Al Gore Quietly Goes Vegan
November 26, 2013
I’ve heard Al Gore field the question a few times – “Are you a vegetarian?”
The answer has always been no, until now.
Gore’s recent decision to forgo animal products surfaced as an offhand reference in a Forbes magazine piece about Hampton Creek Foods, an upscale vegan product line carried in Whole Foods. Ryan Mac’s article, which posted Saturday, chronicled how wealthy investors including Bill Gates,Tom Steyer and Vinod Khosla have poured money into the company, which hopes to take down the U.S. egg industry with offerings such as a plant-base mayonnaise.
“Newly turned vegan Al Gore is also circling,” Mac writes.
An individual familiar with Gore’s decision, who asked not to be identified because it involved a personal matter, confirmed that Gore opted a couple of months ago to become vegan. Gore’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
It is unclear why Gore, one of the nation’s most visible climate activists, has given up dairy, poultry and meat products. People usually become vegan for environmental, health or ethical reasons, or a combination of these three factors.
Bill Clinton explained in a 2011 interview with CNN’s Sanjay Gupta that he adopted a vegan diet primarily for health considerations. Known for consuming a high-fat cuisine while in office, Clinton — who was 65 at the time — said he realized he had “played Russian roulette” with his health for too long, and that since making the switch, “I feel good, and I also have, believe it or not, more energy.”
The Humane Society of the United States food policy director Matthew Prescott noted in an e-mail that industrial farm operations are major sources of nutrient pollution, and contribute significantly to the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.
“Overconsumption and overproduction of meat has given rise to the factory farm, which has put huge threats on the planet and our health,” Prescott wrote. “Whether it’s the whole Clinton/Gore ticket being vegan now, Oprah promoting meat-free eating, Bill Gates backing plant-based foods or the rise of Meatless Mondays, it’s clear that the way we farm and eat is shifting toward a better model.”
Climate Denial Crock of the Week 
November 26, 2013 at 5:01 am
We can all feel so much better about the astronomical energy consumption required to support the Goracle’s opulent life-style. Now I would bet it’s al the way down to astronomical-minus-a-tad.
Have we found out yet if he farts through silk boxers or is it silk briefs?
November 26, 2013 at 5:26 am
Jealous much?
Clearly he has special methane traps in his drawers which he collects and then releases in the Red states to try to convince them of the hoax of global warming.
November 26, 2013 at 7:48 am
Obviously, you prefer to eat fossil shit because you don’t know if you like green spinach.
November 26, 2013 at 3:10 pm
I’ll let you sniff that out, dube.
November 26, 2013 at 4:47 pm
You say that almost as if you give a rat’s *** how much energy someone uses.
Who is the hypocrite here?
November 26, 2013 at 5:40 am
Methane from farming and meat production may be underestimated:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/25/us-methane-emissions-study-epa/3699735/
November 26, 2013 at 7:28 am
We should all be eating more wild bore to save the planet.
Hey, I was a vegan for 14 years and it didn’t work for me. Perhaps it’s my Cro Magnon type O blood but no amount of beans, rice, nuts and vegies filled me up. I was painfully thin for 14 years, with low energy.
It was at a Hawaiian luau years ago, when I ate Kahlua pig, that I went off my vegan diet and I do not regret it. I still only eat meat once or twice a week but it helps me maintain my weight and energy.
That way I can I can plant more trees.
November 26, 2013 at 7:25 pm
Wild “bore”? Hannibal Lecter prefers free-range rude.
November 26, 2013 at 8:32 am
Things are getting serious.
November 26, 2013 at 10:40 am
I don’t think a little meat in your diet is bad, but no doubt many are eating way more than they should. Salt is also a big problem. The junk-food and pre-processed food that many live on in western countries have basically both in too large quantities.
Also, domesticated animals, if used the right way might be good “tools” for mimicking wildlife and prevent desertification if we are to believe Allan Savory:
It surely looks like impressive results he is getting with this method. No doubt, spreading natural fertilizer in the form of dung and pee from the animals is what nature likes best, but it seems just the trampling of the ground also helps. Naturally we need more trees and bushes everywhere as well to reduce the chances of erosion.
November 26, 2013 at 8:09 pm
Before they had artificial fertilizer, there was a farming field rotation system in place where animals and crops were used symbiotically to improve yield of both animal and crop production.
Norfolk System (4 field system):
1) Wheat (for humans to eat of course)
2) Clover or rye grass which pulled nitrogen out of the air and fixed it in the soil to replenish what the wheat had taken. Animals would then graze on this grass to produce manure.
3) Barley/Oats
4) Turnips – again more nitrogen fixing (I think) and the crop could then feed the animals over the winter and create more manure.
The result was there was more manure for growing crops, the fields retained nutrients longer, and better yields were accomplished.
————————————————————————————————
As far as burning goes, at least as it applies to agriculture: On a siliceous, sandy soil, burning is injurious to the soil as it turns what little fine material the soil has (the non-sandy, powdery stuff that holds water and provides earth element nutrition to the plants) into gritty material that texturally performs the same as sand (think of how fire dries out a clay brick permanently, making it resistant to water retention). Burning should only be done as a means of converting highly vegetative land to arable land and probably shouldn’t be repeated after that conversion unless the soil has in it a great excess of clay, making the soil too ‘wet’ or ‘cold’.
November 26, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Environmental ill effects of meat production appear very exaggerated, see:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/87
November 27, 2013 at 7:13 pm
I could easily see more people going something 80/20 where 80% was non meat products. Then you would probably only eat the good stuff like grass feed beef or free range chicken. If you’ve ever seen the inside of a factory farm you wouldn’t want to touch that stuff.
November 28, 2013 at 10:54 pm
[…] Here’s a bit from the Washington Post article (h/t Climate Denial Crock of the Week): […]
December 16, 2015 at 3:39 pm
[…] climatecrocks.com […]