Environment and Global Warming
Gristmill on the Cow Tax and Less Meat vs. Less Coal
Published March 11, 2009 @ 10:35AM PT
Extracted from "The 'cow tax': not now, maybe not ever: A love of delicious farm votes beef crosses ideological boundaries":
A Democratic and Republican Senator have joined together to enshrine in law the sacred principle that American cows shall never be taxed. Smell the bipartisanship.
Including cattle in a cap-and-trade system is, of course, a fine idea. From an environmental perspective, cattle are a major source of a wide range of ills: methane emissions, land use changes, nitrous oxide emissions, ammonia emissions, etc. If you tally up the negative impacts of beef on human health and productivity, the societal cost of cows climbs even higher.
From an economic efficiency perspective, it generally doesn't make sense to exclude sectors from a carbon cap. We want emissions reductions to come from the fastest, lowest-cost sources available, and it's hard to imagine anything cheaper or lower-cost than reduced beef consumption. It takes decades to shut down a coal plant. It takes no time at all to not eat a strip steak [emphasis mine]. Moreover, energy is a primary input to just about every sector of the economy. The same can hardly be said for tender, delicious short ribs.
Finally, pricing is really the only policy implement up to the task of curbing beef consumption. The government might be able to fiddle around at the margins through consumer awareness campaigns and school lunch programs, but anything more heavy-handed would raise a justifiable backlash. (And, sadly, even these modest government interventions are ferociously resisted by industry.) . . .
Anyhow, ranchers need never have worried. A cow tax is a political non-starter, simple as that.
The blogger is right, of course (yes, I'm choosing to ignore that "tender, delicious short ribs" remark). The power that animal agribusiness has in this country--the sway that the animal ag lobby has in politics and the crap (sometimes literally) that animal ag can get away with--never stops amazing and infuriating me beyond words.
Global Warming Predictions and Images to Fear
Published March 10, 2009 @ 12:58PM PT
You like polar bears? How about the Amazon and its unmatched biodiversity? Are you upset by the thought of tens of thousands of animal and plant species dying out because of climate change and resultant habitat changes to which they can't adapt? You comfortable with the idea of one-fourth of the world's species disappearing in a mass extinction in just the next few decades? And how do you feel about massive flooding and destroyed coastal cities?
Like the writer of this TreeHugger post, I've no interest in seeing people panicked and overcome by fear, but a healthy dose of fear is, well, healthy. Complacency about and comfort with climate change isn't just unfortunate--it has the potential to be catastrophic, for nations, for us, for plants, for life as we know it, and certainly, certainly for other animals. Take it seriously. Speak up. Make changes (yes, including dietary changes, significant ones, among many other changes). Now.
TreeHugger: 7 Terrifying Global Warming Pictures
Never-Born, Never-Killed Cows Don't Pass Gas Either
Published February 26, 2009 @ 01:47PM PT
Yes, it's true--"dead cows pass no gas." Know who else doesn't pass any gas? Cows who were never forced into existence just so that they could be brutally slaughtered in the first place.
There's nothing inconsistent about trying to stop the killing of animals for ethical reasons while also trying to stop the raising of animals (for the purpose of killing them) as part of the effort to curb global warming. The animal rights movement isn't just about stopping the actual killing; it's about stopping the system of injustice and exploitation that leads up to and involves the killing. The multitude of cows being exploited on farms aren't here because their population naturally exploded. Cattle exist in such large numbers, consistently, not because they're out there procreating like mad. There are so many cows and bulls in existence only because we force them into existence.
Drastically decreasing or eliminating people's consumption of cows' flesh and milk wouldn't mean forever killing and letting rot an endless population of cattle to stop them from producing methane. Animal agriculture is a business--it follows supply and demand just like every other business. And if demand dropped, what else would drop? The number of cows forcibly impregnated, the number of cows forced into existence. Really, it's simple: just because one generation of cows is forced through the system and ultimately slaughtered doesn't mean another generation has to be too. Contrary to popular belief, animal rights advocates are familiar with logic and realism, and we know that most cows currently in existence are going to die at the hands of humans much sooner than they naturally would have died. That doesn't mean we have to continue supporting the breeding and slaughtering of future cows.
And though many animal rights activists would say that they're not bothered by the idea of a future without cows--because living a life of misery and exploitation until enduring horrible transport and slaughter isn't better than never existing at all--many others are bothered by that idea. But the argument that there's no way even a small number of cows could be kept alive if animal agriculture ended (because humans wouldn't want to provide for, or allow to live, animals they weren't getting something tangible or financial out of) isn't supported. For example, visit any number of farm animal sanctuaries, and you'll see just that--cows and bulls who escaped or were rescued from the system, one way or another, and who are now being cared for and allowed to live out their lives happily by people who truly care about them.
The implication that people who want to kill and eat cows somehow care about cows more than the people who don't want them to be born into exploitation and cruelty and then violently slaughtered at a fraction of their natural life span would be laughable if it weren't so offensive and absurd.
No, our problems, climate and otherwise, "are not the fault of dumb animals." In fact, they're not the fault of intelligent, sentient animals either; yes, that's right--I won't call animals "dumb" just because they are who they are, just because they're not humans--who are clearly superior (after all, look what a great job we, the smart ones, have done keeping ourselves out of catastrophic disasters!). As I made perfectly clear in my post yesterday, I don't blame cows, and neither does anyone else advocating for them. Nothing negative that results from humans' insistence on raising and killing cows is cows' fault. It's the fault of humans who are doing to and with cattle what we are.
