Where McCartney Is Right: The Need For New and Inventive Green Solutions

It should be made clear that McCartney is not calling for a boycott of the livestock industry; his message is simply that we should eat less of the product. McCartney's campaign is centered on sound research: according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), livestock production accounts for 13.5 percent to 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions – that's more than the entire transportation sector. To my mind, McCartney is doing something I only wish more celebrities would do more often – he is leveraging his popularity for a cause that demands attention.

Joshua implies that McCartney's Meat Free Monday is merely a surreptitious scheme to turn everyone into a vegetarian (indeed, Joshua says McCartney has an "obsession" with this). This is fallacious reasoning – conjecture, plain and simple. If Paul McCartney were supposedly "obsessed" with making us all vegetarians, wouldn't he be promoting a meatless diet? McCartney understands that livestock production and consumption are only going to rise – the same U.N. FAO report indicates that global meat production is expected to double by 2050 – and he is realistically addressing the issue by advocating better industry standards and less consumption.

But less livestock consumption could potentially "wreak havoc on the market," says Joshua. Well, if the masses decided to heed McCartney's appeal, are they going to eat less food overall? Of course not. If demand for livestock production indeed fell as a result of less consumption, there's no doubt this would force some factories and industrial farms to shed jobs, consolidate, or close even whole production sites. But vegetarians, or those who decide to eat less meat, will (and do) substitute other foods to replace meat, thus creating a demand that agriculture still must fill.

I almost wonder if Joshua is as concerned about what is "destroying one of the oldest and largest industries in the world" as he professes to be, because if he were, I think he might actually agree with McCartney's primary concern that global warming has devastating (and even irreversible) consequences for all – and that even includes the agriculture industry itself. An influential research report released last year, funded by none other than the U.S. Department of Agriculture, addressed the overwhelming evidence and overall likelihood that climate change is devastating U.S. agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity. So, not only do industrial farming practices contribute significantly to global warming – global warming, in turn, negatively impacts agriculture. It's a vicious cycle that should give great pause to anyone who is truly concerned with the future viability of U.S. agriculture, economic or otherwise.

California's Green Future

The idea that a state like California, one of the largest economies in the world, is incapable of developing and sustaining economically sound environmental policy is plain wrong. But, says Joshua, "One only needs to take a look at the state of California to see how much damage can be done at the hands of an environmental movement that disregards the economic consequences of its proposals."

It's true; there are examples of green policy "gone bad." He brings up a valid point about the California Coastal Commission – this is an unfortunate example of a sensible and beneficial policy that was poorly implemented and badly managed. But to suggest that this one example is an indication or bellwether for the fate of all present and future environmental policy is hardly evenhanded.

The truth is that California has recognized that it is both unwise and immoral to ignore not only climate change science but also the emerging clean-energy job market. Unemployment is rampant in all areas of the country, but particularly in California, and governmental and civic investment in the "green economy" is not just smart business – it's a critical step in maintaining influence and economic agility in this new global market. Even China – the world's biggest polluter and emitter of green house gases – recognizes both the political and economic pressures to curb and reduce its emissions. According to the New York Times, the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development has recommended a "low carbon road map with specific recommendations that go beyond renewable energy development, into areas such as land usage, innovation, industrial development and urbanization."

Who is going to supply and power this new market? Californians sure plan on it. A recent study, "Many Shades of Green: Diversity and Distribution of California's Green Jobs," reported in the Sacramento Bee, found that the green industry in California is surging, creating jobs at a more rapid pace than the broader economy.

The study found that "from January 1995 through January 2008, the number of green businesses statewide increased 45 percent and jobs in those businesses grew by 36 percent," and those associated with the study said that this rising trend "demonstrates the need to invest in those industries."

Green Policies Good for Environment and Economy

The report highlights successful businesses that represented various sectors of the green economy from around the state. The Echelon Corporation, for example, "supplies energy users with the means to monitor, control and reduce their energy consumption, using smart metering and consumption monitoring software." The company's products are used globally – it even secured a contract to install its system in Beijing's Bird Nest for last year's Olympics.

Some of the successful companies who are featured in the report have been able to bring their technologies to scale for the mass market, thanks to grants from federal departments such as the Department of Energy. This is precisely the sort of smart public policy that is both environmentally and economically sound. And it's happening right here in California – the very place Joshua fears is destined for fiscal fiasco if "new-age conservation" has anything to do with it.

In his post, Joshua pointed out the "cautionary tale" of a failed ethanol plant that ultimately left 45 locals out of a job. It is distressing to be reminded of workers losing their jobs, especially those who took the risk to leave steady work for something that turned out to be fleeting. But the green-jobs sector is still an emerging industry and there are certainly going to be growing pains. We can't abandon an entire industry because not every business or entrepreneur succeeds.

I know Joshua would agree with me that we shouldn't let a few bad apples kill the entire tree (after all, that is the headline to his post). Examples like the failed policy of the California Coastal Commission or the regrettable closure of his hometown's ethanol plant should not keep us from moving forward in developing, implementing and rewarding economically sound environmental policy and practices. Joshua is right: "It is indeed possible to be an environmentalist while also being economically practical at the same time." Not only is it possible, it's already happening.