Comments dhwert has made

  • Why are some "conservationists" so dumb

    when it comes to conserving the whole?  And when it comes to anthropology, sociology, and economics?

    I highly recommend the link Jonas posted: "Cashing in palm oil for conservation".  It is up and is free, so go read it and then see whether the "prohibition" mindset offered by so many big enviro-NGOs (and this original post) is really the only option.

    C'mon, people.  Think broadly, and don't get so caught up in the emotional "save the ___" mentality that you think that complex problems driven by huge consumer demand can be solved simply by demonizing a product (and, in turn, a livelihood for many).  What are the alternatives?  Soy?  Heard of Brazilian rainforests?  Olives, canola?  Is there a lot of unused land just waiting for more acres of these crops?  What effects will shifting increased production to these crops do to other crops and available land?

    The point I get from the food crisis and oil crisis that we're seeing is that it all comes back to overpopulation and overconsumption.  So until Rainforest Action Network and Greenpeace and the rest spend 95% of their time working on those issues with the demographic that causes the biggest impact (their members? and other Americans/Europeans?), their "campaigns" to stop economic activity in developing countries will continue to look like so much neo-colonialism.

    I am so tired of "conservationists" that can't seem to do anything but run "campaigns" and call for boycotts and be oppositional.  For gosh sakes, use all that youthful energy and creativity to do something new, something that works, something that might help all the parties involved.  Koh & Wilcove's proposal would do that.  Heck, RAN doesn't even need to think creatively; they could just follow the Koh & Wilcove proposal, run palm-oil plantations in a model sustainable manner, and use the revenues to protect more primary forest.

    Until NGOs in rich countries put up the funds to both help developing countries economically and protect the lands that they (and I) consider worth protecting, I'm afraid I can't respect or support their efforts.

    DaveOn New website shows which shampoos, foods kill lovable primates posted 1 year, 5 months ago 25 Responses

  • Definitely use the enzymatic cleaners

    I guess the specific question was about dry-clean only alternatives, but the source of the question was cat pee.

    In my experience (and my cat has unfortunately supplied me with ample experience), the enzymatic cleaners that claim to remove cat pee odors are very good.  (Make sure to check with your local pet store to find a good one, though.)

    I haven't tried vinegar, but I do know that washing with regular detergent is not a useful option (and I wouldn't be sure "wet cleaning" would be any different).  The odors remain, and the cat is tempted to use the same location again.  Whatever you use has to wipe out the odor, and enzymatic cleaners have done the trick for us.

    Be sure to "spot test" the cleaner in an "out of the way place" on your item, to be sure it doesn't change colors or otherwise adversely affect your fabric.

    And, as all the good cat veterinarian sites will point out, if your cat is peeing inappropriately, make sure to get the kitty checked out for possible urinary tract infections.

    DaveOn Umbra on cat-pee stains and dry cleaning posted 1 year, 8 months ago 1 Response

  • How to respond to a necessary but sad thing?

    I read a news brief in the Sunday paper about the need to "cull" elephants, and was quite disturbed by the part that said they would be killed in family groups to avoid the psychological trauma that Gay Bradshaw has documented.  Thus I was drawn to this discussion with emotion and interest, albeit quite late.

    As an ecologist, I understand that the killing of elephants is likely necessary, but it is just so terribly sad.  Your arguments all seem right, Whiskerfish, and I appreciate your local, "on the ground" information and perspective.  And I can hear canis and Wolverine's grief underneath their righteous indignation.

    But whatever happened to mourning, folks?  Isn't it okay to grieve without assuming that the reason for the sorrow must be changed/stopped?  Why the "denial of death" that leads to unrealistic views of the natural world?  Animals die.  Other animals, fire, weather, and people kill them.  People die too, at the hands of other humans, animals, starvation and disease (overpopulation?).  These are sad events, especially when we love the beings that die, or when it seems brutal or unnecessary.  But to say "killing canNOT be the answer" either 1) denies that animals should kill each other (how to stop that, I wonder?), 2) thinks that humans should behave differently from animals, even though we are animals, 3) or rejects all death as bad and wrong.  And that is possibly the most anti-nature thing a person could believe, in my opinion.

