Comments gmunger has made

fire; the old scapegoat

While Mr. Grunwald's indictment of South Florida's water management is more than likely warranted, his derision towards fire in the Everglades is misplaced. The namesake "glades" are a fire-dependent ecosystem. One could hypothesize that mismanagement of water has in this case led to unusually severe fire effects. But rather than take a careful data-driven look at real on-the-ground fire effects, Grunwald would rather use hyperbole and arm-waving before the embers have even cooled. But apparently sober assessments make for less exciting articles...On Why the Everglades is burning, and how we sucked it dry posted 1 year, 6 months ago 9 Responses

Call me an ignorant hippie

Don't forget stinky.

As odo likes to point out, predicting the socio-econo-politico- implications of peak oil is problematic. True dat.

But having just seen Jim Hanson, live in concert, one of the main factors for mitigating GW that he harped on is the urgent need to put a price on carbon. Strikes me that as the global petroleum supply and demand curves shoot past each other like fighter jets in an air show, the price-o-petro is bound to rise significantly. That sounds like a good thing to me, assuming you believe in all this climate-change stuff.

That said, Hanson was also adamant that coal is where the real issue lies. And if we react to petro shortage by substituting coal-based liquid fuels....On Reports bring various doomy and gloomy predictions posted 2 years, 1 month ago 5 Responses

two suggestions

1. I think we can make a reasonably clear distinction between Sammie's corn/maize, which is food in the traditional sense....farm to table concept. And commodity corn, which is really more an industrial feedstock. Sure, a lot of commodity corn eventually ends up in the "food system". But to paraphrase Pollan, if your grandmother wouldn't have recognized it as food, perhaps you should reconsider. And I also think Sammie is right, in that traditional corn can be produced in a sustainable manner, but commodity corn cannot.

2. Trock is perhaps correct to be pessimistic, if we only consider political solutions. But I would add that we also each have the power to affect the change we seek. All we have to do is reject the end-products of King Corn in the marketplace. Eschew HFCS and CAFO-produced meats. Skip the processed stuff in a box and make your own from scratch (meaning from real food ingredients, like grandma did). Each dollar spent is a vote...for or against King Corn. It is, after all, not a real monarchy. Oh, and spread the word.

because

Because primaries matter. At least in theory.

I suspect these groups would rather endorse a primary candidate that best reflects their views, in hopes of influencing the outcome, than to sit on the sidelines and regret it later when they have to hold their noses and endorse someone who is considerably more less-than-perfect.

Unfortunately, the way presidential primaries/caucases are organized (disorganized?), only a handful of States (the early birds) end up deciding who the general election candidates are and the rest of the States' primaries become irrelevant. Why can't every State hold their primary on the same day? Seems to me the process of choosing presidential candidates is too important to leave to only a handful of States.

And speaking of, I have yet to speak with anyone who has spoken with anyone who is supporting Hillary. Who are these phantom voters the pollsters seem to be finding so easily?On The environmental endorsements start rolling in posted 2 years, 1 month ago 10 Responses

R.E. Prius still wins...

So what? Once again, why the emphasis on a single winner? Is the world always black and white, us vs. them, winner or loser?

As an alumnus of hybrid v diesel pissing matches with BioD, I have since realized that, once again, we are wasting our time fighting amongst each other over who is greenest. Meanwhile, the corporate parent of our beloved Prius is fighting changes in CAFE standards (I know, arguably irrelevant, but I'm just sayin'), and most of the American sheeple are still clueless.

That said, and as someone who bought a tdi (at least in part) because I thought burning commercial biodiesel was part of the solution, I have to say the arguments I have seen on this site against large-scale biodiesel development are very compelling. If we can just stick to the facts, and what is in context, and what is most important, I think we'll continue to move forward.On Politicians are still pumping biodiesel posted 2 years, 1 month ago 40 Responses

speaking of heroes

by The Disposable Heroes of Hypocrisy

One nation under god has turned into
one nation under the influence of one drug

(chorus)
Television, the drug of the nation
Breeding ignorance and feeding radiation

T.V., it satellite links
our united states of unconsciousness
apathetic therapeutic and extremely addictive
the methadone metronome pumping out
150 channels 24 hours a day
you can flip through all of them
and still there's nothing worth watching
T.V. is the reason why less than ten percent
of our nation reads books daily
why most people think Central America means Kansas
socialism means unamerican
and apartheid is a new headache remedy
absorbed in its world it's so hard to find us
it shapes our mind the most
maybe the mother of our nation
should remind us that we're sitting too close to...

the rest is hereOn Global warming 'insurmountable' without Heroes! posted 2 years, 2 months ago 6 Responses

hunting

amc89-

As someone who hunts for most of his meat, and as an environmentalist(?), I'll answer some of your points.

The gist of your arguments amount to putting words in mouths that never uttered them. No one that I have seen on this site has suggested that North America's wild game resources could begin to substitute for domestic livestock, nor is anyone suggesting that humans turn "solely to wild animals for their protein needs". Stop speaking for me, you're getting it wrong. And show me where anyone has claimed that hunting is a "carbon neutral" activity. Tofu farts are not a carbon neutral activity either. What's your point, other than to put words in people's mouths? Please provide accurate citations and cease with the hyperbole.

Now, do hunters require tools to harvest their food resource? Yes. Do vegetarians? Yes. Do many hunters use far more resources than is necessary? Yes. Do I like it? No. Am I personally making more of an effort to reduce the carbon footprint of my hunting activities? Yes. As fuel prices continue to increase, economics will increasingly dictate this.

Hunting wild game is not for everyone. But the resource exists, and in many places hunters help maintain more ecologically viable populations of wild ungulates. And in the process, they provide themselves, their families, and often others with a healthy protein source. I happen to think that providing your own food is a virtue, be it venison or potatoes.On PETA VP argues vegetarianism is the best way to help the planet posted 2 years, 2 months ago 77 Responses

earthfreak

Thanks for your thoughtful words. Much to think about, when you can hear yourself think over the racket.

A couple quick points:

I believe that it IS true that our current system of meat production is a (the?) major contributor to global warming. To change this we'll need to change both the way we produce meat, and the level at which we consume it.

For me being a vegetarian is easier than making those choices on a daily basis.

most of the people I know, who live lives basically like mine, eat meat for which they have no clue about the source at least weekly, and more likely daily.  that IS a problem.

