Forums dot lukpac.org

The capability of the human mind to rationalize/justify the indulging of desires (in an effort to maintain consistency with beliefs) never ceases to amaze me. From the 8/22 LA Times. Edited by me for brevity, comments in italics mine.

Is your car vegan? (an L.A. "la-la land" question if I ever heard one)

Actor Michael Bell's is. The 66-year-old Encino resident doesn't eat or wear animal products, and his hybrid car doesn't have a stitch of leather in it.

If it had, Bell said, he wouldn't have bought the car, a 2001 Toyota Prius. Toyota Motor Corp. is so attuned to the sensibilities of these so-called green consumers that the company doesn't even offer leather seats for the popular Prius.

Marr Nealon, a nutritional consultant based in Eagle Rock, doesn't wear silk out of concern for silkworms. She won't eat honey, saying, "It's something the bees make for their own consumption. Why should we take their food?" (hey, do what you want, but don't you dare suggest that's what I "should" be doing)

Nealon's 2001 Volkswagen Golf has no leather in it. She said she would gladly pay extra to ensure that her car was leather-free and environmentally friendly.

It's these customers -- who buy organic produce and biodegradable cleaning products -- whom the car companies really want. (hmmm...I must be missing that intent in all those macho truck, SUV, luxury, and sports car advertisements)

To automobile manufacturers trying to win favor among consumers who say they are environmentally conscious, vegans are what one marketing expert called the center of the bull's-eye.

Pleasing vegans, the theory goes, is key to reaching a wider group of consumers -- affluent shoppers who worry about the environment and who are willing to pay extra for food, clothing and even automobiles, if they are made in ways that do less harm to the planet.

Ford Motor Co. ran an eight-page advertisement in the New Yorker. The ad led off with the boast that 11 members of the design team for the company's soon-to-be-released hybrid Escape SUV are vegetarians, and its leader is a vegan.

Sherri Shapiro, who is directing Ford's marketing campaign, defines the target buyers ("status conscious"vegans, I presume) this way: They have higher than average educational levels (but lower than average "common sense" levels) and household incomes, they tend to live in metropolitan areas (which gives them a distorted perception of the nature of life) they read more than average and they watch less TV (but are even more susceptible to "politically correct" fads).

Discussions of vegan and vegetarian ethics (ETHICS??? As opposed to the nonexistent ethics of meat-eaters, I suppose) abound on the Internet, and many of them eventually get around to the issue of leather in cars.

In one chat session titled, "Is your car vegan?" a participant named Drew confessed that his car had leather seats. But Drew said he planned to sell the car soon and buy one with no leather in the interior.

"...some people might be past the whole idea that an animal (usually a cow) had to die to provide you with the leather seats that you want. But what about the environmental impact of raising that cow? Trees had to be cleared, land that could've been used for food crops was used for cattle feed." (And what about the environmental impact of the many factories that made the parts for your "vegan" car? Or the refinery that produces the gasoline it needs? Or the junkyard where your car will someday end up? Don't get me started.)

Sam Gerard, a businessman who lives in Santa Barbara, has made finding the perfect vegan car a personal quest.

Gerard isn't interested in the Prius, which he thinks is ugly, or the Escape, which is too ordinary for his tastes. He wants a luxury car. (oh please)

His last car was a special order from Mercedes. The automaker let him order synthetic seats, he said, but it was really hard to find a steering wheel that wasn't wrapped in leather. (don't forget about the wool carpet...or perhaps your perverse logic allows wool?)

He now plans to buy a BMW, having discovered after months of calling around and grilling salesmen (yikes!) that one of the upgrade options on the company's 300 line can be ordered with its seats, upholstery and steering wheel wrapped in synthetic suede.

"There are still some animal byproducts in the tires," Gerard said, but he believes he did the best he could. (and that's what allows him to sleep like a baby)

Dob wrote:"...some people might be past the whole idea that an animal (usually a cow) had to die to provide you with the leather seats that you want. But what about the environmental impact of raising that cow? Trees had to be cleared, land that could've been used for food crops was used for cattle feed." (And what about the environmental impact of the many factories that made the parts for your "vegan" car? Or the refinery that produces the gasoline it needs? Or the junkyard where your car will someday end up? Don't get me started.)