    Here's a related article about elephant-caused habitat depletion (and subsequent starvation) in the 1960s in east Africa.  It leaves the question open regarding the need for managed killing.

    Here's to the elephants, and wishing we humans could be less ravenous.

    DaveOn South Africa to resume elephant culling despite criticism posted 1 year, 8 months ago 25 Responses

  • Janszen is saying it will lead to a recession?

    Jon Rynn:

    You say, "this guy is talking about how investment in alternative energy and infrastructure is going to lead eventually to an economic recession, which is ridiculous"

    Where exactly does he say this?  He says specifically that "bubbles" (a term he doesn't like) can end rapidly or slowly, so they don't necessarily have to be catastrophic.  Nowhere in the Q&A do I see any assertion that they inevitably end in an economic recession.

    DaveOn Q&A with Eric Janszen on whether an alt-energy bubble is in the making posted 1 year, 9 months ago 25 Responses

  • More on "Direct Trade"

    Chris, I think you're probably right to be skeptical about direct trade's non-verifiable claims.  However, I am still intrigued by the concept, and comparing this to the certified organic debates, I know there are good farmers out there who don't want to get certified, but still grow things at a higher standard than certified organic.  It does require more openness and more trust, though, on both the company's and consumer's parts.

    Here's an interesting take on Direct Free Trade from another good coffee company, Level Ground Trading Company.  http://www.levelground.com/direct_fair_trade

    DaveOn A review of six Central American coffees posted 1 year, 10 months ago 18 Responses

  • Who's the ass?

    What kind of ridiculous (and infantile) argumentation is this?

    Apparently two-party politics is more sacred to DR (and Grist?) than actually making a difference.  Well, you go, Democratic sycophant!

    Have fun kissing the Donkey's ass and hoping it does you any good.

    A lot of your sorry support at this self-important, too-cute-for-you, bloviating blogazine probably comes from people who supported Nader in 2000, and yet you don't care that you tar us with the same "I'm bad-ass Dave Roberts! If you don't like it, suck it!" brush.

    Umbra can stay kidnapped next time for all I care.  I'm not giving any more money to this Democratic Party front group.

    Sheesh.

    DaveOn Darth Nader endorses Edwards instead of Green Party candidate posted 1 year, 10 months ago 38 Responses

  • This rocks! (literally)

    Maybe ol' Peter Garrett can help write an eco-song that doesn't suck.  Or maybe he can actually do something that makes a more tangible difference.  I wish the best to him in this new role.  I'm very glad he's there.  

    On a side note, I'll never forget the Midnight Oil show I hitchhiked to in Stuttgart, Germany (getting picked up on an autobahn on-ramp at dusk (not a good place/time to be hitchhiking!) by a carload of ... yup, you guessed it, Midnight Oil fans going to the gig! It's enough to make you believe in synchronicity.)On Midnight Oil frontman is Australia's new environment minister posted 1 year, 12 months ago 2 Responses

  • Coconut oil is healthy

    Why do you think it's not?

    http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/coconut-oil-stud ...

    "In this study, virgin coconut oil ... had a beneficial effect in lowering total cholesterol, triglycerides, phospholipids and low density lipoproteins (LDL)."

    "A few researchers have known for some time that a derivative of coconut oil, lauric acid and monolaurin, are safe antimicrobial agents that can either kill completely or stop the growth of some of the most dangerous viruses and bacteria."On Umbra on the impact of food purchases posted 2 years, 2 months ago 21 Responses

  • Don't freeze food?

    Wow, are you kidding me?  What is your alternative?  Canning?  Do you think all the cooking, washing, materials, etc. don't make this energy-intensive as well?

    Preserving food is a must, if we are going to try to return to eating locally and in season.  Unless we want to eat produce shipped from a different hemisphere, or only eat snow and storage vegetables all winter, some form of preservation is necessary.

    Yes, all forms of preservation are fairly energy-intensive (drying might be the least -- another question for Umbra!), but since I don't want to be completely dependent on the food processing industry, I'll stick with my freezer, thank you very much.

