Comments C4nier has made

narrow view

I think that one of the biggest problems with news in general nowadays is that no one has the time to read the issue carefully, check the original facts and then form an educated opinion.  (I've been frustrated about this with the current campaigns lately, e.g. Obama's lipstick comment).  As a result we just consume the predigested leading articles written by people with something to promote.  Here I would say they're promoting controversy.

My work currently is centered on invasive species information management and so I've seen floods of responses to this article over the last couple of days on the invasives community listservs.  These invasive species professionals have sophisticated critiques of the article (not all are against it) but I'll point out a couple of things that really bugged me.

1. They use full extinction as their only measure of whether the impacts of invasive species are negative, and they are looking only at plants.  These species are entering complex webs of interacting populations and communities that stretch all the way down to soil microbes, which can be the difference between life and death for a community, but aren't readily observed or studied.  Disruption may not be seen immediately and extinction may not happen overnight (or be "observed"), and perhaps may not be exclusively caused by the introduction of a new species.  But it's one more barrier for native species to overcome in their struggle to continue to exist.  In the end, if natives continue to exist for now, but at a fraction of their former population size, is that good enough?  I would say that a diminished population size of any species is going to impact other species in that community in some way.

2. As for introduced species adding to biodiversity, I think this is a simplistic view of the world.  As I said, I work with invasive species information.  If you peruse the databases on invasive species from around the world you will see that the same group of repeat offenders taking over New Zealand are also taking over Chile, Argentina, and South Africa - with a few exceptions and a little variation.  But my point is that although you are technically increasing the number of species found in a location, as long as natives do not go fully extinct, you are impoverishing the landscape globally because by number of individuals or biomass - however you measure it - these same 150 or so invasive species eventually make up the bulk of the landscape.  And I don't know about you, but I never walk through a thoroughly disturbed area with lots of introduced species and feel like I am in any kind of exceptionally biodiverse place.  I just think it's a pity that all landscapes in this particular bioclime are starting to look alike.

Sure, mass car ownership...

... may be possible while repairing the climate.  You can still own the care, but you'll have to leave it parked and go by shank's mare or mass transit. We're deluding ourselves if we think there is any other way.  And now the scary thing is we're exporting our egotism to developing countries.  Since when did driving a car become an undeniable human right?On The privileged attitude of the motorhead posted 1 year, 10 months ago 28 Responses

Yo hablo espanol, y tu?

Honestly, we could stop the influx of immigrants tomorrow.  How?  By not offering jobs and places to live.  Honestly, people who think they are coming here to live off of US government have never talked to an illegal.  They live in fear each day and do avoid health care, education, etc because they don't want to be caught.  And they are certainly propping up social security by paying in on phony numbers that they will never be able to collect on.  

Kevin Michael, you are obviously a true American with a born right to live on those lands in Texas.  Well what about the Native Americans who were slaughtered and removed from their lands by this "Great Nation"?  One could say that many of these Mexicans are reclaiming their ancestral lands.  Well, this great nation was built on the backs of immigrants (illegal and documented) and now that it's reached your generation you think this system should end?  Is it because these new immigrants are a different color than you, perhaps? Sorry, but I'm the conservative here and you're the one trying to buck the system.  Maybe it's time to learn Spanish and get comfortable with change.  Nothing stays the same forever.  

And blaming a population explosion on immigrants is not looking at the patterns of the past.  People with new opportunities become educated and don't have as many children.  Look at the Polish, Irish, Italian immigrants of the past.  Can you distinguish them today by family size?  Besides, most of the illegals I have met are young unmarried people who put off having children, or don't at all because they have to support their parents back home.  

Two out of 8 of my great grandparents were illegals and they helped this "Great Nation" build ships in WWII.  They didn't ask much.  Three generations lived in one house, they paid their taxes, and their children learned darn good English.  But they were harassed none the less by people who would identify with Kevin Michael because they got here first!  Only they got it for the shape of their nose.  Skin color is much easier to pick out.    On Why environmental groups have been slow to fight the border wall posted 2 years, 1 month ago 38 Responses

Where are the lagoons?