I heard you the first time

I find it interesting that those of us who resist towing the PETA line are considered shrill and in need of humility. It strikes me that the opposite is more true.

I eat mostly game meat that I kill and butcher myself. Most of the rest of my meat consumption comes from small, local farms and is processed and sold locally. I have a small flock of hens for eggs, and plan to expand the flock next year to include some birds for meat. All of this is done with humility. I don't preach to others, but I gladly share my sustenence and what knowledge I have gained with any and all who express interest. I also grow a great deal of the rest of my food, am working to increase my production, and buy the rest as locally and sustainably as is reasonably possible.

Although I constantly consider how I can live in a more thoughtful, sustainable manner, I am relatively content with my lifestyle. I don't need self-righteous vitriol from PETA and their followers to set me on a "truer" path. Perhaps you would do well to put away your broad brushes and paint a more realistic picture. Can you not see that by separating strictly vegan from everything else, you are simply isolating yourselves? I am finished acknowledging your insults now.On PETA VP argues vegetarianism is the best way to help the planet posted 2 years, 2 months ago 77 Responses

I heard you the first time.

I find it interesting that those of us who resist towing the PETA line are considered shrill and in need of humility. It strikes me that the opposite is more true.

I eat mostly game meat that I kill and butcher myself. Most of the rest of my meat consumption comes from small, local farms and is processed and sold locally. I have a small flock of hens for eggs, and plan to expand the flock next year to include some birds for meat. All of this is done with humility. I don't preach to others, but I gladly share my sustenence and what knowledge I have gained with any and all who express interest. I also grow a great deal of the rest of my food, am working to increase my production, and buy the rest as locally and sustainably as is reasonably possible.

Although I constantly consider how I can live in a more thoughtful, sustainable manner, I am relatively content with my lifestyle. I don't need self-righteous vitriol from PETA and their followers to set me on a "truer" path. Perhaps you would do well to put away your broad brushes and paint a more realistic picture. Can you not see that by separating strictly vegan from everything else, you are simply isolating yourselves? I am finished acknowledging your insults now.On Veganism: All or nothing? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 30 Responses

reframe the question

If DR had asked, "should citizens of conscience eschew industrial agriculture?", I would be willing to agree wholeheartedly.

As BioD alluded to, the vegetarian imperative makes a black-and-white issue of it. Which, of course, makes for easier theatre when you've got a few unused chicken suits kicking around.... Reality, if we recall, encompasses the full spectrum. And it puts a premium on thoughtful consideration of all the colors.

Weren't we all just deriding the binary mindset on another post? So are there two kinds of people...vegetarians and those with no conscience?On On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 2 months ago 256 Responses

yikes

It would appear from all that noise over on the PETA post that the devil is in the details.On The subjects of PETA and vegetarianism ... posted 2 years, 2 months ago 15 Responses

since the dawn of time

Or why not try eating the foods that are in season, instead of transporting out-of-season foods from god-knows-where?

And preserving food when it's in season to use when it's not. I suspect even primitive human ancestors engaged in some type of food storage activity. Interesting how we have forgotten the art of home food preservation in one, maybe two generations.

Anyone read Barbara Kingsolver's Animal, Vegetable, Miracle?
On Strengthening community is an important benefit of eating locally posted 2 years, 2 months ago 8 Responses

what a load

This was a pathetic article in the NY Times. All fluff and no substance.
I have posted on this topic repeatedly. See here.On Animal-rights groups point out the climatic effect of meat-eating posted 2 years, 3 months ago 15 Responses

vote with your dollars

Right Cory. I buy my ice cream from my neighbors. Their "links" page provides web links to many smallish-to-regional ice cream purveyors (as well as the usual corporate suspects). Perhaps one of your neighbors makes ice cream too!On How to stick it to the ice-cream Man posted 2 years, 3 months ago 22 Responses

astride the fence

I see value in both DR's and JMG's viewpoints.

On the one hand, I'm often dismayed at how every proposed solution to our problems has its imperfections exposed and is subsequently dismissed as having no value. In fact, although imperfect, many of these ideas often have substantial merit in moving us toward our goals.

On the other hand, Americans are gluttonous consumers without peer. Glorifying, encouraging, justifying....however you care to characterize it, this project strikes me as greenwashing to the -nth degree. And our "consumer culture", beyond being inarguably one of the most important contributors to the global environmental crisis in so many ways, is also the envy of much of the world in so many other ways. And its export threatens to become the ruin of the world (Darth Cheney's non-negtotiation stance notwithstanding).

DR is on a serious anti-coal jag these days. Justifiably so, without question. But the export of our "way of life" to places like China and India will mean that they will almost certainly engage in a dramatic ramping up of their coal consumption, not to mention other problematic aspects of becoming us.

So while I agree that many of us are often too hard on reasonable proposals for change, and I believe I have taken issue with the one JMG in some like instances, I think DR could have chosen a more defensible prospect to defend.

By the way JMG, could you have borrowed the "shoveling coal" metaphor from the author Brian Czech? If so, have you read his similarly titled book, and can you recommend it? I have had my eye on it for some time, and it strikes me from your postings that you are of a like mind on such things.On Apparently no one is immune to greenwashing posted 2 years, 3 months ago 32 Responses

how is it not environmental?

When I buy food that has been transported thousands of miles from hither and yon, how can I be assured that it was produced in a way that was not harmful to the enviroment? Trust the corporate food giants? How is this not an environmental argument?On Think again posted 2 years, 3 months ago 29 Responses

dodge?

Assume whatever you want. All I'm saying is, life is complicated and reductionist thinking, while valuable for thinking about "slices" of life, should not dominate decision making.On Think again posted 2 years, 3 months ago 29 Responses

Bring It On

It's better than arguing about sports, don'tcha think?On How the Prius stacks up against other cars posted 2 years, 3 months ago 37 Responses

playing defense

Going to a TDI site for your information is like going to a Catholic church to learn which is the best religion....I am not the least bit surprised to hear that TDI enthusiasts don't agree with the EPA on  emissions ratings (a rating of 1) or mileage estimates (33 MPG). They have combed the internet for years for their arguments.

