My perspective on Cowspiracy and final words

If you have read my previous blogpost, you have probably gathered that I do not like this film. Here is a summary of why.

The film through cherry-picking and exaggerating figures hijacked the voice of both climate scientists and environmental groups. It twisted the words of many interviewees and discredited many good work that have been done by the environmental groups. Its over-simplisitic and divisive narrative masked the complexity of environmental issues and dismissed the impacts brought by the fossil fuel industry.


Hijacking the voice of environmentalists and scientists

Cowspiracy accused the environmental organisations of being bribed by the meat and diary industry despite having no specific information that can be proved or refuted. It questioned the scientific consensus of the impact of animal agriculture on the environment. 

Luckily, both the environmental groups and scientists have fought back, albeit their limited power in public discourse.

Greenpeace published a blogpost stating that they declined Kip’s interview because ‘they felt sure our position would be misrepresented (as it has been for several other organisations featured in the film)’. They lamented that their decline has been ‘misrepresented as well, in an attempt to create a sensationalist conspiracy where none exists.’ 

Through a podcast interview, those being misrepresented finally had a chance to confront Kip Andersen personally. 

The Director of Food and Agriculture Program from Natural Resources Defense Council, Jonathan Kaplan, said the accusation is ‘very upsetting’, ‘completely without merits’ and felt like ‘being backstabbed by their environmental ally’. Same sentiments were shared by those who were interviewed by Kip Anderson in the documentary. 

Nicolette Hahn Niman, despite being a critic of the industrial production of meat, was very angry at Kip as he ‘had no idea what he is talking about’ in the film (with reference to the role of ruminant animal play in soil microbiology and carbon foot print and their relation to sustainability). She suggested that the whole documentary was ‘garbage’ as the whole premise of the film was based on statistics provided by a vegan dentist, Dr.Richard Oppenlander, who had no expertise in sustainability. 

There are also many scientists debunking the 51% figure in peer-reviewed journals. (Click here and here to see my two previous posts for a summary of why his figure is unscientific and false.)

Us vs them, the goodies and baddies?

Cowspiracy successfully capitalised the viewer’s sentiment of ‘anti-establishment’ against the so-called ‘expert’. 

This is the strongest message that I get from the documentary personally, ‘It is us against the world, against the powerful meat and dairy industry, against the ineffective and money-grabbing environmental non-profits. It is upto us to change the world.’ This effectively undermined the images of mainstream environmental groups and scientists, at least for those who are persuaded by the documentary. 

Additionally, the film in this way then frames both the root cause of and solution to environmental problems as one that stems from individuals, rather than the wider socio-economic structure. Kip Andersen in an interview with realnews.com said 'The solution ... doesn’t even take necessarily widespread transformation with the legal system and our politics. It’s basically just switching our diet.' Not only does this ignore the role of fossil fuel industry and capitalist neoliberal economy in the resource exploitation, it simply denies the variety of methods for environmental governance like Jones (2014) suggested, 'Diversity of incentives is the key to environmental resilience.' 

Another message it expresses strongly is that ''Meat-eating environmentalists are hypocrites.' The binary division of vegan versus meat-eaters is not helpful at all! It limits the the reach of environmentalism and masks the complexity and vast array of environmental issues. A one-size-fit-all solution is not realistic and may have great unintended environmental, social, economic, and health impacts. I believe to make an visible impact and change to current policies, the movement must be inclusive and accessible to all, one that incorporates social and economic aspects and the spatial-temporal dimension of environmental issues. Further, going vegan does not necessarily mean that your personal carbon footprint is lower than the omnivores if you leave your heater on 24-7 or takes cheap flights frequently. There are a whole lot of things you could do to make the environment better: not driving a car or taking an airplane, reduce unnecessary shopping, finish all your food, advocating for more environmental policies etc 

So how should we deal with this? 

• Educate people about the uncertainty of climate science and concept of precautionary principle. Personally, I don’t think the public are well-versed with the complexity of the issue, one that is environmental, social, economic and political. 
• Educate people about the linakge between fossil fuel and agricultural industry. See them as inter-related rather than two separate entities. 
• Encourage greater participation among scientists in the public discourse. I understand people are busy with their lives and all. We don’t all have time to argue with people online but in my opinion it could be the most effective way to empower the scientific community and not let its voice hijacked by some click-baits-manufacturing, low-quality journalism.
• Adopt a different policy framework to combat climate change. One that holds the government, the fossil fuel and its related industry and the wider social structure accountable, not one that sees individuals as both the only 'mean' and 'end' to climate change (Barr et al 2011).

Final words

As both an environmentalist and a food enthusiast, I truly appreciate the choice of food available at my dinner table. Now that I have covered a range of topics (carbon footprint, water usage, food waste) with regards to food and vegan/vegetarian food, I realised how complicated and politicised the issue can be. There is indeed no simple solution to environmental problems. Nothing is quite as simple as it seems. The best practice could vary geographically because of different environmental, social and economic background. 

But hey, I guess I will do what I can, by eating more veggies, less meat, producing no or very little food waste on an individual basis. I will also continue with advocacy of more sustainable lifestyle through do nation, campaign for a wider political change.