Thank you, Caniscandida for the laugh.  I truly hope that you did enjoy your trip to Vermont.  But don't feel sorry about missing the dairy farms. These are NOT tourist operations, perhaps with the exception of tiny gentleman's farm operations. Alpacas, well they're warm and fuzzy but also used to guard sheep up here, so most aren't overly friendly.  But you got to see the leaves, right? That's what is important :+)

SMLowry, I too live in Vermont.  And I (unfortunately) have a job which requires me to spend quite a bit of time on dairy and beef farms.  No two farmers come from the same mold and most farms operate as the farmer (obstinately) sees fit.  I've seen a few, that are to be commended, but most of them are in violation of their farm management plan, i.e. they allow their cows to graze right down to streams causing erosion and destroying riparian vegetation, they pasture cattle on highly erodible lands, and don't contain their manure properly.  Most farms are in some form of non-compliance and the USDA works with them, rather than causing a stir.  This can easily go on for years.

So, where are the lagoons you ask?  Depending on the operation - 200 dairy cows is "small" and 800 would definitely be large - manure is required to be dealt with in different ways.  Usually it's an earthen circular mound adjacent to a barn at ground level, or just above. You can see them in aerial photos of dairy farms.  But the newer ones are large concrete impoundments similar to swimming pools, with ladders in and out.  Now, try to imagine a concrete pool with liquefied brown poop filled to the surface and bubbling in the midday sun.  It ferments there until the liquidy part can be spread on the fields and eventually run into our streams and waterways. Once most of the liquid is gone the rest can be treated as solid waste through composting, landfills, etc.  Can you imagine (really I know that you can't) how badly this all stinks?  JFM and spaceshaper are correct.  This is poop captured ONLY from the barns, otherwise it is deposited in the field and runs off from there.  USDA and Farm Service Agency are working hard to get everyone using these new impoundments with, you guessed it, our tax dollars.  At least then they will be able to capture some of the methane and I would think use it on site at least.  I saw that on much smaller operations in Costa Rica.  And it should help to control the increasing algae blooms in Lake Champlain.

The untold story here is that the neighbors of these farmers are ecstatic!  Yes, they do get used to the smell to some degree, but you can't imagine the stench for miles when it gets hot or when it is spread on the field, which takes place several times a year.  Farmers who sell off parts of their land for housing development now add "right to farm" clauses to deeds because many of the city folk who move up here don't think for a second that they'll be banished indoors during the summers because of the stench.  And many take the city approach to dealing with it by suing the farmers. (Of course, this is nothing compared to CAFO operations for pigs and cattle.)

No, the rule is not true CAFO up in this part of the country.  But most cows are eating corn, which is really hard on their system and makes for the regular watery bowel movements.  (And try to get the smell off of your shoes - forget it!)  But the operations supplying the bulk of milk and cheese are also not idyllic places.  Cows are milked twice a day, or more if treated with hormones, by machine, even on the smallest operations (thank you tax dollars!) They're male offspring do usually become veal.   And the poor heifers, when out to pasture, have painfully swollen udders, which if you're choosing organic cows, often become infected with mastitis.  This is what provides the heavy dose of puss in milk requiring it's pasteurization (along with the feces, of course).  These farmers aren't bad guys.  But they do this for a living and they don't think of or treat the animals as pets. The cows are simply a form of income for them, and they never lose site of that.        

Worth noting is that cattle raised for beef don't spend as much time inside as dairy cows.  They're manure is not generally kept in impoundments, except maybe during the winter as SMLowry noted.  But without grants for impoundments most farmers prefer to just wash it out the back door and let it run-off where it may.  

All that said, I don't think methane power (or cow power as we call it) is a bad idea.  It's just not exactly "green".  It's making the best of a bad situation.  We could do a lot more on farms to capture greenhouse gases and reduce water quality impacts.  But it all comes down to laws (and most farmers will gripe for hours about all their obligations) or providing technical assistance and the money to implement recommendations.  We are heavily subsidizing this private industry. If we were paying the true cost of dairy/meat many people wouldn't come close to affording it or naturally reduce their consumption.On Methane from Vermont dairy farms to provide electricity for utility customers posted 2 years, 1 month ago 12 Responses

I was really glad to see #3

I've met too many environmentalists lately who think nuclear is a viable energy option.  They are totally unaware of the green house gas emissions involved in the fuel cycle for nuclear energy. I'm glad to see SEN acknowledging that.