Actually, TDI club is mostly a bunch of TDI owners comparing notes about their real life experiences. I suppose certain ones may be prone to exaggeration, just as some of the posts on the gristmill are as well. Is it substantially better to get your information from the manufacturer's website? Who's got more invested in shading the truth, a multi-billion dollar corporation or an average schmo? Besides, I was only citing my own experience with mileage for my tdi. High 40's, by the way. Oh, and I wouldn't go to a Catholic church to find out what's the best religion, but I would go to one to find out what Cathoicism is all about.

There is a chance that the EPA may be completely wrong, but I have no real choice but to defer to them on matters of air pollution.

I'm not disputing the EPA's emissions data. I'm just saying they may be putting an undue priority on NOx, at the expense of ignoring other important pollutants, especially CO2. I'm not making this up myself. I have heard it over and over. And I'm pointing out that, while the pre-'08 TDIs perform poorly vis-vis NOx, they perform better with regard to other important pollutants. It may be that the Europeans recognize this and have different emissions regs than us based on this recognition.

It irritates me no end to suck into my lungs the soot from diesel buses and the numerous, stinking, smoking biodiesel cars found here in Seattle. A modern TDI of course bears little resemblance to those vehicles and is probably suffering an image problem thanks to them.

I sympathize with your soot-sucking issue, and I appreciate your recognition of the efforts being made to improve diesel emissions performance. Keep in mind though, it's not just the visible black stuff you have to worry about. I'll repost some relevant information from the TDI Club site.
Here's a link to more info.

most of the unregulated toxic gaseous emissions tend to be lower for diesel engines. For example, benzene (which is a known carcinogen) is lower in diesels by nearly an order of magnitude (i.e., factor of ten) than an equivalent gasoline engine. Diesels also tend to be significantly lower in emissions of alkenes (e.g., ethene), carbonyls (e.g., formaldehyde), and semivolatiles like polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs, many of which are known or suspected carcinogens).

PM has always been regulated by mass (e.g., grams per mile). However, very recent studies show that particle number may be the more important aspect of PM emissions. According to a "real world vehicle testing report" by University of Minnesota renowned combustion particle scientists, new data show that PM number emissions from modern gasoline cars may equal or exceed diesel PM levels. It goes on to discuss gasoline PM emissions and that fact that gasoline engines may need a particulate filter much like that of a diesel. The University of Minnesota study showed that newer and older gasoline vehicles matched or exceeded diesel PM number emissions at high speed/load . It appears that diesel engines equipped with diesel particulate filters (DPFs), as many are now in Europe, will have a significant advantage in PM emissions over gasoline engines. Other recent studies are suggesting that gasoline PM is generally more toxic that diesel PM.

Is your goal to say that a Jetta produces less pollution and has higher mileage than a Prius? Because, clearly, neither of those are so.

I don't agree that it IS clear. My experience, and that of many, many other tdi users indicates that tdi mileage often meets or exceeds that of a Prius. And I'm not just citing the TDI Clubbers. There are 3 other tdi owners where I work, and they all report similar experiences. And the pollution issue is not cut-and-dried either, as per the above discussion. My goal is simply to point out that the diesel option for "green" passenger cars is often unfairly maligned.On How the Prius stacks up against other cars posted 2 years, 3 months ago 37 Responses

60 mpg

One Prius driver is claiming over 60 MPG for all city driving. That has to be bullshit.

Maybe not. Isn't the Prius supposed to excel at "city" driving? That's one of the reasons we opted for the VW. Most of our driving is highway.

I think I could get close to 60 mpg with our Jetta under the right highway conditions.On How the Prius stacks up against other cars posted 2 years, 3 months ago 37 Responses

yep

I was a lazy googler. Sorry, I was under some time constraints.

Apparently the EPA hasn't "updated" their mileage estimates for the '06 Jetta diesel. They say 33 mpg combined. I get 46+. Usually more. That's a substantial difference. And say what you will about the TDI blog, I am apparently not the only one. So, if we are to assume the "revised" numbers for the Prius are accurate, the two vehicles are comparable in mileage.

And vice versa or course, depending on your situation. Air pollution performance for example. One is a super low emissions vehicle, the other has no air pollution controls at all.

I presume you are sarcastically refering to the VW diesel as having no air pollution controls at all. Here's an article on greencar.com that discusses "clean diesel" technology in the VW. Granted, the '08s will be much better at emissions control than my '06, but a look through this FAQ section on emissions on the TDI Club website explains that even the pre-Tier II TDIs are far from having "no pollution control". If the diesels are so objectionable, why are they so popular in Europe?

I'm not much of a mechanic, so I can't engage in detailed discussions about clean diesel technology. But feel free to comment on the information I have linked to. I'm eager to listen.On How the Prius stacks up against other cars posted 2 years, 3 months ago 37 Responses

thanks odo

For the link. I'll explore it some more when I have time.

Our '06 jetta tdi is also currently worth more than we paid for it new.

So what does the above calculation use for its effective time frame? What are people finding is the useful life of the Prius battery? What's the cost to replace it?

I'm not asking these questions out of criticism, but merely curiosity. Actually, I think there is a bias (especially on grist) for hybrids and against diesel. Seems like, at least for now, there are applications for which diesel sometimes makes more practical sense than hybrid. It's why we made the choice we did, at least in part. But the converse is also certainly sometimes true.On How the Prius stacks up against other cars posted 2 years, 3 months ago 37 Responses

hataz?

hataz
huh?

From what I've seen, if you avoid the dealership the maintenance costs for the TDI are comparable to most vehicles. Keep in mind, with "synthetic" oil, oil change interval is 10,000 miles. VW has had some quality issues in the past. Time will tell if these have been corrected.

Anyway, my point had to do with longevity. The diesel has a rep for running several hundred thousand miles. I'm simply asking the question if the Prius batteries can match that, and if not, what's the cost? It was an honest question.

By the way, Edmunds doesn't provide relevant info for the '06 tdi, that I could find. And consumer reports (who I don't trust anyway) costs $$$ to view.

We did a fair bit of research prior to our purchase, but there's a lot of ground to cover out there on the internets. If you have relevant info to share I'd be eager to hear it.On How the Prius stacks up against other cars posted 2 years, 3 months ago 37 Responses

gadzooks

Realistically plants get 3-6% solar efficiency.
And the VERY BEST a plant could hope to yield is 11%, since thats the Physics limitation of photosynthesis.