    Energy Use comparisons (Energy Star models); values are quick and dirty means that I calculated from their data. (fun with Pivot Tables)

    Refrigerators (bottom freezer, top freezer, side by side): 496 kWh/year; 24 kWh/yr/cu.ft.

    Freezers: 457 kWh/year; 29.6 kWh/yr/cu.ft.

    DaveOn Umbra on the impact of food purchases posted 2 years, 2 months ago 21 Responses

  • Great discussion

    I appreciate the thoughtfulness in this entire discussion, especially caniscandida's comparison of animal rights with the "pro-life" movement.  I think the similarities are warranted and enlightening.

    tritesprite has a good response to bugmenot, but I'd like to add a point that clarifies some of the differences in positions.  bugmenot asserts that if we agree that "a morally-aware being is ethically bound to minimize suffering," that it logically follows that "Eliminating animal products from one's diet would reduce suffering."

    But, bugmenot, you and many others are falsely equating "suffering" with "death".  Are they really equivalent?  I, for one, don't think so.  Death is inevitable, necessary, and part of the natural order of things.  Although many humans and many cultures have a "denial of death" (which I tend to think is rather influential in both the pro-life and animal rights worlds), I don't think we should confuse a fear of death with a desire to reduce suffering.

    While I am certainly as much of a hypocrite as the next person, I don't think it is hypocritical to have the goal of reducing suffering but also to eat meat (i.e., cause the death of animals), if we take pains to only support farmers/farming methods that raise animals in a way that doesn't cause suffering.

    As a final aside, I find the little signs of hypocrisy in people to be quite amusing: witness Pandu, the defender of animals, admitting to eating at Subway, a fine supporter of factory farming (both meat and veg), which, as we (should) well know, causes suffering to migrant farmworkers (pesticides, etc.).

    Let's all get over ourselves a bit, shall we, and give each other a break?

    DaveOn Umbra on vegetarian remorse posted 2 years, 2 months ago 38 Responses

  • Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choice

    Such either/or thinking.  Let's continue collective actions while improving on/focusing individual efforts.  Amanda's suggestions reminded me, this has already been started...

    The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists -

    http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/

    DaveOn Voluntary actions didn't get us civil rights, and they won't fix the climate posted 2 years, 2 months ago 61 Responses

  • DrSid needs to study harder

    DrSid, you must not have been reading Grist very long, or you would've seen the article pointing out a recent study saying that organic yields equal or exceed conventional yields:
    http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2007/07/12/4/index.html

    You'll need to explain to me why "their very nature" makes them unable to provide more than a miniscule portion of food the public consumes.  The farmer's market in my town (which goes all year-round, by the way) is extremely well-attended, and appears to be feeding quite a few of the people in town.

    Best,
    DaveOn Umbra on community-supported agriculture posted 2 years, 3 months ago 9 Responses

  • what about Africa and Latin America?

    Tom, I wish you would've addressed this.  While you did mention it briefly, you didn't come up with any suggestion on how to deal with the challenge that the "UK organic standards vs. African organic farmers" situation presents.  And Jonas is the only person to even mention it in the comments.

    I'm not sure that using the term "genocide" ever helps to promote reasonable conversation, but I do think we're going to be seeing more and more clashes over competing "goods" (reducing carbon emissions and alleviating poverty).

    While I'm an enviro, I'm even more of an anti-imperialist, and there's no doubt in my mind that the Soil Association's deliberations smack of a post-imperialist imperialism.  Full lifecycle analyses are necessary, and would likely vindicate small sustainable farmers in the global South.

    Cheers,
    DaveOn If buying locally isn't the answer, then what is? posted 2 years, 3 months ago 28 Responses

  • good grassfed cookbook and other resources

    No, the cookbook isn't grassfed...

    http://grassfedcooking.com/
    Shannon Hayes has written two books on cooking with grassfed meat.  I've had recipes from both, and they are excellent!  Since grassfed animals tend to be leaner, it can affect the cooking approach somewhat.

    As mentioned in my last post, another good place to learn about the benefits of grassfed meat (vs grain-fed meat) in terms of animal, human, and environmental health is
    http://www.eatwild.com/
    They include a listing of local grassfed producers by state.

