|

Hog Factories Hit the NY Times

Byoliveridley

The tale is told from the pig’s viewpoint. Of course, as I have mentioned before, hog factories are evil and affect the people (mostly poor and black) who live around them in very many horrible ways.

Pig Out – NY Times

Of the 60 million pigs in the United States, over 95 percent are continuously confined in metal buildings, including the almost five million sows in crates. In such setups, feed is automatically delivered to animals who are forced to urinate and defecate where they eat and sleep. Their waste festers in large pits a few feet below their hooves. Intense ammonia and hydrogen sulfide fumes from these pits fill pigs’ lungs and sensitive nostrils. No straw is provided to the animals because that would gum up the works (as it would if you tossed straw into your toilet).

In my work as an environmental lawyer, I’ve toured a dozen hog confinement operations and seen hundreds from the outside. My task was to evaluate their polluting potential, which was considerable. But what haunted me was the miserable creatures inside.

They were crowded into pens and cages, never allowed outdoors, and never even provided a soft place to lie down. Their tails had been cut off without anesthetic. Regardless of how well the operations are managed, the pigs subsist in inherently hostile settings. (Disclosure: my husband founded a network of farms that raise pigs using traditional, non-confinement methods.)

The stress, crowding and contamination inside confinement buildings foster disease, especially respiratory illnesses. In addition to toxic fumes, bacteria, yeast and molds have been recorded in swine buildings at a level more than 1,000 times higher than in normal air. To prevent disease outbreaks (and to stimulate faster growth), the hog industry adds more than 10 million pounds of antibiotics to its feed, the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates. This mountain of drugs — a staggering three times more than all antibiotics used to treat human illnesses — is a grim yardstick of the wretchedness of these facilities.

Similar Posts

| |

Why India is a Prominent Global Warming Sceptic

Byoliveridley

I grew up in Chennai, proudly known as the automotive capital of India and home to Standard Motors. While it makes me very happy to see Chennai back on the automotive map, it also points me to the fact that India needs to be involved in the long-term reduction of heat-trapping emissions. This is not going to help…

BBC NEWS | Business | India eyes 25 million automotive jobs

India’s labour intensive car industry has become a tremendous job creator and as such a crucial driver of economic growth.

Already, some 10 million people are working in factories across India – making cars and motorcycles, tractors and trucks – or in sales and service centres.

And their numbers are set to swell.

By 2016, the automotive industry should have created employment for 25 million people in India, according to government predictions, set out in its Automotive Mission Plan.

I realize that India has a loooooooooooooong way to go before it catches up with the US and the rest of the developed world as far as per capita heat-trapping emissions are concerned. I also admit that infrastructure development, job creation, manufacturing prowess, etc., are critical for India in order to mitigate its soul crushingly large poverty and development issues. But, by putting so much emphasis on conventional car technology, and putting so many more CO2 emitting monsters on the road, India is putting itself in a position of playing the development vs. environment game.

Is it necessary that India and China tread the same path as the U.S and Europe? Does India have to make and use cars that are built using technology developed prior to our knowledge of global warming? The same company that gets cautious praise from the Union of Concerned Scientists for its “leadership” role in global warming will turn around and build factories in India that carry the status quo forward for another 30 years. When you’re starting from the foundation, and you know that the plans provided to you will lead to your house crumbling in 20 years, would you use the plans anyway because your contractor provides you with no alternative? The logical answer seems to be no, but is this process logic driven, or enforced by the existing power structure?

The vehicle industry is entrenched in the US and therefore, resistant to change. It is understandable, not optimal, not desirable, shortsighted, etc., but understandable. Change requires effort, and a lot of the time, the effort is motivated by external factors, such as strict regulation. Without these external factors, it is very easy to keep chugging along merrily.

But, does India have to make the same mistakes? Does India have a choice here? I am afraid not. The pressure to build infrastructure quickly leads India to seek foreign investment and the investment will only come in the way of companies like Ford. And Ford will do exactly what it needs to do to make money in the short term (apparently, they’re not very good at that either!).

What is the answer? The developed countries have to pass legislation that pretty much forces the car companies’ hand. Strict increases in fuel economy standards, tightening of loopholes, and strict enforcement are all required. As this UCS report shows, fuel efficiency improvements of up to 40% are possible using run of the mill technology (as in, no hybrids, no electrics, nothing). But this is not sufficient. While the US market is focused enough that the highest regulation (California) pretty much drives the market, will car companies simply make a set of third world cars and a set of first world cars?

There’s clearly another piece to the puzzle, encouraging technology transfer of the most carbon efficient technologies to emerging markets so that they can build infrastructure correctly, using current knowledge instead of following the only blueprint currently available to them. Yes, this hits upon intellectual property issues at times, but when your village is being submerged by the sea, intellectual property needs to take a back seat. This technology transfer needs to happen either through incentives (tax breaks, non-profit/UN funding), or disincentives (carbon taxes, etc.). the Kyoto Protocol does have some technology transfer programs built in, but without the participation of the US, the protocol is not going to work.

Do I see any of this happening? Not really, so I guess we’re stuck with recycled global warming denialism like this one from one of India’s prominent columnists.