Based on the mountain of squash on my kitchen counter, I'd say my zuchinni plants are capable of way more than 11%. Why can't we  make liquid fuel from zuchinni? I've got surplus...On Ranking oil companies from evil to even more evil posted 2 years, 4 months ago 27 Responses

about the growth thing

Jason

For those of us who are dubious about the sustainability of economic "growth" under a Friedmanesque free-market capitalist model, especially r.e. environmental issues, can you recommend some background reading that makes the case for growth AND sustainability? Preferably a good book (or 2 or 3), relatively accessible to the non-economist who nevertheless has some background in economics?On Here are some posted 2 years, 4 months ago 32 Responses

suggestions

I think we're all open to suggestions gg....On New investigative report posted 2 years, 4 months ago 14 Responses

Nothing?

And that there's nothing stopping people from using breakthroughs Fischer Tropsch to persue Coal-to-Liquids with it.

Really? What about laws and regulations?On GM will offer clean diesel passenger cars in 2010 posted 2 years, 4 months ago 22 Responses

suniru

Thanks for the clarification. I too find the CAFO situation abhorrent. If that were my only choice, I would have to take a hard look at eating vegetarian. Indeed, I did eat vegetarian for an entire year, so I'm not strictly opposed.

I appreciate that you have made the very conscious choice to eat vegetarian (vegan? Sorry I ferget), at least in part because you couldn't bring yourself to cause the death of an animal for your sustenence. This is one point (I'm pretty sure the only point) on which I agree with Ted Nugent, which I suppose makes me a bit of a radical. I think if folks cannot face up to the death of their food animals, they shouldn't eat meat. Period. I'm not saying every carnivore must butcher all their own meat. That is obviously impractical. I AM saying that ereryone who eats meat should be CAPABLE of killing their own meat. To do otherwise is to defer an important part of being a carnivore and is, in my opinion, ethically lazy. Not unlike voting for war, but being incapable of sending your own child to fight it.On On the difficulties of going veggie posted 2 years, 4 months ago 65 Responses

The irony of vegans foisting a red herring....

I understand folks find it hard to make a rapid switch in their consumption habits, isn't easy to switch your conventional habits and attachments, but if you just take transition slowly, it becomes workable to change yourself, and consequently your carbon/harm footprint.

Assuming you didn't see my comments r.e. the carbon footprint of beef in the other post, I'll reprint them here for you, along with 2 others' that make good points.

I wrote:

is it fossil carbon?

I have brought this up before in several other discussions on this site. I contend that the methane produced by the bovine digestive tract is not inherently deserving of the designation greenhouse gas, because it does not necessarily represent carbon that originates from a fossil source. Just like forest fires, the carbon emitted represents C's that are simply being cycled in the global terrestrial carbon cycle. They represent C's that were already present in the pool, and they do not represent C's that are being added to the system. At least not neccesarily.
To the extent that cattle feed has a fossil carbon footprint, then yes, it IS contributing to the problem. There are many ways in which fossil carbon is added throughout this process, from tractor diesel and petro-based fertilizer to processing and marketing feed. But, I would contend, a locally-oriented, pasture based beef operation has a far smaller fossil fuel footprint than feedlot beef in the mainstream food system.

Don't articles like the one above oversimplify the situation? Isn't blaming the cow, per se, inaccurate?

Elizabeth Olsen Rowell wrote:

grass vs. grain

While not knowledgeable about the science of methane, every time I hear this statistic I have to wonder whether the science is being done on grain fed cattle or grass fed cattle.  A cow has four stomachs for a reason; to digest the almost indigestible.  When you feed it grain, which it does not in nature eat, it entirely inverts the good cholesterol and the bad cholesterol in the meat.  (And that, by the way, can happen in the short 6 week "finishing" period)  If grain does that to the meat of the animal, it surely affects the digestion as well.  I neither advocate eating meat or avoiding it.  I just know when we screw with mother nature, i.e. feeding grain to a ruminant, mother natures returns the favor.  For more on this check out eatwild.com

rivergal wrote:

Ruminating on rumination

I think all ruminants produce methane as a byproduct of their digestion, which relies on fermentation to break down hydrocarbons.  So, while there may be good reasons to avoid grain-fed beef, I'm not sure GG impact is one of them.  Gmunger is right that we should differentiate between cycling carbon and fossil carbon, although I think the case could be made that carbon cycling between CO2 and plants has a lower impact than carbon cycling between plants and methane does.  Methane is a really major GG.
I don't eat a lot of meat but I do like wool (produced by ruminating sheep) and other natural animal-based fibers.  I also like the idea of restoring bison to the Great Plains, having moose in my yard, and protecting herds of ungulates elsewhere.  If we can't have beef because of methane, does that mean we should also discourage large populations fo these other animals?

I will seek some more clarity on this topic from the scientific community. But I think the basics of what I'm suggesting will prove to be supported. That is, ungulate-produced methane is not, per se, adding to the global carbon pool.On On the difficulties of going veggie posted 2 years, 4 months ago 65 Responses

Thanks for your support

Thanks to wiscidea and rmcleod for backing up my shoot-from-the-hip statements with actual references.

I would be careful not to characterize hunting vs. domestic livestock as an either/or proposition. Agriculture certainly has an important ecological "footprint", but not all farms (and farmers) are alike. Pasture-based livestock rearing, when done correctly, can be relatively ecologically benign. Ironically, the land where we shoot most of our big game is a cattle ranch. And there is no shortage of deer, let me assure you. And this rancher is no greeny (though we're slowly working on him).

And let's not forget that agriculture that supports vegetarians and vegans has an ecological footprint as well. Where does the fertilizer come from to grow your organic broccoli, if not from animals? Petroleum?On On the difficulties of going veggie posted 2 years, 4 months ago 65 Responses

when you assume.....

However, I have to say that your statement about "as long as animals are not abused" is a bit outlandish. Animal abuse and mistreatment, not to mention the fact that domestic animals raised for slaughter are treated and fed much differently than is natural for them, is at the EPICENTER of the meat industry, and there is no possible way anyone can deny that in their right mind.....Eating meat - supporting factory farms, which is what the majority of meat eaters do (even the 'free range, organic' chicken you can buy at Whole Foods is not truly free range or organic)is in itself an act that promotes abuse and suffering for the benefit of the human population. So, unless one raises their own cow, chicken, or pig, suffering supports meat-eating, sadly said.