    DaveOn Umbra on sustainable meat posted 2 years, 3 months ago 32 Responses

  • Meat haters are counterproductive

    While I appreciate the tone of the more recent comments, the ones from askantik and anthony11 really do more harm than good.

    Here's the reality:

    • Many, many people in the U.S. eat meat.
    • Factory farming is terrible to the animals and the environment.

    With these two realities, what are our options for improving the situation?  Meg raises a good challenge: should we advocate for veganism/vegetarianism (no meat), or sustainable meat (better meat)?

    To deny that better meat exists, or claim that all meat production is essentially the same (morally, ethically, environmentally, health-ly, etc.), as askantik and anthony11 do, is ridiculously wrong*, but even worse, it perpetuates the problem stated in the above two realities.  It gives meat eaters only one option: no meat.  For those millions of meat eaters who won't give up meat, they can only reject the proposed option as extreme, continuing with a diet of conventional meat.  They might deplore the factory farm system as well, and want to reduce suffering, but are presented with no better options than this "all or nothing" approach.

    Thus, I think the only responsible approach is to present people with multiple options that help to solve the problems posed by factory farming:

    1. Go vegetarian!  Try it, maybe it will work for you. (But don't forget that industrial farming of grains, beans, and veggies also has ethical implications and impacts on animals!)
    2. If you don't want to give up meat altogether, find local farmers who raise animals on pastures, and buy primarily from non-factory farm raised sources.  The extra expense of this higher quality food will probably lead to the next option...
    3. Eat less meat.
    4. and there are probably others that I'm not even thinking of or listing

    While the goal to have everyone go vegetarian may be laudable, it's unrealistic and counterproductive to promote it as the only option.  There are no one-size-fits-all solutions to the problems we've got in this world, and those who claim there are, are part of the problem, I'm afraid.

    Cheers,
    Dave

    *To argue how the anti-meat/all-meat-is-the-same attitudes are wrong would repeat good work done by Tom Philpott here at Grist, Michael Pollan, Joel Salatin, Wendell Berry, Jo Robinson (eatwild.com), Sally Fallon (www.westonaprice.org), and a few comments on this page, so I won't go into my rebuttals.On Umbra on sustainable meat posted 2 years, 3 months ago 32 Responses

  • LED me, guide me

    Karen,
    Umbra has talked about LEDs here:
    http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2006/09/18/LEDs/index.htm ...

    The links you cite are misleading and blown out of proportion (especially the second one):
    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/the_real_dirt_o.p ...
    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/ask_treehugger_14 ...

    But this doesn't surprise me, since the person relating the story has an economic interest in LEDs (follow the money), being the purveyor of "Better Life Goods" that you cite.  It's too bad someone supporting a good technology (LEDs) uses bogus news spread by shysters like Steven Milloy and WorldNetDaily to "prove" his point.

    When LEDs get to a reasonable price (i.e., below the $100 a 10-watt Eco-LED from Mike Adams costs (what's that?  that's as much energy as a CFL uses?  for 20x the price?!  wow!)), I'll be the first to buy them.

    DaveOn Umbra on mercury in CFLs posted 2 years, 4 months ago 17 Responses

  • One word

    Humanure
    http://www.jenkinspublishing.com/humanure.html
    http://www.weblife.org/humanure/
    On Umbra on replacing toilets posted 2 years, 4 months ago 8 Responses

  • To hell with them?

    Tom, you dismiss Dagoba, Scharffen Berger, and Green & Black's rather easily.  I am fully aware of the issue of small, pure, and righteous independent companies being purchased by transnational corporations.  But do you really say, "to hell with them" about all of those companies -- which include Ben & Jerry's, Stonyfield, Boca, Walnut Acres, Seeds of Change, Emerald Valley Kitchen, etc.?

    Being bought by a transnational corporation may mean going over to the dark side (but I'm not convinced), but what it definitely means is that these businesses are successful.  Is that really such a terrible thing?  Would we rather have green businesses that are unsuccessful and unprofitable?  How would that help, exactly?