Yes, Wyrick.  You're right about the housing stock.  The other worrying housing factor is the huge size of the average American house replacing our older stock.  Our garages are the size of the average house in the 50s.  We could go a long way toward energy security and green house gas reductions by reducing the size of our dwellings and sharing more space.On A strategy for a no-nuclear, low-carbon, highly efficient, sustainable energy future posted 2 years, 1 month ago 3 Responses

What is eating locally? Is it eating logically?

There were a lot of questions not adressed in the summary of the study.  I think that we should be thinking constantly about how to reduce our footprint.  But everything should be on the table, including meat products.  Besides, even if you live in NY and want to eat "ecologically" within it's boundaries the amount of animal products you're allowed are tiny.  According to the summary you couldn't even have a bowl of cereal for breakfast.  We should be considering the impact of every ounce of animal product that we consume, or waste. And this article does seem to point that out.

On the local food issue, I won't dispute that eating locally CAN be beneficial to reducing your ecological footprint, but it's not a given like some people say.  I happen to live in Central Vermont - aka, "must join a CSA ad eat local meat/dairy land".  I see a real problem with people driving their SUVs (oh, they need them for the snow) 12 miles or more to pick up vegetables once a week.   In the low season you may get less than a pound of vegetables and a single tomato may have 6 miles placed on it.  The people still end up going to the grocery store (or Co-op), which happens to be right beside their work place, to buy other necessities.  Now imagine that tomato came from a Canada hot house 70 miles away in a truck that carried thousands of pounds of tomatoes.  The miles on it will actually be lower.  People just aren't thinking about this.  I now it's quaint and idyllic to have local CSAs.  In fact, I dream of running one.  But arranging for people to take an additional trip for some food each week is counterproductive.

So ultimately I wonder about the "place-based" diet.  You can't get more local than your backyard.  But after that it's all shades of gray.  NY is a HUGE state and as large as New England.  If we use this abstract "place", i.e. the state, do I only get to eat from Vermont?  It's only as large as Adirondack State Park.  But I live on the boundary with NH and actually work in NH.  Do I get to eat in NH sometimes?  These ideas are absurd.  The idea of "place-based" eating is nice for supporting local farmers.  I'm all for that - it tastes better and puts money in the pocket of farmers instead of ADM. I buy their stuff at the grocery store.  But I think this idea of being a "localvore" has gone over people's heads.  They think, oh, I'm eating locally, so my impact MUST be reduced."  That's not necessarily true, as I explained above, and also because of the varied practices of farmers.  I don't consume animal products but I'm often on dairy/beef farms and I can tell you some follow their farm management plans a lot better than others.  

It doesn't help to think only in generalities.  I know it's more work, but we should be questioning our actions and the impacts before painting ourselves green.

And wiscidea, I think John former Marine has already addressed your call for moderation in a previous post.  I would have to agree with him on this:

Everything in moderation

What people don't like about PETA and their campaigns is that they don't offer the same, watered-down bs that everyone else is offering.  They put the ugly stuff right in your face and you have to choose to acknowledge it or look away and pretend you didn't see it.  It's not the "everything in moderation" message that we're used to getting on everything else.  They don't agree that "just a little" factory farming is ok.  They take a firm position.  

So...can we all agree that some things are absolutely bad and shouldn't be taken in moderation.  Just a few landmines.  Just a little lead paint.  Just a little child abuse.  As long as these things aren't used too much, too often, or by too many people, we'll all be ok.  It's kind of like a non-binding resolution to maybe possibly do something about global warming.

Sure, sustainable, ethical meat production on a local scale is an answer.  As is controlled hunting.  But how many of you are willing to pay $10/lb for chicken?  Take away the fossil fuels and that's what you'll be paying.  And obviously, not all of us can go hunting...the entire deer, moose, and bear population in my home state of Maine would be gone in just one year if everybody there hunted.
 On On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 1 month ago 256 Responses

Forgot to point out...

