@Kristen Magno:

I, like many of my Greenpeace colleagues, have been vegetarian for many years (going on 8, myself). Ask any of us if we advocate vegetarian/vegan diets for environmental reasons, and I do believe we'd all say "Of course!" All public Greenpeace events that serve food are strictly vegetarian, as well.

You seem to not appreciate the fact that there is a difference between lifestyle choices and environmental campaigning. Greenpeace does not advocate for any specific lifestyle choices, we run environmental campaigns. Strategically speaking, targeting the shoe companies is a much better way to put pressure on the main companies buying the cattle products being produced by devastating the Amazon than advocating for a meat-free diet.

Sad fact of the matter is, we'd never convince enough people to give up meat, even if we were a lifestyle advocacy organization. Asking people to let brands like Nike, Adidas, and Timberland know that they are concerned about the leather they're using is a much better way to pressure those companies, who will in turn pressure the companies they buy leather from, who will in turn pressure the ranchers who are burning down the Amazon to raise cattle. One of the shoe companies told us they were "terrified" at the number of emails they'd received from our supporters -- and you can bet they shared those feelings with the supplier of their leather.

It is a common misconception that beef is the primary cattle product, while things like hides for leather are mere byproducts. In fact, the ranchers have to sell every single portion of the cow to make it profitable for them. If even one single source of revenue from their cattle is cut off, then their profits will be greatly impacted and they will have to reconsider their business model. This is the essence of market campaigning.

Shoes being much more high-profile as products than beef, it is much easier to get publicity for a campaign targeting the shoe brands than for targeting beef sellers. It's really more of a strategically chosen wedge issue anyway, one we're using to get the problem of deforestation of the Amazon due to cattle ranchers into the public conscousness. That doesn't mean beef hasn't been identified as part of the problem in our report, "Slaughtering the Amazon." It has certainly been part of the discussion, as well. For instance:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/cattle-industry-giant-mafrig-t

I explained all of this to you on the Greenpeace blogs when you wrote in with the same concerns. Don't know if you ever saw my responses to your comments. In the future, you are welcome to email me directly (you can do so through the GP blogs) when you have concerns like this, and I'd be happy to discuss with you the strategy behind our campaigns (insofar as I can).

Dear Mike,

No I haven't seen the comments you made on the blogs, sorry I haven't been able to make my way around the large circle of blogs I read again to review comments (except for change.org, it's a front-runner). Thank you for explaining your strategy. Yes it does make sense that you would use shoes instead of meat for the public who still has their "head in the sand". It's any easy marketing strategy that doesn't offend anyone. Unfortunately I still believe that we are at a time where "beating around the bush" strategies are not sending a strong enough message. It took a harsh book to wake me out of my cognitive dissonance coma and realize the impact I was making on the world and the animals in it. I just feel that we need some more hard hitting campaigns. People have to change now, if they don't it will be too late for us as a country and a human race. But that's my opinion; as an outsider I don't know what discussions you guys have in meetings although it has to be fascinating. While my main concerns are for the animals, I am also a hardcore enviro as well.

One really good stategy is to discuss the rise in temperature. The Govt. just came out with a fascinating chart (which I am sure you have seen). It almost swayed the mind of my hard headed coworker, because who wants to live in a world where it is over 90 degrees half of the year.