I'm not about to give up meat, but I think the point is that growing feed to raise animals to feed to us is inherently wasteful. It's been a long time, and I don't know the exact numbers, but I think you can feed something like 10x more people (using the same amount of land) if you grow crops for direct human consumption rather than grow them to feed livestock to then feed humans.

As for the other things you mention, we obviously need to use *some* land to do things. The point is using as little as possible.

I'm not prepared to go as far as these people, nor would I want them to try and make me. I even snicker a bit at them. But if that's how they want to live their lives, more power to them. We can debate about how *much* they may be helping the environment, but it seems pretty obvious they *are* helping in some way, and since they really don't bother anyone but themselves, that's fine by me.

Pretty much what Luke said, though I confess I'd be more impressed by these folks' ethical purity if they'd take the bus or train to work, instead of stroking their own sense of self-righteousness by getting suede seats in their BMWs.

Of course, that's probably not practical given the sad state of public transportation in this country, which is the real issue with cars and the environment, not whether there are animal byproducts in your tires.

Before Patrick jumps in, I confess my own car is no model of social responsibility, but I'm not the one fretting in the newspaper about leather steering wheel covers.

Ryan

lukpac wrote:I'm not about to give up meat, but I think the point is that growing feed to raise animals to feed to us is inherently wasteful.

I've heard that as well. In terms of space efficiency, it's probably true (although the statement about "cutting down trees" for cattle grazing is ludicrous...as if growing crops doesn't require even more clearcutting).

Two points, though. One of the reasons our agriculture is so efficient is through the liberal use of fertilizers and pesticides, which aren't earth friendly. One could make the argument that it is, in fact, more damaging to the local eco system (birds, rodents, insects) than cattle grazing. Second, I don't see the environmental problem with raising cattle in areas that are already open, such as the great plains region.

lukpac wrote:We can debate about how *much* they may be helping the environment, but it seems pretty obvious they *are* helping in some way, and since they really don't bother anyone but themselves, that's fine by me.

I think the whole "leather" thing has more to do with animal cruelty, but that aside, these people probably do way more damage to the environment in dozens of other ways. Refusing leather seats in their cars strikes me as hypocritical, rather like the housewife that drives a Hummer but scrupulously recycles her cans and bottles. Why don't they downsize their homes instead (which I betcha are huge)?

If they were really concerned about the environment (instead of appearing PC), they'd be driving the same well maintained car for twenty years instead of upgrading their rides every few years, LA style.

Rspaight wrote:...I confess I'd be more impressed by these folks' ethical purity if they'd take the bus or train to work, instead of stroking their own sense of self-righteousness by getting suede seats in their BMWs....I'm not the one fretting in the newspaper about leather steering wheel covers.

Exactly. I do realize that public transportation in LA is far from great, but there are other options, such as carpooling...it would have been nice if any of these folks had even mentioned it (here's some irony...refusing to carpool with someone because his car had a leather steering wheel).

What really galls me is the thought that these people are using this "sacrifice" primarily as another form of status - i.e., my car is more PC than your car. Don't you get that impression? Betcha everyone that rides in Mr. Gerard's car in gonna hear all about the synthetic suede, especially if they tweak him about the gas mileage of his BMW.

Dob wrote:....although the statement about "cutting down trees" for cattle grazing is ludicrous...as if growing crops doesn't require even more clearcutting.

OK, I see that the statement was about "cattle feed", not about "feeding cattle"...my bad. There's no question that raising crops for people is much more efficient than raising crops for cattle. That is probably how the vast majority of cattle are raised, as opposed to grazing.

Dob wrote:Two points, though. One of the reasons our agriculture is so efficient is through the liberal use of fertilizers and pesticides, which aren't earth friendly. One could make the argument that it is, in fact, more damaging to the local eco system (birds, rodents, insects) than cattle grazing. Second, I don't see the environmental problem with raising cattle in areas that are already open, such as the great plains region.

Again, it's been a few years, and I don't have any details in front of me, but I believe this method of farming (just keep putting down more fertilizer and pesticides) is actually *not* efficient, and that smaller plots with more variety actually produce a higher yield. I *think* there's some stuff about this in a book I have. I'll have to check when I get home.