That the article concluded the acreage footprints of vegans were still smaller (0.44 acres for vegans vs 2.11 acres for meat eaters).  It's simply that vegetables and fruit require higher quality soil in quantities larger than is available in NY. Don't apply this at home if you live in a more productive, less overly populated state, or if you don't care that your vegetables come from the state next door but still uses less land and petroleum for production and transportation than meat/dairy. I wonder, did they consider hot houses? They would work wonders for northern NY....On On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 1 month ago 256 Responses

So that's what it's called

Now I know.  I agree with Roz.  Leaving it out makes the sentence look naked.  Plus it can make you stumble while you try to figure out if you understand the sentence correctly.  On OK, so it's Saturday now -- still time for a tune about punctuation posted 2 years, 1 month ago 29 Responses

Subsidies (JFK) and fuzzy math (BioD)

JFK - I found something I can agree with you on - eliminating subsidies.  Still, your smug response to JohnformerMarine seemed to imply that vegetarians are benefiting greatly from farm subsidies.  Well, I'm afraid that you overestimate the power of the vegetarian lobby, my friend.   As a vegetarian I subsist mainly on whole foods and vegetables and those happen to have been largely ignored in all farm bill handouts to date.  You see, unless you're one of the few veggies subsisting on corn syrup rich sodas and processed foods you really aren't benefiting from our grossly bloated farm subsidy program. (Just a little primer on the most recent Farm Bill by Michael Pollan.  http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/2007/You-Grow-Pollan22apr07 ... ) The real pork is reserved for the big industries - meat, junkfood and biodiesel.  Did you forget that it isn't possible to pasture factory farmed animals?  No, not even if you open the Great Plains.  They eat the vast majority of our countries grains and thereby are consuming space far beyond where they actually roam.  Remember, the law of energy transfer says that you are being VERY efficient when you regain around 10% of the energy put into feeding livestock.  That's a LOT of grain.    

BIODIVERSIST should pay attention to this.  I'd like to see what fuzzy math all of his energy conjecturing is based on.  Yes, BioD, it's an undeniable law of nature.  The cow/chicken has to live for a while at least before you slaughter it for it's meat, or even harvest it's eggs.  Just the process of keeping a warm body, processing food, and moving is burning calories and wasting grains.  There is always a net loss of energy in consuming animals versus consuming plants - a huge one usually.  You can change out the feed or switch to whatever pasture location you please, but consuming farm-raised animals is always going to require more agricultural (non-habitat) space because they consume a lot more pounds of grain than they give back to us in milk, egg, or dairy. Ultimately they reduce biodiversity simply by forcing conversion of wild spaces to agricultural spaces.  I know, I know, just living I'm also taking up space and reducing biodiversity.  But by eating lower on the food pyramid I'm taking up a fraction of the space I would claim by eating meat, dairy and eggs.   http://oregonstate.edu/~muirp/trophic.htm
Now imagine that every Chinese had access to eat the way you are advocating.  (And they ARE banging down the door to consume just like the typical Westerner.)  What will that mean for biodiversity? I laugh every time you call vegans religious nuts.  To me, your flawed defense of meat shows a level of quasi-religious dogma and intransigence that is incomprehensible for anyone interested in the natural world.  There is more to save out there than poison dart frogs.  And we could start by giving back some habitat.    

 On On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 1 month ago 256 Responses

we all need a little perspective

We like to think of ourselves as humans of being rationale beings capable of understanding so many things in the way of the world.  Yet, we often overlook the fact that internalizing new information may take years, generations, or even centuries.  Two hundred years after the Origin of Species was printed, how much of the population believes in Evolution?  I've seen recent polls saying that much more than half of the American population does not believe in Evolution.  However, many of you reading this post will think of it as an indisputable truth, an unstoppable process of nature.  I bring this up because I just read a quote from the Origin of Species,
"The mind cannot possibly grasp the full meaning of the term of a hundred million years; it cannot add up and perceive the full effects of many slight variations, accumulated during an almost infinite number of generations."
Darwin was talking about Evolution here, but I think that this quote holds true for Climate Change as well.  We want to be able to see the direct cause and effect of our actions. If I drive my car, or eat a hamburger and don't see the direct effect of Arctic Ice melting then when I hear the news blip much later about phenomenal losses of ice it is harder  for me to think, I caused that.  The natural reaction is that others caused that and my actions can't possibly matter much.  But all of us caused that ice to melt and all of us should take responsibility.  The people  who don't take responsibility and don't change their ways (or at least TRY and that is the major point) are living in a bubble of denial.  But worse they are polluting and warming our air, our water and our planet. They are living far beyond their means and in so doing acting recklessly.  But to take away their right to do so would be damaging to our immutable cultural traditions -  such having a hotdog, eating clams, etc - which are based on freedom of choice.  Our rights were assured in the Constitution were drafted before it was known that you could kill someone or irrevocably harm them through your actions without ever coming into direct contact with that person.  Think of all the premature deaths from air pollution.  It is estimated that 30,100 people die from air pollution every year. (http://www.net.org/air/death.vtml)  There is no ability to point the finger at an individual citizen and say you caused one of these deaths.  And that is generally why we choose to do nothing about it.  On the other hand, between 30 and 40,000 people die in car crashes each year.  You can go to jail for vehicular manslaughter and we don't allow driving while drunk.  Each death is real yet we choose to act to prevent automobile accidents much more.

