Elaine, those are all excellent — even preferable — options. I’m moving in that direction, mind you; just not all the way “there” yet.

I’m willing to agree to disagree about the relative awfulness of whaling in the grand scheme of wrongs we do to animals, but I just want to press you again on your ascriptive nationalism here. You’ve written beautifully from a sort of Christian cosmopolitan perspective against nationalism on this blog before, but in your thinking here you’re holding a massive entity known as “Japan” collectively responsible for something a fraction of Japanese whalers, consumers, and politicians allow (indeed, your own link suggests the majority of Japanese aren’t involved in and don’t approve of whaling, although it somewhat hysterically invokes “the Yakusa” as the impetus for Japanese whaling, a dubious empirical claim). This sort of collective responsibility and punishment seems out of character for you.

(I’m also curious why Japan is singled out for on whaling. Canada and Norway quit the IWC altogether, refusing to be held to any standard by the international community. Japan exploits a loophole in the IWC moratorium, and I suppose one might say that’s worse, but they’re still reluctantly part of the process. I’m curious if you’d refuse to purchase from Canadian and Norwegian companies as well?)

“if I buy a steak dinner for a friend tonight — after a conversation that may well have included the gentle insertion of a few key talking points about veganism — I’ve got a better shot at changing how they eat in the future than if I don’t eat with them at all.

But, of course, those are not the only two options.
Other options:
1. You can go dutch where each person pays their own way.
2. You can go to a vegan restaurant.
3. You can cook yourself.
4. You can give your friend money or a gift certificate before the meal so it’s their choice how to spend their money - this emphasizes the idea that your gift is to them, and that your gift is not the dead animal flesh.
5. You can enjoy a nonfood activity together.

I chose the Volvo because it finished first on a list of a series of requirements I had: minimum use of leather and other animal products; produced in the greenest possible factories; greatest likelihood of longevity; well-paid workers. I also liked the way it drove.

As for boycotting Japan — no other country has as willfully and cruelly flouted international law on whaling. No other country is as committed to the wholesale slaughter of the most intelligent creatures in the ocean (dolphins and whales) as is Japan. Yes, I know Volvo is owned (partly) by Ford; but the vehicle is primarily built in Gothenburg. (I checked). I’d rather dedicate my dollars to Swedish values than Japanese ones. (If Volvos were made in Norway, however, I might think differently). MNCs are not all interchangeable, not yet.

I’ve done this. It wasn’t entirely voluntary — my car’s had alternator problems for the past year, and I generally lack the resources needed to fix the problem (can’t afford to take it to the shop; don’t know how to fix it myself; too busy to buy a book and figure it out for myself). Whenever the battery dies, I just don’t drive until I have the time and willpower to pull it out and recharge it with my plug-in trickle charger.

So I didn’t have a working car between mid-August and mid-October last Fall, and the second half of February through the middle of March this year. It helps that I live half a mile from school (walking distance, even well below freezing) and I’m single and childless (so I only have to go to the grocery store once every 5-10 days). But there were several cold and/or stormy days over the past year when I either biked or walked the 2-mile (round) trip to the grocery store. (The bus system in my crumbling Rust Belt town is effectively non-existent.)

I also don’t usually bother with a car once the daily temperatures are above 60. Gas is expensive and I am poor but able-bodied. Consequently, in the past two years, I’ve driven just under 3,000 miles.

I’ve had relatives on my wife’s side of the family who avoid VW, and also Mercedes for the same reason (Daimler-Benz produced military engines and munitions during WWII, and allegedly engines used in KZ gas-chambers).

Personally, in general, I’ve found this site an interesting nexus on questions of radical individual moral choices, which I generally don’t subscribe to myself but find interesting and informative nonetheless. I guess that trend continues.

But seriously, what John said about cars. We are, ultimately, profoundly destructive and cruel creatures, and cars are one of–probably the–most efficient tool with which we inflict our destructive cruelness on the rest of life on the planet (meat is probably #2). If you’re serious about reducing the cruelty of your car(please try to think about how ridiculous the phrase “cruelty-free car” is), the best thing you could possibly do is buy the most fuel efficient car you possibly can, and drive it as little as possible. Climate Change is going to wreck some serious havoc on the lives of all kinds of future animals and humans, and with all the flying you do you’ve probably got an outsized carbon footprint even if drive very little.

Furthermore, the boycott of Japan seems really arbitrary, bizarre and uncharacteristically nationalistic. First of all, as people have pointed out, country of ownership is a poor way to think about MNCs. Secondly, it smacks of collective punishment–you’re not boycotting whalers, you’re boycotting those who share a national identity with whalers. Thirdly, in a world full of cruelty, how does whaling get elevated to such an important position? At least the whales get to live a free life in the wild up until the end. Factory farming is far, far crueler, and is practiced by every nation on earth. In all the ways that cars are associated with cruelty and destruction, how this became the major issue driving your decision is something I have a really hard time wrapping my mind around.