You are assuming there are no suitable alternatives in between the extremes of the CAFO-raised livestock "industry" and backyard husbandry. In reality, there are many options for eating locally-, sustainably-, and humanely-raised (and slaughtered) meat. I am a died-in-the-wool omnivore that is committed to those three principles in obtaining my meat.

First, I hunt. It's the original (aboriginal?) means of obtaining lean, high-quality protein. I realize it's not always an option for everyone, but stop and think about how overrun most of North America is with deer. When the deer become scarce, we can revisit. And, to me, when done correctly, it's usually the most humane and ecologically sensible means of acquiring meat.

Second, I DO raise some of my own meat. I realize it's also not for everyone. But a lot more folks could be doing it. And ARE doing it. Ask the poultry hatcheries how their sales have been in the past 5 or so years. Simply keeping a few laying hens in a backyard coop is an easy and rewarding means of producing your own healthy food.

Third, almost all the meat I buy comes from a trusted, local source. The number of small, local producers of beef, pork, lamb, chicken, turkey, etc. is on the rise. More and more fresh, local meat is being sold at farmer's markets. This is the way it was done prior to the advent of Smithfield Farms, Cargill, and all the other chums of the USDA. It's not "industrial organic". It's real farming. And I can almost guarantee it's happening near you.

I recommend everyone pick up a copy of An Omnivore's Dilemma. It's a very worthwhile read, for vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores alike. Perhaps the majority of meat eaters still do support (monetarily) CAFO-style meat industrialists, sadly said. But it surely needn't be that way.

visit PETA's website

No thanks. In my world these people are shrill and unreasonable, and I have no time for their nonsense. I'm too busy tending my chickens and scouting for elk.On On the difficulties of going veggie posted 2 years, 4 months ago 65 Responses

drifting off-topic

Oh well.

Canis, I didn't mean to infer a need for a definitive determination about natural vs. unnatural. I agree with wiscidea (hopefully paraphrasing with some accuracy) that it's often an important and interesting question, but perhaps just as often without a definitive answer. And in the words of Stuart Smalley, that's...fine.

Interesting you should mention Mann's 1491. It is on my list. It was recommended to me by a Yaqui friend. What is it that troubled you in this book?

Your ideas about the LBB and the Crow/Hidatsa-nCheyenne/Lakota rivalry are interesting. Do you have a reference or two for me to study up on? I am not at all wishing to debate about any of this, but am simply inquisitive. I should know more about the native histories/cultures in my adopted region, especially since I am a white man living on the rez. I much prefer the history of the continent prior to the coming of my white ancestors. (By the way, what gave you the idea I am from a border state?) Anyway, it's also interesting that the n Cheyenne reservation is adjacent just to the east of the Crow reservation. I wonder about relations between the tribes of the northern plains these days. I have witnessed some friendly ribbing between friends of different tribes within a group of university students, which was no doubt rooted in traditional rivalries. But what of the bigger picture?On Park Service hacks down some trees in Pa. posted 2 years, 4 months ago 29 Responses

Canis

As usual, I really appreciate your thoughtful comments. And your knowledge and appreciation for the history of our native peoples is admirable. Have you been to the new museum? In DC isn't it?

The author emphasizes that savannas are caused and maintained by anthropogenic fire, and gives examples from a number of parts of the world.  It seems unlikely that the famous savannas of East Africa owe their origin to that, but no doubt that is true of many others.  The North American example that is given is a few places in the coastal US Southeast.  But apparently the Midwestern oak savannas are also the result of anthropogenic fire.

Of course, the other possible ignition source is lightning. I can't speak about Africa, but it is likely that at least some of the historic fire in the Midwest, and even to some extent sc PA, was the result of drought and lightning.

Based on my experience, I think we would all be surprised at the extent to which fire affected the pre-eurosettlement landscape in North America. Even in New England. But no one outside of a few fire geeks and certain historians give much thought to this. As I have previously, I would recommend the writings of Stephen Pyne as a starting place for anyone interested in this topic.

Now, it is probably not a very interesting question, whether we should consider the effects of human beings on landscapes to be "natural" or "unnatural."

I believe this is the most relevant of questions, in relation to many matters. Of course, it can be taken to absurd minutae. But it matters a great deal for the issue at hand. As does the question of biodiversity. And again, it's important, I think, to keep things in  perspective. Scale matters. Are these few trees (not more than a few hundred or so?) really that important in the context of landscape-level biodiversity? I will be interested to hear what your Audubon Society friend has to say.

I wish I could share GMUnger's confidence that the NPS "have a pretty good idea of what they are doing."  US military history can elicit a lot of irrationality in some people.....Also, even after so much time has passed, the change of the name of what was originally called "Custer Battlefield National Monument" to "Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument," and the addition of much material focusing on the experience of the several Native peoples involved in that battle, did not happen without great opposition in some quarters.

By NPS, I mean the -ologists working on real issues. The historians, archaeologists, ecologists, etc. Not the political appointees. Nor the mid-level managers, who are often stuck somewhere in between. And keep in mind, the current superintendent of Little Bighorn Battlefield NM is Hidatsa, and is the 2nd native person to hold the post. You are absolutely correct about the long history of political influence in the management of our National Parks. And you are well-served to be suspicious today. But I submit that there are some well-qualified and extremely well-meaning professionals in the Park Service. And some of them are likely involved in this project. And I'm quite sure they would be happy to entertain your inquiries. No project of this sort can happen without the opportunity for public input. On Park Service hacks down some trees in Pa. posted 2 years, 4 months ago 29 Responses

is it fossil carbon?

I have brought this up before in several other discussions on this site. I contend that the methane produced by the bovine digestive tract is not inherently deserving of the designation greenhouse gas, because it does not necessarily represent carbon that originates from a fossil source. Just like forest fires, the carbon emitted represents C's that are simply being cycled in the global terrestrial carbon cycle. They represent C's that were already present in the pool, and they do not represent C's that are being added to the system. At least not neccesarily.

To the extent that cattle feed has a fossil carbon footprint, then yes, it IS contributing to the problem. There are many ways in which fossil carbon is added throughout this process, from tractor diesel and petro-based fertilizer to processing and marketing feed. But, I would contend, a locally-oriented, pasture based beef operation has a far smaller fossil fuel footprint than feedlot beef in the mainstream food system.

Don't articles like the one above oversimplify the situation? Isn't blaming the cow, per se, inaccurate?On Too, Too Sullied Flesh posted 2 years, 4 months ago 3 Responses

Pennsylvania in the 19th century?