---
Stay tuned in the upcoming days for a thought-provoking guest post on "cattle culture," meat-eating, sustainability, and more from Farmer Harold Brown, who has far more experience and far greater knowledge on these topics than most others of us commenting on them do.
Researchers: Even "Organically Raised" Cows Are a "Climate Bomb"
Published February 25, 2009 @ 07:42AM PT
OK, I wish the title of "The Cow Is a Climate Bomb" had been worded differently. Cattle themselves are not at fault here. Animal agriculture and humans are, for forcing into existence so very, very many of them, just so that we can then kill, eat, and wear them. But still, this study and article are saying what most people have been refusing to acknowledge: "Whether cattle are reared organically or with conventional farming methods, the end effect is bad for the environment, according to a new German consumer report."
-Read on after the jump for more on this important, first-of-its kind study-
A Busy Week: Seizures & Arrests, Downed Pig Slaughter, 146 Pit Bull Deaths, and More
Published February 23, 2009 @ 08:26AM PT
It occurs to me that this past week was a rather busy news week around this blog, including around the weekend when fewer people check in generally, so for those of you who check in only every few days, here is a list of perhaps the most important posts from the last week on this blog:
- Activists Arrested as "Terrorists" for Exercising Free Speech
- Sea Shepherd Ship Boarded by Australian Police; Videos and Logs Seized
- California Judge Gives the OK to Keep Dragging Downed Pigs to Slaughter
- Your Dairy Dollars at Work
- Plant-Based Hunger Solutions: Feeding More With Less, Part 2--Scarcity and Distribution (guest post from Dawn Moncrief)
- Update on the NC Pit Bulls: 146 Killed, Including Pups Born in Custody (update to 127 Pit Bulls, Incl. 60 Puppies, Ordered Killed)
A Dog & Whales with a Home; Firefighters with Healthy Hearts (and, um, other parts)
Published February 19, 2009 @ 01:11PM PT
I could use some good news. Perhaps you'd like some too? (You'll have to read all the way to the end of this post for the make-you-blush "other parts" stuff.)
First, easyVegan.info tells us the story of Gramby, a pit bull who was found as a stray puppy in a town with a breed ban and who, after too long in a shelter (a great no-kill shelter, but still a shelter--no match for a loving home), has found a happy home. I really needed this particular story this week. Thanks, Kelly.
-----
Over at NRDC's Switchboard, there's a post titled "What Successful Environmental Activism Looks Like: Wild Baby Whales."
I spend most of my working hours sitting in meetings in office buildings. But over the past few days, I came face to face with what those meetings can achieve: wild baby gray whales, whales whose last unspoiled nursery was saved by NRDC and our citizen activists.
Every time I go into the field, I am reminded that environmental activism has tangible results--things you can literally touch, like the trunk of a 300-year old tree in a healthy forest or a grizzly bear footprint along a muddy stream. Being within arm's reach of the sleek, rubbery gray whales was a jolt of inspiration: this is what successful conservation feels like.
-----
Finally, after you've finished reading about Gramby and the whales, check out this super-cool article about an Austin firefighter who's spreading the plant-lovin', meat-eschewing word throughout his fire station and--now--beyond, with a book on a way of eating that does remarkable things for health (though I'll be the first to admit that my diet is not oil-free as Esselstyn's recommended diet is). Think you have to consume meat, dairy, and eggs to be strong, healthy, and--yes--tough? Tell that to this guy. Read lots more (including the "who needs Viagra?!" testimonial) after the jump.
Plant-Based Hunger Solutions: Feeding More With Less, Part 2--Scarcity and Distribution
Published February 19, 2009 @ 05:32AM PT
First, a brief recap of part 1, from yesterday:
Global food scarcity is an increasing problem, which is made worse by increases in inefficient, resource-intensive meat production/consumption. It's not just that we need to feed more people (a linear increase). Low- and middle-income countries (with large population bases and high population growth rates) are consuming more resource-intensive animal products, so the effect is multiplied. The United Nations predicts that this, combined with the already high per capita consumption rates of the wealthy nations, will result in global meat consumption doubling over 50 years (2000-2050).
Scarcity and Distribution Are Connected
So meat consumption is increasing, and more people will go hungry? Yes, because we have more people to feed due to population growth and because distribution is increasingly uneven, with more meat-eaters bidding away food staples from the world's poor.
It's common to hear people (even experts) say that hunger is a problem of distribution, not scarcity. But it's not a question of scarcity versus distribution--scarcity and distribution problems are connected.
When scarcity is high, distribution issues are exacerbated because there is even less to go around. It seems obvious, but it needs to be made crystal clear--increased scarcity increases hunger, and meat increases both scarcity and distribution disparities.
It's basic supply and demand.
Eating meat increases the demand for basic food supplies (grain, corn, soy, etc.) much more than consuming these staples directly.
The increased demand for basic staples increases their price and makes it more difficult for the world's poor to buy food. Instead, those who are better off buy the food for animal feed to produce meat. Some countries actually export food during famine, selling food for feed while their own people starve because they can't afford it.
In short, your hamburger increases the price of their corn, grain, soy, etc.
-Continue reading after the jump-
