Michael Pollan (\"Why Bother?\") and Anna Lappe

¶ … Michael Pollan ("Why Bother?") and Anna Lappe ("The Climate Crisis at the End of Your Fork") are both focused on providing well-defined information about reducing individuals' carbon footprints as the climate continues to heat up. They are both centered on issues related to the warming of the planet and on wise responses that can be made in light of that threat. And both articles, while quite different in focus and in tone, embrace the idea of reducing one's carbon footprint by changing food habits. Why are these articles valuable? There are elected representatives and high-visibility media personalities that have been carrying on a constant negative attack against those who believe in and are responding responsibly to global warming. To deny what is happening is to be ignorant about science, but those campaigning against global climate change are in fact having an impact on public opinion. So the truth about what an individual can and should do to lesson his or her carbon footprint is vitally important. Both of these authors present believable and practical advice regarding climate change and what people can do in their own homes and communities. This paper will discuss the salient ideas presented in both articles and how those ideas are both similar in message and practical in substance.

The articles both provide good ideas and plenty of evidence that everything humans do has some kind of affect on the planet. It is likely they were both written in order not just to show readers that there is a need to slow down global climate change, but to open eyes about aspects of climate warming -- and things citizens can do about it -- that have not been universally presented and hence, are not well-known. And they both have their own unique approach to getting the attention of the reader prior to laying out the important narrative.

For example, Pollan begins by explaining that no matter what we do, no matter how hard we try to do our part, "…it will be too little too late" because the warming of the planet is happening faster than earlier predicted and moreover "…personal choices, no matter how virtuous, cannot do enough" (Pollan, 2008, p. 2). However, reading on, Pollan explains that no matter how limited and seemingly token the gesture is, by growing one's own food he or she is taking a step towards reducing one's carbon footprint. Growing a garden means using sunlight (photosynthesis) instead of using "fossil-fuel fertilizers and pesticides" produced by corporations out there in the distance somewhere (Pollan, p. 3).

Growing a garden also means eating local (rather than eating produce shipped to your state from a distant state or country); it means keeping a compost pile which sequesters carbon in one's own soil; and if an individual rips out the lawn and plants a garden, he or she is not wasting water on keeping grass green but that person is using water to grow food (because water is become a scarce resource) (Pollan, p. 3). And the amount of energy spend in the garden saves having to burn fossil fuel to drive to the gym to stay healthy; plus doing a garden helps to show that an individual "…need not be dependent on specialists to provide for yourself" (Pollan, p. 4).

As for Lappe's approach to changing the way people live in response to climate change, she urges people to stop eating meat. Lappe is not trying to convince people to become vegetarians; she is making a point about livestock that is very important in the climate change discussion. What she is conveying is not heard very often but it absolutely salient to the whole climate change conversation.

While Pollan is talking about raising vegetables in the garden, Lappe is pointing out that the production of livestock contributes "…to 18% of the global warming effect" and that 18% exceeds the total emissions from all the automobiles, trains and planes on the planet (Lappe, 2008, p. 1). The production of livestock depends on electricity; producing just 2.2 pounds of beef uses enough electricity to burn a 100-watt bulb for 20 days, Lappe explains (p. 1). Big corporate farms are addicted to fossil fuels: a) machinery has to be powered by fossil fuels; b) the chemicals corporate farms use on the soil are petroleum-based; c) one-third of all the cereal harvest "…and 90% of the world's soy harvest" are raised just to feed livestock (Lappe, p. 1). And while it takes enormous amount of energy to raise the crops to feed the livestock, which contributes to global warming, moreover the precious (and rapidly disappearing) resource of water is impacted by livestock farming as well; to wit, "70% of the world's available freshwater is being diverted to irrigation-intensive agriculture" (Lappe, p. 2).