Without delving into the literature I would offer these speculations. First, most of that region was heavily cutover. It had been settled by eurotypes for several hundred years, at that point, and wood was a heavily-utilized commodity back in the pw (pre-wal mart) days. Prior to the euro-invasion, the PA landscape was probably heavily forested. But I also suspect the 1st Americans had a substantial impact on the landscape and it's flora as well. They burned. For many reasons. And so that legacy likely resulted in some areas of savanna and even prairie. On dryer upland sites, especially with coarser soils, pine and oak savannas would have been rather extensive, and this legacy would probably still been visible on the landscape to some extent at the time of the "war of northern aggression".

Now, not knowing the particulars of this particular battlefield site.....I wouldn't care to speculate about the Park Service plan, other than to say it is highly likely that the personel on the ground have a pretty good idea of what they are doing. At the time of the battle, the site could have been open (i.e. savanna) for any number of reasons, most of which probably have something to do with human intervention. If I had to place a bet, I would wager that it was pastureland.

Oh, and just because the trees that were preexisting at the time of the battle are now 150+ years old, doesn't mean that their demise is imminent. If left alone, it is likely that most of them will outlive all of us. It's good to consider this in the proper temporal scale, which means you have to turn your cell phone off and think outside the box a bit.On Park Service hacks down some trees in Pa. posted 2 years, 4 months ago 29 Responses

hey whisker, ron and bio-d

Ever read Wendell Berry? He's a farmer and poet from KY, and he has a lot to say about your question. I could not begin to even paraphrase him on this issue.

Maybe Tom will weigh in later and include some of Wendell's profound and inspiring words on this topic. I shall search for some relevant ideas to share as well.On How legislators can help the rural posted 2 years, 4 months ago 11 Responses

Cycling cows, and other news.

What other mammals consume the milk of another species after weaning?

What other animals cook their food? What's your point?

As for the methane produced by cows, it's the fossil carbon content that counts. To the extent that cows consume forage that has no fossil fuel content, they are not really adding to the overall carbon in the terrestrial carbon cycle. They're just cycling it. Almost all grain-based feed has a fossil-carbon footprint, since it takes lots of petro-based fertilizer/herbicide and diesel for the tractor, plus processing, etc. Dairy cows that feed on pasture and hay have a very low fossil carbon footprint. Prior to industrial agriculture, bovine methane was not an issue.On From Spice to Spin posted 2 years, 4 months ago 5 Responses

class warfare

David

I think your complaint is somewhat ameliorated by diverting the fees paid by "the elite" into public transit infrastructure. This can potentially improve everyone's lot.

This idea can also be applied to the national carbon tax concept. There is much talk among carbon tax proponents of using these revenues, in part, to offset other regressive taxes.

My other suggestion is, class warfare aside, it is rightly pointed out that we need some stronger medicine if we are to have any chance to cure our climate/carbon sickness. It only makes sense that the vast majority will have to make sacrifices in order to realize any improvement in the warming scenario. I realize full well the unfairness inherent in that. I don't like it. But that may well be the reality we must face.On The connection between congestion pricing and carbon taxes posted 2 years, 4 months ago 18 Responses

the profit equation

I think someone earlier pointed out that what counts in the end, strictly from a business perspective, is how many dollars you can stick in your pocket when all is said and done. So it's the balance of costs and revenues that's important. I'm just wondering how that math all works out when you do the comparison. It seems to me that cellulosic biomass farming could be done for substantially lower cost than producing input-intensive, labor-intensive, annual crops. Not to diminish the art and science required for sound pasture/range management. I'm just wondering how those numbers work out...On A guest essay from ED's Scott Faber posted 2 years, 4 months ago 32 Responses

caveat

Of course, none of any of this is ultimately sustainable if we keep packing humans onto the planet.On A guest essay from ED's Scott Faber posted 2 years, 4 months ago 32 Responses

I feel the love!

Thanks for the love Canis. I have commented many times in the past, how much respect I have for this little community due to its reasoned and civilized approach to sorting out difficult issues. And its amazing aggregate of intellect brought to bear on some of the most important questions of our time.

In this spirit, I was, frankly, taken aback by what was, to me, clearly a severely uninformed diatribe. Fire Ecology, as a science, has made great strides in its relatively short history. It's a constant struggle to get the message out to the public that fire is neither good nor bad, it just is. It plays an important ecosystem role in many regions of our continent (and our world), and it has shaped the evolution of species and communities for.....tens, hundreds of thousands of years? Maybe more. And it is NOT going away. And we are supremely arrogant and ignorant to presume we can simply remove fire from our landscapes without profound ecological consequences. As Aldo Leopold said, "intelligent tinkering requires saving all the parts". He wasn't just talking about carnivores and birds. So I hope folks understand where I was coming from. The comments to which I was responding were, to me, analagous to creationist attacks on evolution. Frankly, based on the depth of establishment of scientific principles, it was more profoundly wrong than climate change denial. And I know how many hackles THAT raises around here. And beyond being wrong in substance, in my view, I thought the comments were unreasonable and insulting. Clearly this does not respect "the tradition".

All that said, I violated what I have professed to admire here. Friendly discourse. For that, I apologize to the group. I too, have relished many of docs musings. I'm quite sure doc has some thick skin and I'm hopeful will come to understand my disdain for his above comments. And I will try to eschew disrespectful discourse.On A new study puts the old canard to rest posted 2 years, 4 months ago 50 Responses

sweeet

I suspect flattering his gigantic ego will be rather more effective than trying to humiliate and bully him, since as you'll note, he doesn't take kindly to that.

Perhaps a few well-placed gifts of cheesy poofs and snacky cakes wouldn't hurt either.On Takes potshots at Markey posted 2 years, 4 months ago 1 Response

my knee jerked

Sorry to sail us so far off course, all. It's that thing about fire and GHG. It's like a mother defending her cubs.

So, you been (organic) farmin' long?On A new study puts the old canard to rest posted 2 years, 4 months ago 50 Responses

are you kidding me?

Gotta let it burn, it's natural.

No, it's been declared "natural" by "scientists" doing studies for the logging industry.

I can't believe I'm reading this kind of ignorance on the gristmill. The "logging industry" contributes very little to fire research. Forest products industry largely AVOIDS burning, except for preparing a site for planting, which has very little to do with natural fire. Why would they want to burn their raw materials?