At any rate, in terms of cattle, there are still "eco-friendly" and "non-eco-friendly" ways of growing them. I'd do some more checking, but I think *that* book is out on loan. (Oh, you already picked up on this.)

I think the whole "leather" thing has more to do with animal cruelty, but that aside, these people probably do way more damage to the environment in dozens of other ways. Refusing leather seats in their cars strikes me as hypocritical, rather like the housewife that drives a Hummer but scrupulously recycles her cans and bottles. Why don't they downsize their homes instead (which I betcha are huge)?

I'd say it's only hypocritical if they condem everyone else for "not doing their part." I think most of us are probably like that (doing some things to help but blowing it in other ways).

Another thing to think of is some of these people are *way* more anal than you could imagine - the ones with the big houses have probably spent several times more than the average person to ensure every aspect is "eco-friendly".

I'm alright that these environmentalists feel so good about themselves doing something pro-environment, but it didn't take very long at all for them to think of hybrid car driving as a status symbol, just like the SUV drivers do. I'm glad they can get their cars without leather, they should have that choice in a capitalist society.

Is there something inherently wrong with ranches in the Great Plains? When the buffalo roamed before hunters shot them to near extinction, did the buffalo destroy the grasslands too? Perhaps the buffalo were smart enough to not overgraze a particular area. Why would a rancher destroy their own land to deliver a few extra head to the slaughterhouse? It doesn't seem possible. People have done stupid things before, granted, in the name of greed.

I *think* the main problem is that most cattle *aren't* "free range", but rather kept and fed in dirty, overcrowded feed lots.

It's been a few years since I've read Fast Food Nation...

I would agree that the hybrid car thing does seem to be somewhat of a status symbol at this point, especially as they become more mainstream. Ie, most of the more popular (read: larger) cars really don't get *that* good gas mileage.

lukpac wrote:I'm not about to give up meat, but I think the point is that growing feed to raise animals to feed to us is inherently wasteful. It's been a long time, and I don't know the exact numbers, but I think you can feed something like 10x more people (using the same amount of land) if you grow crops for direct human consumption rather than grow them to feed livestock to then feed humans.

http://www.vegsource.com/how_to_win.htm

Rspaight wrote:Before Patrick jumps in, I confess my own car is no model of social responsibility, but I'm not the one fretting in the newspaper about leather steering wheel covers.

I'm giving you a pass on this one because I'm enjoying the unexpurgated version of "These Boots" so much.

Dob wrote:If they were really concerned about the environment (instead of appearing PC), they'd be driving the same well maintained car for twenty years instead of upgrading their rides every few years, LA style.

I subscribe to that theory.

I'd reduce my meat intake by 10%.

Then again, chances are I probably won't.

lukpac wrote:I would agree that the hybrid car thing does seem to be somewhat of a status symbol at this point, especially as they become more mainstream. Ie, most of the more popular (read: larger) cars really don't get *that* good gas mileage.

Well, the Prius will do 50 in town and over 40 on the highway (hybrids do better in the city due to regenerative braking and more usage of the electric motor), which seems darn good for something with the interior space of a Camry. The mileage tests out as good or better than a Jetta TDI or a Toyota Echo, and is lots bigger and more pleasant to drive than the Echo and easier to find fuel for than the Jetta.

Meanwhile, the new Escape hybrid promises mid-30s, which is mediocre by economy-car standards but stellar by SUV standards.

Down the road, Honda is promising a hybrid Accord that will get Civic mileage while offering better performance than the current Accord V-6. Toyota will offer a powerful hybrid version of the Lexus RX SUV. I think this will be the norm for hybrids in the near future -- replicating current size/power offerings (with about a 10-mpg boost) rather than going full-gonzo economy like the Honda Insight, creating a 60-mpg wonder no one wants to buy.

As gas prices go ever higher, though, eventually American tastes in cars will need to get in line with the rest of the world (read: smaller, lighter, slower).

Ryan

Rspaight wrote:Down the road, Honda is promising a hybrid Accord that will get Civic mileage while offering better performance than the current Accord V-6.

Hybrid Civic or regular Civic?

I think this will be the norm for hybrids in the near future -- replicating current size/power offerings (with about a 10-mpg boost) rather than going full-gonzo economy like the Honda Insight, creating a 60-mpg wonder no one wants to buy.

I'd love the economy, but the Insight looks funky.