    This purist attitude strikes me a little like the "greens-eat-their-own" tendency that David Roberts was critiquing recently.  I guess your vehement dismissal surprised me.

    Full disclosure: I like Dagoba, a relatively local product here in Oregon, and Green & Black's (not local) quite a lot.  I also like Divine and Endangered Species.

    DaveOn ADM gets its filthy paws on an immaculate confection posted 2 years, 6 months ago 23 Responses

  • the system needs changing, but isn't that us?

    System, system, system!  Down with the old system.  Up with the new!

    Sure, "the system" needs changing, but to act as if individual actions are unimportant and system changes are all important is a terrible mistake.  And one that's all too common, as shown by quite a few "revolutions" in the past century or five.

    A collection of individual actions do change the system; witness the organic foods movement.

    No, we can't all be monks, but who am I more likely to listen to, Thich Nhat Hanh and Thomas Merton (speaking of monks), or some upper-middle-class enviro blogger who says, "do as I say, not as I do"?  Easy answer.  Personal integrity leads to being taken seriously.  Hypocrisy does not.

    How, in fact, do you propose changing "the system" when you don't even expect individuals to change?  How can "the system" (involving millions and billions of us making daily decisions) magically change if people can't?  Isn't "the system" made up of people?  If it's so hard for individuals to become "monks", how can we possibly make "the system" a monk (for that is what you are proposing, in essence)?

    Good luck with that.

    If environmental footprints are relevant in general, then no one's individual environmental footprint is irrelevant.  Otherwise you're saying they only matter for those people over there, you know the ones, they drive big cars, go to Nascar, that sort of thing.  Please.  We're all in this together.

    DaveOn The system changes or we're all screwed posted 2 years, 9 months ago 12 Responses

  • Costco?

    Okay, I'm intrigued no one has asked the question yet: you shop at Costco?  Forget vegetarian vs meat-eating, what are you doing in a Costco?  Does Costco exemplify the kind of green, human-scaled economy that you want to be a part of?  (Yes, I realize I'm sounding like a purist pr***, but I was honestly surprised by this part of the story.)

    I can't stand the hugeness of stores like Costco, and their PORTION SIZES.  If you have a chance to see the movie "Idiocracy" (a great Mike Judge satire on the devolution of our cultural intelligence), it includes a dystopian vision of Costco that's quite apropos and darn funny (as is much of the movie).

    Your list of rules is quite good.  I am quite partial to emphasizing the switch to small-farm, pasture-raised animal products, as Samuel and Tom do, since most carnivores are not going to go whole un-hog, at least not immediately.  So this makes me more inclined to support restaurants that buy local, pasture-raised meat, since they are still fairly rare (although actually, in Corvallis they are more and more common).  But #3 does fit with my main food guide, Wendell Berry, who says that a vegetarian approach makes the most sense when eating out, since we don't often know where that meat comes from.

    And I have always liked the sensibility I learned in Extending the Table: in most of the world, meat consumption is a rare, celebratory event.  We could fix a lot of the problems arising from excessive meat eating (which simply parallels the excessive consumption happening everywhere else in U.S. society, a la CostMartSamCo) simply by claiming this wisdom (and coupling it with the ancient/modern wisdom of eating grassfed animal products).

    Good luck in your journey, David.

    Dave Hockman-Wert
    Corvallis, Ore.On That's it for me and industrial meat posted 2 years, 9 months ago 46 Responses

  • err on the side of caution

    Did you notice that Sen. Inhofe agreed with O'Brien about erring on the side of caution?  Inhofe said, "yeah, that's fine, I think we should do that."

    I certainly don't agree with or particularly like Sen. Inhofe, but I don't see what you think you can gain by making ridiculous ad hominem attacks about his appearance and/or character.  I saw nothing "blank-eyed" or "sociopathic" about Inhofe.  And his statement at the end about "keep smiling" specifically referred to a comment he made at the beginning about how O'Brien is always smiling.  It made perfect sense in context, and you tried to turn it into something sinister.  That's just silly.

    I didn't think it was particularly tense either.

