<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Smart-growth advocates offer tips for changing your neck of the woods]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by 2wheeler http://www.grist.org/article/tips/ Fri, 16 May 2008 05:53:01 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/tips/1 watershed friendly

Smart growth needs to be watershed friendly. That means having adequate setbacks from rivers and streams, including the precious headwater streams that too often end up buried in pipes or trenched in ditches.  Shade, and native species planting are important for riparian habitat to preserve biodiversity in the urban environment.  

Rivers link cities and their residents most directly to the natural world.  Having a sustainable city requires balance with natural areas that we depend on for services (drinking water, recreation, etc.) as well as the sheer quality of life aspect.  Many cities lack adequate zoning to protect the sensitive river areas. Most also lack protections to keep roadside litter and trash out of storm drain systems which lead to the river.  

Checkout Keep America Beautiful, local chapters of IWLA, and get involved in your watershed!

]]> watershed friendly

Smart growth needs to be watershed friendly. That means having adequate setbacks from rivers and streams, including the precious headwater streams that too often end up buried in pipes or trenched in ditches.  Shade, and native species planting are important for riparian habitat to preserve biodiversity in the urban environment.  

Rivers link cities and their residents most directly to the natural world.  Having a sustainable city requires balance with natural areas that we depend on for services (drinking water, recreation, etc.) as well as the sheer quality of life aspect.  Many cities lack adequate zoning to protect the sensitive river areas. Most also lack protections to keep roadside litter and trash out of storm drain systems which lead to the river.  

Checkout Keep America Beautiful, local chapters of IWLA, and get involved in your watershed!

]]> Comment #2 by Schrmin http://www.grist.org/article/tips/ Fri, 16 May 2008 07:18:50 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/tips/2 Meat consumption overlooked once again

Well, I suppose I'll be the one to point out that the statement "get out of your car. That's the greenest thing you can do" isn't necessarily correct.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO), "the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent than transport," not to mention that it is also "a major source of soil and water degradation," both of which are also serious environmental problems but in discussion are overshadowed by climate change.  Not to mention that the meat industry contributes to incalculable cruelty, etc.

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/

http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2007/08/30/5/index.html

And yes, we've likely all heard the standard arguments in response to this topic which have been extensively covered, even here on Grist, if you're interested:

http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2007/09/17/

"Nothing would benefit humanity more than the general adoption of a vegetarian diet."
-    Albert Einstein


]]> Meat consumption overlooked once again

Well, I suppose I'll be the one to point out that the statement "get out of your car. That's the greenest thing you can do" isn't necessarily correct.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO), "the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent than transport," not to mention that it is also "a major source of soil and water degradation," both of which are also serious environmental problems but in discussion are overshadowed by climate change.  Not to mention that the meat industry contributes to incalculable cruelty, etc.

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/

http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2007/08/30/5/index.html

And yes, we've likely all heard the standard arguments in response to this topic which have been extensively covered, even here on Grist, if you're interested:

http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2007/09/17/

"Nothing would benefit humanity more than the general adoption of a vegetarian diet."
-    Albert Einstein


]]> Comment #3 by Payton Chung http://www.grist.org/article/tips/ Tue, 20 May 2008 14:17:08 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/tips/3 Bzzzt.

Actually, one very good source ("The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices") DOES rank not driving as the #1 thing that American consumers can do to reduce their overall ecological footprints.

The FAO figure that PETA bandies about says nothing without context:
far more humans globally eat meat than drive cars
plant-based food still has a substantial ecological cost; walking and cycling have negligible marginal ecological impacts
FAO did not examine lifecycle costs of car ownership, everything from manufacture to paving to disposal
FAO, as pointed out, does not examine non-greenhouse ecological costs

Besides, such PETA evangelism divides, not advances, the environmental cause. We need to do EVERYTHING in our power to work WITH one another to collectively address our environmental problems, instead of running around, pinning blame on one another, and confusing the message. We have to stop saying "either/or" and start saying "both/and."



]]> Bzzzt.

Actually, one very good source ("The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices") DOES rank not driving as the #1 thing that American consumers can do to reduce their overall ecological footprints.

The FAO figure that PETA bandies about says nothing without context:
far more humans globally eat meat than drive cars
plant-based food still has a substantial ecological cost; walking and cycling have negligible marginal ecological impacts
FAO did not examine lifecycle costs of car ownership, everything from manufacture to paving to disposal
FAO, as pointed out, does not examine non-greenhouse ecological costs

Besides, such PETA evangelism divides, not advances, the environmental cause. We need to do EVERYTHING in our power to work WITH one another to collectively address our environmental problems, instead of running around, pinning blame on one another, and confusing the message. We have to stop saying "either/or" and start saying "both/and."



