I think the term “welfare footprint” (analogous to the term “carbon footprint”) is extremely useful, and we should make stronger attempts to popularise it among the public as a quick way to encapsulate the idea that different animal products have vastly different welfare harms, e.g. milk vs eggs.
I’ve heard people say that the idea of an individual’s “carbon footprint” has actually harmed the cause of climate activists because it takes the emphasis onto personal behavior and off of policy change. Considering how amazingly successful policy advocacy for animal welfare can be, I worry that “welfare footprint” could be a step in the wrong direction.
Yes, this is a good point—perhaps you could speak of “the dairy industry’s welfare footprint” if you sought to avoid this.
Though I guess people could only support policy change that tried to, for example, reduce flying in favour of travel by train, if they are first aware of the differences in emissions (254g vs 6g per km apparently), rather than just being aware that both release some emissions—and perhaps the idea of carbon footprints helped popularise that there are such big differences (?) But maybe there’s something about the term “footprint” which is too closely tied to individual behaviour, and a better term could be found.
Wouldn’t a person’s “welfare footprint” also include, e.g., all the cases where they brightened someone’s life a little bit by having a pleasant interaction with them? The purpose (“different animal products have vastly different welfare harms”) seems fairly narrow but the term suggests something much broader.
Interesting. Then I guess strictly speaking it makes more sense to speak only of the welfare footprint of products, rather than of a whole person’s carbon footprint, unlike how we speak of both products and people having carbon footprints.
I think the term “welfare footprint” (analogous to the term “carbon footprint”) is extremely useful, and we should make stronger attempts to popularise it among the public as a quick way to encapsulate the idea that different animal products have vastly different welfare harms, e.g. milk vs eggs.
I’ve heard people say that the idea of an individual’s “carbon footprint” has actually harmed the cause of climate activists because it takes the emphasis onto personal behavior and off of policy change. Considering how amazingly successful policy advocacy for animal welfare can be, I worry that “welfare footprint” could be a step in the wrong direction.
Yes, this is a good point—perhaps you could speak of “the dairy industry’s welfare footprint” if you sought to avoid this.
Though I guess people could only support policy change that tried to, for example, reduce flying in favour of travel by train, if they are first aware of the differences in emissions (254g vs 6g per km apparently), rather than just being aware that both release some emissions—and perhaps the idea of carbon footprints helped popularise that there are such big differences (?)
But maybe there’s something about the term “footprint” which is too closely tied to individual behaviour, and a better term could be found.
Wouldn’t a person’s “welfare footprint” also include, e.g., all the cases where they brightened someone’s life a little bit by having a pleasant interaction with them? The purpose (“different animal products have vastly different welfare harms”) seems fairly narrow but the term suggests something much broader.
Interesting. Then I guess strictly speaking it makes more sense to speak only of the welfare footprint of products, rather than of a whole person’s carbon footprint, unlike how we speak of both products and people having carbon footprints.