As a society we are delinquent.  It's made even worse by the American notion of needing to keep of with the Jones.  No one wants to give up what we see our neighbors enjoying.  Well, I think that it's all time we try hard to start conceptualizing like Darwin, because if we don't it won't be a matter of voluntarily retiring our over consumptive traditions.  They won't be an option  when China starts to consume like we do and the Earth suffers from over 1 billion environmental refugees.  I can't even begin to imagine the suffering.  

It's time for people to stop hiding behind Peta and look in the mirror.  Either change your ways or perfect the excuses you'll tell your grandchildren when they ask why you didn't act  - even though you knew better.      On On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 2 months ago 256 Responses

substantive change

is difficult to legislate.  But shouldn't we start somewhere?  I feel this even more after this past week when the FAO report came out stating meat consumption has a larger impact on the environment than what you choose to drive.  The reaction from many well-intentioned environmentalists right here on Grist have chosen to dismiss reducing and cutting out meat as a meaningful step in the fight against global warming.  If you read the posts many people will tell you that they didn't like how people or organizations (i.e., PETA) were self-righteously calling for a change.  This is touchy issue.  What is there more personal than what we eat? (Except maybe how many children we have.)

When you have ingrained habits and a culture that by purchase power states that the habit is just fine it's a hell of a mountain to climb in changing that habit.  I'm not just speaking about meat production.  In New England, where I live, many "greens" choose to drive SUVs because they say they need them to access their back woods retreats.  Wealthier environmentalists enjoy traveling to far away beautiful green places - via big polluting airplanes.  Worst of all, as a society we are so hooked to our cars few outside of the biggest metropolitan areas consider walking, biking, and busing a viable form of transportation - something our Secretary of Transportation did not hesitate to point out recently.  

Just about everyone reading this post knows that making personal changes in all these areas would have a large personal impact.  Yet we, the most conscientious of our population, aren't even close to reaching a critical mass in driving change.  Our consumption culture simply strives to make the individual feel less guilty by offering "green" products, cars, carbon offsets, etc so we can go on consuming.  Let's face it, that is all a bunch of bologna. Even holier than thou Al Gore is still a huge consumer of all things energy consumptive. It's time that we draft legislation with teeth to give ourselves a kick in the pants. I think we should start with forcing people who consume to pay for all of the effects and externalities of that purchase.  If you start having to pay $10 a gallon for gas you may seriously reconsider your driving habits.  

We can either have individuals pay for the direct effect of their consumption, or we can continue to pay the costs as a society.     On Tidwell responds to scientists responding to Tidwell posted 2 years, 2 months ago 28 Responses

The omnivore's dilemma

mtvyfan: Sorry if vegans come off as dogmatic.  They are passionate in what they believe.  From the other side of the table however, I would say that choosing to willfully ignore a large contributor to global warming also seems dogmatic.  

I think it's funny that so many people say they don't like the tone people take when stating meat has a large impact, therefore they're going to continue to eat their meat.  Yes, vegans are righteous, but they've also got it right when it comes to reducing livestock contributions to greenhouse gases.  They support 0% of that. But this is why I stopped discussing vegetarianism with people years ago, even after they pressed with questions.  It's obvious when people want to learn more about your stance as a vegan, just so that they can try to poke holes, not so that they can seriously consider the practice and the resulting impact.