]]> Comment #4 by Schrmin http://www.grist.org/article/tips/ Wed, 28 May 2008 13:30:34 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/tips/4 I think my response was misunderstood.

I wasn't implying that one shouldn't recognize the impacts of automobile use on the environment...far from it...the less auto/fuel use, the better (I drive a 3 cylinder Geo Metro, just fyi). Instead, I was highlighting the fact that meat consumption was once again completely overlooked as being one of the leading causes of environmental degradation.  Like you, Payton, I was advocating "saying both/and" by supporting the idea of not only reducing each individual's automobile/fuel use, but also the elimination/reduction of their meat-eating.

However, I need to point out that your response seems inconsistent and fairly contradictory.  For one, just because PETA promotes the UNFAO report to further their own cause doesn't mean that the report has little or no value or merit...I doubt the UNFAO has any ties to PETA, or any other animal welfare org.  Like any research study, the findings can be critiqued, but I'd argue they're rooted in sound science.  But then you state that "We need to do EVERYTHING in our power to work WITH one another to collectively address our environmental problems, instead of running around, pinning blame on one another, and confusing the message. We have to stop saying "either/or" and start saying "both/and.""  I'd say you need to take your own advice.

Instead of rejecting the fact that animal agriculture is a massively environmentally destructive business (easily on par with, if not much more so than, the transportation sector...particularly if you factor in the "non-greenhouse ecological costs," as you put it, such as its effects on land due to grazing, land use for feed production, fresh water use, waterway pollution, forest and habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, etc. - not to mention the damage from overfishing), how about accepting the evidence and supporting vegetarianism...or something close to it?  Veg-ism, animal welfare, and eco-mindedness are not mutually exclusive.  It seems apparent that transportation and meat eating easily top the list in the overall environmental damage they each cause, so let's reduce both...we'd all be better off for it.  Because if the world stays on course and meat/seafood/dairy/egg consumption rise to the predicted levels by mid-century (Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes...and seafood stocks are predicted to collapse by 2048, etc.), I doubt walking and cycling will save us.

Here's some more info:

http://www.factoryfarmmap.org/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006 ...

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.50 ...

http://www.earthsave.org/pdf/ofof2006.pdf  ("Our Food, Our Future")

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals"
   - Mahatma Gandhi


]]> I think my response was misunderstood.

I wasn't implying that one shouldn't recognize the impacts of automobile use on the environment...far from it...the less auto/fuel use, the better (I drive a 3 cylinder Geo Metro, just fyi). Instead, I was highlighting the fact that meat consumption was once again completely overlooked as being one of the leading causes of environmental degradation.  Like you, Payton, I was advocating "saying both/and" by supporting the idea of not only reducing each individual's automobile/fuel use, but also the elimination/reduction of their meat-eating.

However, I need to point out that your response seems inconsistent and fairly contradictory.  For one, just because PETA promotes the UNFAO report to further their own cause doesn't mean that the report has little or no value or merit...I doubt the UNFAO has any ties to PETA, or any other animal welfare org.  Like any research study, the findings can be critiqued, but I'd argue they're rooted in sound science.  But then you state that "We need to do EVERYTHING in our power to work WITH one another to collectively address our environmental problems, instead of running around, pinning blame on one another, and confusing the message. We have to stop saying "either/or" and start saying "both/and.""  I'd say you need to take your own advice.

Instead of rejecting the fact that animal agriculture is a massively environmentally destructive business (easily on par with, if not much more so than, the transportation sector...particularly if you factor in the "non-greenhouse ecological costs," as you put it, such as its effects on land due to grazing, land use for feed production, fresh water use, waterway pollution, forest and habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, etc. - not to mention the damage from overfishing), how about accepting the evidence and supporting vegetarianism...or something close to it?  Veg-ism, animal welfare, and eco-mindedness are not mutually exclusive.  It seems apparent that transportation and meat eating easily top the list in the overall environmental damage they each cause, so let's reduce both...we'd all be better off for it.  Because if the world stays on course and meat/seafood/dairy/egg consumption rise to the predicted levels by mid-century (Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes...and seafood stocks are predicted to collapse by 2048, etc.), I doubt walking and cycling will save us.

Here's some more info:

http://www.factoryfarmmap.org/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006 ...

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.50 ...

http://www.earthsave.org/pdf/ofof2006.pdf  ("Our Food, Our Future")

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals"
   - Mahatma Gandhi


]]>