Global warming is a huge social problem that requires many different levels of action. Right-wing ideologues long ago convinced themselves that global warming isn't real. Some of them have changed their minds, fueled mainly by the fact that their political representatives face tough reelection battles this fall, and more and more see no value in holding onto this outdated and unpopular view.
Most of them, however, still get angry when people concerned about global climate change point to the excesses of the oil industry or the automakers or other corporations as a root cause. Right-wing ideologues tend to fall back on the "ownership society" concept pushed by George W. Bush (and now John McCain), i.e., the privatization of social problems. In other words, once there is a mess, you're on your own to clean it up.
For this reason, right-wing ideologues promote ideas that restrain social intervention. They just hate any form of public and government action to regulate polluters, to impose strict laws and penalties, or demand new courses of action (such as mandatory caps on emissions). They oppose new laws that will require different methods of production of consumer goods that will ease the emission of greenhouse gases. And, above all, they dislike new investments in anything other than Big Oil and and big polluters.
Global climate change is not just about how we travel or how much plastic we use, however. It is increasingly about the choices we make in our diets. The latest scientific data points to the over-abundance of livestock – from using fossil fuels to maintain feed and animals to the over-production of waste, over-grazing, and the use of dangerous pesticides and herbicides – as one of the greatest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
This fact is fueled by a multinational meat industry, with its factory farms, billions in advertising dollars, and political lobbying machine, that has convinced American consumers that they cannot live without meat. (USDA data for 2005 reveals that Americans consume more than twice as much meat as the typical earthling.)
One group is fighting back with a message to consumers that they can take care of their health, fight global warming, and help rebuild local economies by taking action. The Cool Foods Campaign advocates, according to campaign spokesperson Meredith Niles, "for organic, local, whole foods, less processed and packaged foods, organic and local meat and dairy consumption (as well as decreased consumption) and sustainable seafood."
The campaign has created a “top 5 things you can do” list as well as a "Cool Foods pledge" to educate consumers on how to change their eating habits. By eating organic foods, consuming less dairy, avoiding processed foods, buying locally grown foods, and reducing the use of packaging, consumers can make a huge dent in their contributions to the growth of greenhouse emissions, or their "food print," according to the Cool Foods Campaign web site.
Some basic first steps: Buy reusable grocery bags. Visit your local farmers' market for your produce. Talk to the venders about how the product is made and how it is shipped to the market, Niles suggested.
"The great thing about buying locally is you can usually talk to the person you're buying from about how they grew the food and how far it has traveled," said Niles. "You can have an interaction people don't really have at a big supermarket."
But the campaign isn't simply targeted at consumers, who, when it comes down to it, are not primarily responsible for the problem. The Cool Foods Campaign backs laws that will subsidize local operations to bring organic or locally made food items to the market.
In addition, the campaign supports country-of-origin labeling on all foods items to help inform consumers about the carbon foot print of the product they are about to buy, said Niles. The law "will give people better options about what they can purchase," she added.
Niles stated that she believed the passage of the law will provide incentives to grocery stores to buy more locally grown products.
Cool Foods Campaign backer, the Center for Food Safety, also regularly goes after corporations who illegally label food or use unhealthy and unsafe production methods, as well as government agencies who fail to do their jobs and protect the public.
But doesn't carefully choosing food with a smaller "food print" cost more? Though a valid question, said Niles, some of the latest evidence suggest that locally grown food in places like Seattle, for example, is cheaper than products brought in from other markets. Indeed, Niles added, as local becomes more popular, safer, and available, it will be the cheaper alternative all over. Rising gasoline prices have already impacted the prices of food items that have to be shipped long distances.
Immediate costs may not even be the main point, she went on. The long-term impact on public health and on the environment of mass produced livestock and other food products may have a higher social cost. A few dollars to improve your health and positively impact the environment may be the better price in the long run.