There is an enormous body of peer-reviewed science about fire ecology. Your ignorance astounds.On A new study puts the old canard to rest posted 2 years, 4 months ago 50 Responses

noooooo!

Great Link. I have to admit, though, I cringed at the metaphor of the IPCC as the Supreme Court of climate change. THAT is NOT a comforting thought.On Yes posted 2 years, 4 months ago 7 Responses

oomph + efficiency

Equals my VW diesel. I was noting just this morning, as I was pulling up to the petro dispensary with 600+ miles on the trip odometer, that my speedometer goes up to 160 mph. And I ascend the big hill on my daily commute (about 2000 ft in 2-3 miles) with cruise control fully engaged and nary a sign of hesitation. I pass touristas in their RV behemoths on the 2-lane highway with great confidence. It's not a race car, but it has performance equal to or better than most comparably priced and sized passenger cars in the U.S. And I get 48+ mpg.

Not that I advocate aggressive driving, not at all, at all. Just wanted to make the point that there is a "peppy" and efficient alternative. And until I can power up my auto with raw electrons, I'll stick wit mein diesel, danka.On A few random observations before getting back to work posted 2 years, 4 months ago 25 Responses

oops

Yes, it's a diesel.On Consumer Reports' real-world mpg figures make the Prius even more appealing posted 2 years, 4 months ago 22 Responses

don't be fuelish

And what will we use for energy to mine the materials to build the electric cars for those stranded in suburbia? And to manufacture the electric cars? And to deliver the electric cars to the suburban electric car dealerships? Lot's to think about.On Who knew? posted 2 years, 5 months ago 70 Responses

ya takes yer chances

You say it's not just SF, but we could put his future-history on the shelf, next to a dozen others ... how we we assign odds for each one?

If I knew that, I'd be in Vegas.....or on Wall Street.....oh what's the difference?

But once again, why must we assign numbers? Logic, or perhaps more appropriately, logical speculation does not require enumerative valuation to have merit.

We each have our own bookshelves. Put your copy next to Nostradamos (sp?) if you so choose. It's still a free country, although I wouldn't put it off for too long...On Who knew? posted 2 years, 5 months ago 70 Responses

model citizen

Kunstler has a position that PO will make suburbs into wastelands, or at least slums.  That is an outcome, across decades.

And I don't think he has the math to support it.  Instead he has a storyline.

Of course he doesn't have math to support it. The math doesn't exist. But you can't explain everything in the universe with math, let alone make predictions. It's speculation. But it has a logical sequence. It's not just science fiction. Does he exaggerate for effect? YES. He's also very sarcastic and irreverant. That's just his style. But in my opinion (and I have no math to support it), he's out in front of the masses in terms of thinking about the consequences of how our civilization has developed AND how it may soon turn out. His are not the only ideas I would consider. But I think they are worth considering.

And by the way, even the hallowed scientific method allows for speculation. It's called hypothesis generation. You look at the world around you. You make intelligent predictions based on previous knowledge and logical assumptions. The trouble for Kunstler (at least, apparently, in your eyes), is he can't test his predictions. As far as I know, he can't even construct a process model, because there are too many variables, too many unknowns. But do we need a process model for everything we can't empirically prove? Personally, I would find that to bit a bit intellectually constraining.On Who knew? posted 2 years, 5 months ago 70 Responses

Call 'em like you see 'em

I don't know who Ned Pepper is, but it's likely he's better at math than I am.

I, like Kunstler, am not calling a "final outcome". I think I used the term, "range of possible outcomes" or some such phrase.

In the face of my not having run any numbers (I'm just a simple country boy, after all), I'm simply suggesting that there's more to the story than just declining supply. I'm not so handy with graphs, but imagine if you will, a supply curve and a demand curve, each headed in opposite directions. At some point, we're going to have to reckon with that. And it may be sooner, rather than later.

By no means am I impugning your personal commitment to this reckoning. I just think you are being unfair to many in the PO camp by dismissing their notions as apocalyptic, by suggesting their notions need to be testable to be rational, and by presenting an incomplete argument by not including the effect of demand in your metaphorical equation.On Who knew? posted 2 years, 5 months ago 70 Responses

arctic =tundra

I think much of this area is treeless, and most of the rest does not grow enough timber to sustain wood heating for too many souls.On Built to scale posted 2 years, 5 months ago 16 Responses

ummmm

I assume by KY you mean Illinois' neighboring state to the south?On It makes Senate Dems act like wussies posted 2 years, 5 months ago 23 Responses

what?

Shouldn't advocating murder be grounds for getting someone banned from this site?On Condi Rice goes out on limbs posted 2 years, 5 months ago 7 Responses

Not to defend Detroit, but...

At least for the foreseeable future, we're still going to need trucks ranging in size from massive to not so massive. How else are the small-scale local organic farmers going to get their goods to market? We just don't need them for most driving needs. Come to think of it, we don't really need any automobiles for most driving needs. We need trains and buses, and walkable communities. And fewer driving needs.

I would also point out that Toyota sells quite a few massive trucks (Tundra) and behemoth suvs too.

Could be things are not so black and white (or Prius vs. a__hole, as it were). I do agree that, to date, Toyota has been a leader in the fuel economy thingy. Along with Honda and VW. I also think Detroit has been clueless. Looks like things could be changing, though.On Looks like the plug-in might actually happen posted 2 years, 6 months ago 55 Responses

time's a-wastin'

I don't believe JHK would deny the necessity of incremental steps. He's simply offering a strategic framework for mapping those steps. Along with a message of urgency. He's pointing out the folly of our past choices, the imperatives that peak oil place upon us, and the risks associated with spending too much time or energy patting ourselves on the backs for our baby steps, when we need to be hiking miles upon miles.On Taking on the belief that technotoys will allow the status quo to continue posted 2 years, 6 months ago 27 Responses

Amish independence

Thanks canis. I might suggest, however, that your black-and-white characterization is not sufficient here. The independence of the Amish from the larger US culture is easily acknowleged, particularly r.e. their selective use of "modern" technologies and their eschewing of pop culture. But they do greatly depend on each other, especially at the local community level.

Social critics of much greater stature than I have written of the dearth of "community" in the US. The Amish, on the other hand, provide a model of how to organize a "community" that is worth examining, and perhaps emulating in some aspects.