    DaveOn Battles it out with recalcitrant CNN anchor posted 3 years, 1 month ago 1 Response

  • It's lying time again...

    Oh Alex, do you think people won't examine what you say?  Please.  You totally misrepresent the U of Minnesota study that you cite.  I'm starting to think you're unable to comprehend real science.  The abstract clearly states "None of the produce samples collected during the 2 years of this study were contaminated with Salmonella or E. coli O157:H7."  None of the virulent E. coli.  None.  (Although you did a fine job of giving a misleading impression that your "data" referred to that kind of E. coli.)

    It also says, "The prevalence of E. coli contamination by produce type was not significantly different between the three farm types during these 2 years.... These results indicate that the preharvest microbiological quality of produce from the three types of farms was very similar during these two seasons and that produce type appears to be more likely than farm type to influence E. coli contamination."

    Not significantly different.  That's the science, Alex, not some cherry-picked numbers that misrepresent the scientists' efforts.  You don't get to grab a few mean values out of a paper and make some bogus "3 times more likely" claim.  That's not the way the process works.  (Well, I guess it runs in the family. That's exactly what your father did to arrive at his bogus "8 times more likely" claim.)

    Here's the link to the abstract, for those who want to see the whole thing:
    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iafp/jfp/2006/00000...
     Longitudinal Microbiological Survey of Fresh Produce Grown by Farmers in the Upper Midwest
    On E. Coli news is bad news, any way you cut it posted 3 years, 2 months ago 22 Responses

  • the irony of Mr. Avery

    One great irony about Mr. Avery is that he makes comments on this blog (which he is of course quite welcome to do), yet his own blog allows for no such comments.  Guess he doesn't really want to hear what people think about his opinions...

    DaveOn E. Coli news is bad news, any way you cut it posted 3 years, 2 months ago 22 Responses

  • which spinach is implicated?

    "This investigation is far from over. Moreover, it will never (and cannot ever) definitively determine the source of the contamination. Manure will always be a high-probability suspect, regardless of what conclusions are made."

    Really?  The FDA has DNA fingerprinting for E. coli that can trace back to the source, so I'm guessing they can track it down reasonably well.  Even if they can't find the contamination source, we can know which products were contaminated, and whether they were organic or conventional spinach, or both.  That won't be hard to do.  And even if manure is involved, that in itself doesn't prove whether it's organic or conventional.  As you well know, many conventional farmers use manure as a fertilizer.

    I do have to give you credit for not using this occasion to falsely accuse organics of being the source of this, since we don't know yet.  Especially since Jay Lehr, longtime conventional ag cheerleader, has gone on record falsely claiming that this proves organic ag is unsafe (even though the FDA has not identified the source yet).

    Yet the FDA is engaged in total overkill.  Since they have pinpointed the problem to bagged fresh spinach in California, why are they recommending that consumers eat no fresh spinach whatsoever?  

    Dave
    On E. Coli news is bad news, any way you cut it posted 3 years, 2 months ago 22 Responses

  • the enviro ethics of eating, living, and dying

    Pandu asks, "What I "fail" to understand is how something as blatantly exploitative as animal slaughter can possibly be consitent with an environmental ethic?"

    Have you read anything by Wendell Berry or David Kline or deep ecologists or others who talk about the integral interconnection of humans and animals, as well as the cycle of life and death that we are all part of?  I'd highly recommend these authors for giving some perspective to your question.  I know of few people who are more appreciative and caring of the animals they live and work with, yet they don't see a problem with eating animals who have lived good, healthy lives.  I know Peter Singer wouldn't approve, but frankly, I find Berry much more compelling and environmentally and socially balanced than Singer.

    Is it more exploitative to kill an animal than to force it to live with you and eat your bugs and mice?  Perhaps this is a semantic issue: isn't exploitation something that happens to the living?  Killing animals may be something that we don't want to do unnecessarily or excessively, and some may perceive it as downright wrong, but it doesn't seem to me like it can be characterized as "exploitative".

    The whole question of what constitutes "environmental ethics" is a bit larger than we can tackle here.  But I do wonder which particular environmental ethic you would have in mind that would preclude eating animals, which has been going on for all of human history.