Like I said above, all of our consumption choices affect global warming including flying, driving, having children, where we work, where we shop, etc.  We should all try to have as little impact as possible and be ready to adapt our lifestyles as more facts come available.  Even when the issue seems clear-cut we should keep our minds open.  Which is why I'm not advocating everyone become vegan.  But they should internalize this new truth, until it is proven otherwise.

Also, buying local "might" reduce food miles.  But it isn't a given.  Food movement 'harms environment' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4684693.stm
As stated ad nauseam above, just the production of animals produces significant greenhouse gases.  I think we shouldn't be arguing about whether my diet or yours has an acceptable amount of greenhouse gases to pass as a "true environmentalist". Put your sensitive feelings aside. Rather, we should be ceaselessly looking for ways to reduce that impact.  This is a big one, so try reducing your meat consumption just 10% as the FAO recommends.   If you eat meat with every meal, like most Americans, that means cutting meet from 2 or 3 meals a week and you've done it.  That may be all you need to feel good about yourself.  For others, it takes a more drastic change.  

  On Umbra on meat eating and global warming posted 2 years, 2 months ago 41 Responses

Disappointed

I'm pretty disappointed in this explanation.  It doesn't even mention why meat is such a large contributor to climate change and makes me think that perhaps Umbra really didn't grasp the FAO report, or even hear about the Lancet article out recently.  

As Umbra mentions at the end, yes, you should avoid feed lot and Amazon destroying beef (it's cleared for both pasture and feed - including LOTS of soybeans.)  
But the biggest contribution meat is having is through the basic need for all those cows to belch, toot, and poop, i.e. production of methane and nitrous oxide.  Buying meat from your local beef farm may reduce pressure on the Amazon and Farmer John MAY manage his solid waste better.  But chances are he doesn't manage for climate change, the emphasis is on surface run-off.  (I'm on beef and dairy farms in NH and VT at least once a week.  They get insane money and technical assistance from NRCS and USDA in general - yet most don't seem to manage waste effectively.  And they're large manure impoundments soaking up the sun still release huge amounts of methane that could be captured and burned to produce electricity and reduce warming capacity.  But I digress...)

The Lancet article backs up the FAO findings, and goes further.  (see AP summary here: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hxSQa9KhHaDXNGyeqOyHHb ...  )  It addresses that question that most meat eaters have.  Can farming practices, such as feeding high quality grains, reduce the impact?  The Lancet says not by enough to make any appreciable difference.  

Nobody likes the messenger here - PETA.  I agree, I think they're campaign is despicable and divisive, as usual.  But the truth is undeniable and now that people know it they should do something to reduce their impact.  It's no different than managing the way you drive.  Yes, what one eats seems very personal and no one wants to have a menu for what is acceptable put in front of them.  But now that the impact of meat is as widely known as SUVs, at least among Gristers, those steak orderers at restaurants shouldn't be surprised when they receive the same dirty look usually reserved for Hummer drivers.  

Now that you know, if you want to feel better, don't look to local farmers.  Whether your beef was farting locally or in Amazon, it's warming the earth.On Umbra on meat eating and global warming posted 2 years, 2 months ago 41 Responses

AP Synopsis of Lancet Article

 Eating Less Meat May Slow Climate Change
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hxSQa9KhHaDXNGyeqOyHHb ...On Animal-rights group makes the stupid claim that enviros must be vegetarians posted 2 years, 2 months ago 208 Responses

And two more things....

Forget the "meat substitutes".  Too much soy can be a bad thing hormonally, and you shouldn't have too much of your diet come from one source anyway.  
Think WHOLE FOODS.  Eat beans, instead of bean patties.

And as to the comments made by doctors above.  I think it's worth noting that looking at the curriculum for a medical degree only incorporates a single nutrition class - sometimes none at all.  They are able to talk broadly about nutrition, but I've had plenty of doctors not know what kale, collards, bok choy, or quinoa are.  Then I had one tell me that I shouldn't be avoiding beef liver because it contains the iron a woman needs.  Now, how many people in the world don't want to or can't eat beef liver?  I really doubt that they're walking around chronically anemic!  If you want a nuanced opinion on diet, talk to a nutritionist.  On On the difficulties of going veggie posted 2 years, 4 months ago 65 Responses