Clearly self-reliance and interdependence are both important concepts when considering how to organize our "communities", be it at the scale of household, town, city, nation, or world. Getting the appropriate mix, at the appropriate scales, is the tricky part.On The Amish dig it posted 2 years, 6 months ago 7 Responses

shills' agenda

Although I agree wholeheartedly that it becomes tiresome, I'm not convinced that answering the critics is bad medicine.

In short (since this was beaten to death on another thread or two recently):

a) There ARE plenty of posts and threads on Grist that DO discuss in great detail what we can do to mitigate GW. Answering critics doesn't take that away.

b) There remain plenty of minds out there that need changing and CAN BE changed. Not to mention those who are simply unsure. Minds only change one at a time. And I'm talking about people who are generally silent on this forum, but, rest assured, are out there (hence Andrew's frequent addressing of "The Lurkers"). Further, there are plenty of folks (like me) who often forward links to some of the more enlightened and enlightening discussions that transpire on Grist. We forward them to friends and relatives who may not otherwise be exposed to some of these ideas and arguments. Friends and relatives who can be persuaded, using ideas of which many are very presuasive if not wholly correct. And folks like jabailo provide just the "talent" needed to play the role of the villain. Every story needs an antagonist.On Observed warming since 1990 is greater than the models predicted posted 2 years, 6 months ago 32 Responses

huh?

Diesel pretty much is, what it is right now, and isn't going to get much better.

Why do you say this?On The logjam is breaking posted 2 years, 6 months ago 17 Responses

What about the demand side?

Seems like there's scant discussion of the impacts of increasing demand for water in the Southwest due to growing populations. What policy changes are needed to ensure that water is priced more realistically? Seems like this would be a good place for a dose of market reality. Have previous policies unrealistically subsidized water in this region, therefore providing perverse incentives for human development where it just doesn't make sense at the scale it's currently occurring?

These are semi-rhetorical questions. But I was hoping some our resident resource economist types could flesh this out a bit, for us economic neophytes.On ... before nature does it for us posted 2 years, 7 months ago 6 Responses

Great Corn Desert

...an enormous ecological price tag as well.

Indeed. The tallgrass prairies and oak savannas of this region may be the most dramatically transformed ecotypes in North America. We've been trading our natural heritage for cheap soda pop.

Supermarket to the world....my arse.On And cellulosic might too -- plus it's still a decade off posted 2 years, 7 months ago 26 Responses

Also assuming...

...the subsidy for commodity corn remains constant.

But if the demand rises substantially, what justification can we invent for maintaining the subsidy?On And cellulosic might too -- plus it's still a decade off posted 2 years, 7 months ago 26 Responses

But....

But ... if you aren't near a container port, might you be near a rail line?

Sure. And from the rail yard, the container is offloaded onto a semi-truck, which takes the container to a "centralized" warehouse. From there, the container is off-loaded with forklifts, then reloaded onto another truck, which then drives all over town delivering to every retail outlet.

This doesn't mention all the transport that has occurred beginning at the field. Trucked from field to processor/exporter. Maybe more trucks, trains, cargo ships in between.

You acknowledge my field to fork metaphor as simply metaphor, and then ignore its truth. Tell the whole story.On Good framing from Friedman posted 2 years, 7 months ago 27 Responses

I repeat

So what about the question of ethanol vs. tortillas? This direct negative correlation is being widely circulated as fact. Is it just another unproven assumption being propogated by lazy journalists? Because there are a LOT of lazy readers out there.On And cellulosic might too -- plus it's still a decade off posted 2 years, 7 months ago 26 Responses

Take heart

This all seems like such a joke as our local politicians pass legislation to mandate food crop biofuel use while zero carbon cyclists dodge pot holes and cars.

If the citizens lead, the leaders are bound to follow. And from this blog, I'm heartened that there are some real leaders about.
On Hybrid power plant posted 2 years, 7 months ago 18 Responses

Newton's 4th Law

For every action there are several knee-jerk reactions?On They've got it, they shouldn't be ashamed of using it posted 2 years, 7 months ago 15 Responses

You mean, for a Friday the 13th?

Seemed like a reasonable question to me, regardless of the day of the week. No need to be snippy.On The public doesn't really need all that much science posted 2 years, 7 months ago 11 Responses

While we're at it....

Mmimika, I want to apologize to you. While it wasn't intended as a personal attack, I believe I lobbed some rather caustic comments your way recently regarding commie-phobia and southern culture. Trouble is, those are two topics that each get me going, and when you combine them...who knew?

Anyway, I have been lurking a bunch more recently, and have since come to really appreciate your thoughtful comments. Hope I didn't hurt any feelings, and I certainly didn't mean any personal attacks.

gOn David James Duncan posted 2 years, 7 months ago 24 Responses

Never mind

Forgive me, I thought we were talking about the same planet.On As expected, the news is mostly bad, and then worse, and then worse still posted 2 years, 7 months ago 23 Responses

What we really need...

What we really need are not "super star" chefs -- but chefs.  Local restaurateurs who can supply the populace in local cafes with good high quality food.

What we really need is an end to the American obsession with celebrity. May I suggest turning off the television as a giant leap forward.

Let's not forget that there ARE thousands, if not tens of thousands of non-celebrity chefs working hard in local establishments to provide good high quality food, often creatively or, dare I say artfully. Skip the celebrity feeding frenzies and support your local eateries, especially those that support, even better focus on locally grown food.

Who's your farmer?On A great chef pimps his name for industrial food posted 2 years, 7 months ago 8 Responses

also frustrating

Whats so frustrating about too many Environmentalists is that they believe that controlling human behavior is the solution.

When what we really need is better tech, and better government policies.

AND fewer humans to try and control!On Not -- yet, anyway posted 2 years, 8 months ago 37 Responses

taxes

Given that much of our public roadway infrastructure is paid for with fuel tax revenue, you would think the libertarian-types would be jumping all over themselves to obtain fuel-efficient vehicles, simply for tax-avoidance purposes. Instead, it is the lefty crowd with the reputation for being "priussy".

Hmmm.On A must-read posted 2 years, 8 months ago 7 Responses

Not to nitpick....

>Scientists are much better able to estimate the amount of CO2 in the air than how much oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons are down in the Earth.  

....but this is a false comparison. Scientists can directly measure atmospheric [CO2].On Doom and gloom gets it wrong again posted 2 years, 8 months ago 51 Responses