboration between the climatic argument and return to the ‘traditional’ ways of arguing for principled veg*nism on animal-concerned grounds to keep their argumentation sound. They may Previously, Budolfson (2015) and Saja (2013) have proposed also appeal to the ‘Rights First argument’ discussed above moral/harm footprints that vary significantly between different prod- (though there are some weaknesses in this appeal). Others ucts even within one product category. 1 3 Is there a convincing case for climate veganism? 739 Henning, B. 2011. Standing in livestock’s ‘long shadow’: the ethics ethicists and empirical scientists, leading to better judg- of eating meat on a small planet. Ethics & the Environment 16 ments, improved policies, and a more sustainable future for (2): 63–93. humans and animals. Henning, B.G., and Z. Walsh, eds. 2020. Climate change ethics and the non-human world. London: Routledge. Acknowledgements We want to thank Miira Tuominen, Mikko Puu- IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. mala, Helena Siipi, and the anonymous reviewers for useful feedback. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of This research was supported by The Finnish Strategic Research Council 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse Funding (Grant 327284). gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, Funding Open access funding provided by University of Jyväskylä H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. (JYU). Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Mat- thews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.). World meteorological organiza- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, Geneva, Switzerland, p. 32 tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long Kain, P. 2018. Kant of animals. In Animals: a history, ed. P. Adamson as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, and G.F. Edwards, 211–232. Oxford: Oxford University Press. provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes Korsgaard, C.M. 2018. Fellow creatures. Our obligations to the other were made. The images or other third party material in this article are animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated Kortetmäki, T. 2019. Nobody’s fault? Structural Injustice, food, and otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in climate change. In Food, environment, and climate change, ed. the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not E. Gilson and S. Kenehan, 47–61. New York: Rowman and permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will Littlefield. need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a Lamey, A. 2019. Duty and the beast: should we eat meat in the name of copy of this licence, visit http://creativ ecommons .or g/licenses/b y/4.0/. animal rights? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McShane, K. 2016. Anthropocentrism in climate ethics and policy. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 40: 189–204. Morgan-Knapp, C., and C. Goodman. 2015. Consequentialism, cli- mate harm and individual obligations. Ethical Theory and Moral References Practice 18: 177–190. Newmyer, S.T. 2006. Animals, rights and reason in Plutarch and mod- Abbate, C. 2019a. Veganism, (Almost) harm-free animal flesh, and ern ethics. London: Routledge. nonmaleficence. In The Routledge handbook of animal ethics, ed. Norcross, A. 2004. Puppies, pigs, and people: eating meat and marginal B. Fischer, 555–568. London: Routledge. cases. Ethical Perspectives 18: 229–245. Abbate, C. 2019b. Save the meat for cats: why it’s wrong to eat road- Pepper, A. 2019. Adapting to climate change: what we owe to other kill. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 32 (1): animals. Journal of Applied Philosophy 36 (4): 592–607. 165–182. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1080 6-019-09763 -6. Petter, O. 2018. Veganism is ’single biggest way’ to reduce our environ- Almassi, B. 2011. The consequences of individual consumption: a mental impact on planet, study finds. Independent June 1, 2018. defence of threshold arguments for vegetarianism and consumer Poore, J., and T. Nemecek. 2018. Reducing food’s environmental ethics. Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (4): 396–411. https :// impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360: 987–992. doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2011.00544 .x. Regan, T. 1988. The case for animal rights. London: Routledge. Almeida, M.J., and M.H. Bernstein. 2000. Opportunistic carnivorism. Roht-Arriaza, N. 2009. First, do no harm: human rights and efforts Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (2): 205–211. https ://doi. to combat climate change. Georgia Journal of International & org/10.1111/1468-5930.00154. Comparative Law 38: 593. Bruckner, D. 2016. Strict vegetarianism is immoral. In The moral com- Saja, K. 2013. The moral footprint of animal products. Agriculture plexities of eating meat, ed. B. Bramble and B. Fischer, 30–47. and Human Values 30: 193–202. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1046 New York: Oxford University Press. 0-012-9402-x. Budolfson, M. 2015. Consumer ethics, harm footprints, and the empiri- Sandler, R.L. 2015. Food ethics: the basics. London: Routledge. cal dimensions of food choices. In Philosophy comes to dinner: Scarborough, P., P.N. Appleby, A. Mizdrak, A.D. Briggs, R.C. Travis, arguments over the ethics of eating, ed. A. Chignell, T. Cuneo, K.E. Bradbury, and T.J. Key. 2014. Dietary greenhouse gas emis- and M.C. Halteman, 163–181. New York: Routledge. sions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the Clark, M., and D. Tilman. 2017. Comparative analysis of environmen- UK. Climatic Change 125 (2): 179–192. tal impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input Sidgwick, H. 1906. The methods of ethics. [7th ed. without publication efficiency, and food choice. Environmental Research Letters 12 year] Indianapolis: Hackett. (6): 064016. https ://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd 5. Singer, P. 1980. Utilitarianism and vegetarianism. Philosophy & Public Clark, M.A., M. Springmann, J. Hill, and D. Tilman. 2019. Multiple Affairs 9 (4): 325–337. health and environmental impacts of foods. Proceedings of the Singer, P. 2016. Afterword. In The ethics of killing animals, ed. T. National Academy of Sciences 116 (46): 23357–23362. Višak and R. Garner, 229–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Driver, J. 2016. Individual consumption and moral complicity. In The Sinnott-Armstrong, W. 2005. It’s not my fault: global warming and moral complexities of eating meat, ed. B. Bramble and B. Fischer, individual moral obligations. In Perspectives on climate change, 67–79. New York: Oxford University Press. ed. W. Sinnott-Armstrong and R. Howarth, 221–253. Amsterdam: Goodnick, L. 2015. Limits on locavorism. In Just food: philosophy, Elsevier. justice and food, ed. J.M. Dieterle, 195–211. London: Rowman Spijker, E., A. Anger-Kraavi, H. Pollitt, and D. van de Ven. 2019. and Littlefield. Evaluating integrated impacts of low-emission transitions in the 1 3 740 T. Kortetmäki, M. Oksanen livestock sector. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transi- Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to tions. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.11.003. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Taylor, P.W. 1986. Respect for nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni- versity Press. Voget-Kleschin, L., C. Baatz, and L. Garcia-Portela. 2019. Introduction to the special issue on individual environmental responsibility. Teea Kortetmäki (PhD) is a postdoctoral researcher at the University Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 32: 493–504. of Jyväskylä, JYU.Wisdom School of Resource Wisdom. Her research https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1080 6-019-09792 -1. interests include environmental and food ethics and sustainable food Wenz, P.S. 1984. An ecological argument for vegetarianism. Ethics systems. Currently, she studies the conceptualisation of and conditions and Animals 5: 4. for the just sustainability and low-carbon transitions in food systems. Willett, W., J. Rockström, B. Loken, M. Springmann, T. Lang, S. Ver- meulen, and L. MajeleSibanda. 2019. Food in the Anthropocene: Markku Oksanen (DSocSc) is a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the the EAT–lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable University of Eastern Finland. He has published widely on green food systems. The Lancet 393 (10170): 447–492. political theory and environmental ethics, including edited volumes Wirsenius, S., F. Hedenus, and K. Mohlin. 2011. Greenhouse gas taxes Philosophy and Biodiversity (Cambridge, 2004), The Ethics of Ani- on animal food products: rationale, tax scheme and climate miti- mal Re-creation and Modification (Palgrave, 2014) and Environmental gation effects. Climatic Change 108: 159–184. Human Rights (Routledge, 2018). Ziegler, F., U. Winther, E.S. Hognes, A. Emanuelsson, V. Sund, and H. Ellingsen. 2013. The carbon footprint of norwegian seafood prod- ucts on the global seafood market. Journal of Industrial Ecology 17: 103–116. https://doi.or g/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00485.x . 1 3
Agriculture and Human Values – Springer Journals
Published: Sep 1, 2021
Keywords: Climate ethics; Food ethics; Low-carbon diets; Ethical eating; Food waste; Animal ethics
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.