    To turn your question around, what I fail to understand is how something as blatantly polluting as driving 100 miles a day (25,000 miles a year, just commuting) can possibly be consistent with an environmental ethic.  Isn't it interesting how easy it is to justify and/or overlook our own foibles and point out the perceived failures of others?

    Dave
    On Vegetarians are ruining our bad headline posted 3 years, 4 months ago 33 Responses

  • Energy use comparisons?

    caniscandida wrote: "Surely it is well established that the raising of animals for human consumption is more costly, energy-wise, than the raising of grains and legumes for human consumption."

    This may be "well established" for factory farm, grainfed livestock raising, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe that it's "well established" or even true that raising animals on pasture is more energy-intensive than soy, grain, or produce farming.  (How much black plastic do organic produce farmers use?  Where do they get all that rock phosphate and fish and bone meal?  Can live animals provide the bone meal?)  It's worth doing the actual assessments, but I'm assuming the UCS book (effective environmental choices) and all the other major studies on energy use and livestock farming are focused on confinement grainfed operations, which admittedly are the bulk of meat production in this country.

    What always bugs me in these righteous either/or arguments is that the muddy middle gets ignored: there are better choices for meat-eaters.  Instead of acting all righteous and telling meat-eaters they are going to eco-hell unless they become vegetarian, environmentally-concerned folks (veggie or otherwise) should be encouraging meat eaters to find better sources of meat and dairy, i.e., local grassfed options.  Or eating less meat, (which becomes easier if you're paying for good local grassfed meat, which is often more expensive than the supermarket mass quantities).

    DaveOn Vegetarians are ruining our bad headline posted 3 years, 4 months ago 33 Responses

  • Maybe Kyle reads Grist...

    I just read the review and noticed a correction notice at the end:
    "Correction: an earlier version of this review incorrectly linked lead and smog to global warming."

    Guess even VRWC fledglings can admit their wrong.  Sort of.  Eventually.  On one thing.

    Although I wouldn't mind jumping on the bashwagon, I would point out that this is ... the NY Post.  Not usually known as a bastion of subtlety, intelligence, or thoughtful critique.On Kyle Smith's review of An Inconvenient Truth posted 3 years, 5 months ago 28 Responses

  • I won't give to canvassers...

    ...and I'm a former phone banker*.

    Why?  Because I don't want ~40% of my donation to go to the poor schmuck who is standing on my doorstep asking me for money, yet can't explain why xyz is such a problem, except for their memorized, simplistic talking points.

    Also, because our local Sierra Club group suggests not giving to the "Sierra Club" canvassers (no money from the canvassing operation actually goes to our local group).

    If a canvasser is coming to my doorstep, a long-time environmental activist with a graduate degree in Environmental Studies, they aren't coming to "educate" me.  They're coming to ask me for money.  Period.  If they're actually focused on awareness-raising, then they should be preaching to someone other than the "choir."  But they don't, because they want to actually make some money, which involves approaching people who are pre-disposed to their cause.  But the only "work" this money supports is allowing them to continue asking for money from people pre-disposed to their cause, and so on...

    If they're coming to "organize", I have to wonder why a group of outside canvassers is needed to motivate local people to take care of their own community.  Maybe I live in a strange idyllic place, but people in Corvallis, Oregon tend to organize themselves pretty quickly if any tangible issue of concern arises.  If the "organizing" is on some broad issue (i.e., "stop global warming now!"), then I have to wonder how useful this "local organizing" really is.

    The one caveat is that if they are going door-to-door to get signatures and/or raise support for state ballot measures, then I'm all for it.  A tangible political campaign where the individual being canvassed can actually do something then and there (i.e., add a signature), seems like a great use of time and money.

    Dave

    * Granted, I didn't do it very long, but it's gotta be some of the worst work out there.  I've heard similar complaints from my friends who did the door-to-door canvassing.  Quite similar to MBNelson's comments, actually.  I'd really like to hear the pro-canvassers respond to the points s/he made.On Why green-group canvassing operations need an overhaul posted 3 years, 6 months ago 28 Responses