Comments halli620 has made

  • Outlawing "preventative" antibiotic use will also make the unhealthy grain diets fed to cattle unsustainable, and switching back to grass diets will make the meat healthier as well! A corn-based diet is not natural for cattle, and they need the antibiotics to sustain it without getting sick. (Therefore, we need a new Farm Bill as well, removing the subsidies from feed-grade corn, which cause such surpluses that it makes it cheap to feed the cattle with.) Moreover, meat from corn-fed is not even as healthy for us as grass-fed beef. Not only that, but the corn-fed diets actually heighten the risk of dangerous E-coli, such as the outbreak from the spinach not that long ago! The corn-based diets (made possible by the "preventative" antibiotics) change the acidity of the cows' stomachs, making them more likely to harbor dangerous strains of E-coli. The bacteria ends up in the feces (which of course is not treated properly and is instead pumped into lagoons of s***), and all it takes is a rainstorm for these lagoons to overflow and contaminate nearby farms, such as the spinach farm. In conclusion, outlawing "preventative" antibiotic use would go a long way not only in keeping our antibiotics working, but also in necessitating a switch back to grass-fed diets, which yield healther meat; and in keeping the cows' stomach acids at an optimal level for avoiding the harboring of the most dangerous strains of bacteria such as E-coli.On Big meat tries to spin new antibiotics report [UPDATED] posted 1 month ago 2 Responses

  • BrianS: First off, my post stated that in some areas of the country, diets with some meat raised on land fit for growing grasses but not food crops are more sustainable in a local economy than those with no meat. CLWeber's post deals with CAFOs vs. grass fed. On that, I note, as other posters have, that CLWeber's numbers do not appear to take into consideration the amounts of CO2 emitted in the transport of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers to the grain farmers, or in the transport of the grain to the CAFOs, which, as other comments explain, will generally overtake any alleged decrease in CO2 production. There are also the additional problems of nutrients in waste from CAFOs, which in self-contained farms are returned to the soil, but in CAFOs are collected in huge, putrid pools; and of antibiotic resistence, an entirely different but intricately connected issue.

    For an article on the study showing that small amounts of meat and dairy raised on grassland not fit for growing human food crops is more efficient and can feed more people than a purely vegetarian diet in areas such as New York: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct07/diets.ag.footprint.sl.html

    On Debunking the meat/climate change myth posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 92 Responses

  • BrianS: First off, my post stated that in some areas of the country, diets with some meat raised on land fit for growing grasses but not food crops are more sustainable in a local economy than those with no meat. CLWeber's post deals with CAFOs vs. grass fed. On that, I note, as other posters have, that CLWeber's numbers do not appear to take into consideration the amounts of CO2 emitted in the transport of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers to the grain farmers, or in the transport of the grain to the CAFOs, which, as other comments explain, will generally overtake any alleged decrease in CO2 production. There are also the additional problems of nutrients in waste from CAFOs, which in self-contained farms are returned to the soil, but in CAFOs are collected in huge, putrid pools; and of antibiotic resistence, an entirely different but intricately connected issue.

    For an article on the study showing that small amounts of meat and dairy raised on grassland not fit for growing human food crops is more efficient and can feed more people than a purely vegetarian diet in areas such as New York: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct07/diets.ag.footprint.sl.html

    On Debunking the meat/climate change myth posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 92 Responses

  • How on earth could it be a good idea to let small businesses keep the fee and other businesses keep part of the fee? It's already hard enough to get stores to listen to you that you don't want a bag, and that will just make it harder. I know they won't be getting the free advertising that comes with printed bags, but most small businesses like convenience stores don't have that anyway and just use generic bags, and I feel like being able to keep the fee will make them push the bags on customers even harder!

    On Controversy heats up over Seattle's proposed disposable bag fee posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Responses

  • Veritone, I don't know what part of the world/country you're in, but in some areas, in order to eat truly locally and sustainably, a diet with some meat and dairy products is more sustainable than one without. For example, in a number of areas in the northeast, there is a significant amount of land that is not fit for growing food fit for human consumption that can, instead, sustain grasses that can feed cattle. Studies at Cornell University have shown that in such areas, a wholly local vegetarian diet would not be sustainable, and would require food to be transported in from elsewhere (leading to emissions from transport, etc.), while feeding livestock on the land that can sustain grasses but not foodcrops creates a smaller ecological footprint. Note, also, that meat produced from grass-fed livestock in a sustainable fashion like this is not only much healthier than corn-fed beef, but I believe has been shown in some studies to even be healther than meat-free diets (though I admit I don't have time to look for these studies right now).

    I agree that with sustainable methods, meat production would be cut, and that with increased prices, people would eat less meat; I don't see this as a bad thing. I hope that laws forbidding "preventative" antibiotic use that are in the works are quickly and efficiently adopted and implemented, because in addition to addressing the problem of antibiotic resistence, this will lead to the closing of unsanitary CAFOs and to the decline of unnatural diets of corn that "require" antibiotics to keep the animals alive. While I certainly agree that CAFOs are not sustainable, safe, or acceptable, and that there are areas where food crops can sustain the local population, meat and dairy products should not automatically be seen as the enemy.

    On Debunking the meat/climate change myth posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 92 Responses

  • A really good one that's been around a while is Alabama's "Pass It on Down," with the chorus:

    So let's leave some blue up above us
    Let's leave some green on the ground
    It's only ours to borrow, let's save some for tomorrow
    Leave it and pass it on down

    On Songs about climate change are not so hot posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 20 Responses

  • Not SUCH a bad thing

    You make it sound like a bad thing that Clorox "hasn't managed to shrink the other brands' market share," when this is the best case scenario. It means that it's not hurting other, greener, brands, but at the same time encouraging first-time green cleaner buyers to take a step forward towards greener living and to see that "green" doesn't mean "bad." You should have said that Clorox HAS managed to AVOID shrinking the other brands' market share, since that part's a good thing; so I also don't understand why you would joke about "blaming" Walmart for the strong sales. On Clorox's Green Works line now top-selling green cleaners in U.S. posted 1 year, 1 month ago 3 Responses

  • Even if

    Even if a few huge non-profits are as self-serving as she is trying to say they are, that has no effect on the rest of the environmental movement as a whole. Only a small-minded person would try to claim that. On Green, Inc. author says big environmental groups have sold out to big business posted 1 year, 1 month ago 4 Responses

  • Looking for an Environmental Law Job

    As a Communication major at Cornell University with a focus in the Life Sciences, the very few environmental jobs there were to apply to in the New York City area did not choose me. So I came to law school at Hofstra to study environmental law. Now, I'll be graduating in May, and am no closer to finding a job.

    I interned at the NYS DEC last summer, but the office is so small (maybe 6-7 attorneys in the Region 2 office) that there's basically no turnover, and no hope of getting in any time soon, especially with the way the civil service exam works even if someone leaves. The NYC DEP does not have any openings either. The EPA finally has an attorney position open, but only for someone with at least 2 years experience, which I obviously don't have. They also have a brand new Public Affairs position open, which I learned about as soon as it became available through an Ivy League Environmental Career Fair last week, but are hoping to have it filled ASAP - within the next month or two - which does not work well for someone like me who will be graduating in May and then studying for the Bar for two months.

    The nonprofits I've looked at don't seem to be hiring either. Everything needs experience (and how are we supposed to be able to get any?) or is in California. I'd really like to stay in or around the New York City area, and nothing is coming my way. So in case any of you happen to know of an environmental law position opening up in the NYC area for entry-level attorneys, please pass the info along. Good luck to all of you.On I thought the green job market was hot! posted 2 years, 9 months ago 31 Responses