Almost as soon as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming came into effect on February 15, Kashmir suffered the highest snowfall in three decades with over 150 killed, and Mumbai recorded the lowest temperature in 40 years. Had temperatures been the highest for decades, newspapers would have declared this was proof of global warming. But whenever temperatures drop, the press keeps quiet.

Yes, the country that produces great intellectuals has come down to this. But, this is the prevailing wind in India. As a country, it has swallowed the American line on development being at odds with the environment. As a country, it is poised to greatly increase its heat-trapping emissions and fight vigorously, any efforts to restrict its emissions. India is right in most ways, its per capita energy consumption is miniscule. It already only uses half the energy per dollar of GDP that the US uses (of course, this is at the expense of quality of life for millions). So, any attempts at pointing fingers at China and India are irresponsible. But, that is the past. Looking forward, every country needs to use the most efficient technologies possible, and this Ford factory driven development model ain’t gonna work.

I leave you with the energy intensity chart…

|

Split court rules against Bush on greenhouse gases – CNN.com

Byoliveridley

Interesting, see here for background…. So, the Supreme Court has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant, good for them.

Split court rules against Bush on greenhouse gases – CNN.com

The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion.

The court’s four conservative justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — dissented.

Kennedy, swung left on this one! I stand by my original asseesment, just regulating cars using the clean air act is inadequate, but the important matter resolved here is that CO2 is a pollutant, and this will, I hope, provide precedent in cases to come.

|

CMA condemns Asbestos

Byoliveridley

The Canadian Medical Association Journal is denouncing the federal government for what it expects will be Canada's continued efforts to block international controls on asbestos at UN-sponsored negotiations next week.

A strongly worded editorial, appearing in tomorrow's issue of the journal, says the government "knows what it is doing is shameful and wrong" and compared Ottawa's moral stature in continuing to promote the use of the cancer-causing material to that of arms traders.

The negotiations, known as the Rotterdam Convention, are to start Oct. 27 in Rome. The focus of the talks will be on whether to add the chrysotile variety of asbestos to the world's list of most dangerous substances. Once a substance is listed, countries must give prior informed consent that they know they are buying a highly dangerous material before being allowed to accept any imports.

via globeandmail.com: Medical journal blasts Ottawa for promoting asbestos abroad

Canada’s national shame, its export of a killer product not used by Canadians to developing countries where the safeguards it insists on for the ‘safe” use of this product can’t possibly be carried out or enforced. For god’s sake, it’s 700 jobs, and people who can be retrained to do something that does not kill people.

Autism epidemic not caused by shifts in diagnoses; environmental factors likely

Byoliveridley

California’s sevenfold increase in autism cannot be explained by changes in doctors’ diagnoses and most likely is due to environmental exposures, University of California scientists reported. The scientists who authored the new study advocate a nationwide shift in autism research to focus on an array of potential factors in the environment that babies and fetuses are exposed to, including pesticides, viruses and chemicals in household products.

Autism epidemic not caused by shifts in diagnoses; environmental factors likely — Environmental Health News

One of the most common arguments you will see about a lot of mental health diagnoses is that doctors have changed their diagnostic practices significantly. While there is evidence of this occurring in diagnoses of childhood depression, anxiety, or even bipolar disorder due to the millions of dollars involved in medication and the attendant corruption, autism is different.

This population study used 17 year data in California and concluded that diagnostic changes were only responsible for a 2 fold increase, not the seven fold increase seen. The rest is unexplained, and the authors attribute it to a confluence of environmental and genetic factors.

And no, for the last time, VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM!

PCBs love to sorb to oil

Byoliveridley

News of possible interest only to me. It seems obvious that oil present in sediment enhances sorption and storage of PCBs than soot/black carbon. After all, it is a liquid phase and is present in higher amounts than black carbon. PCBs are so hydrophobic that almost any organic material has a higher affinity for PCBs than water/sediment. Carbon is a strong PCB adsorbent only for planar PCBs, and then only if it is itself graphitic, hence planar. In all other cases, oil should outcompete  carbon for PCBs. Glad they found experimental evidence. In all my (three) years of analyzing for PCBs, the oily samples are always the highest concentration ones.

Oil Is a Sedimentary Supersorbent for Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Oil Is a Sedimentary Supersorbent for Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Michiel T. O. Jonker and Arjan Barendregt

Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80176, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands

Received for review January 18, 2006

Revised manuscript received April 10, 2006

Accepted April 11, 2006

Abstract:

The often-observed enhanced sorption of hydrophobic organic chemicals (HOCs) to sediments is frequently attributed to the presence of soot and soot-like materials. However, sediments may contain other hydrophobic phases, such as weathered oil residues. Previous experiments have shown that these residues can be efficient sorbents for certain PAHs. In this study we investigated sorption of PCBs to sediments contaminated with different concentrations and types of oils, and from that derived oil-water distribution coefficients (Koil). Sorption of PCBs to both fresh and weathered oils was proportional to sorbate hydrophobicity, and no effects of PCB planarity were observed. Furthermore, the experiments demonstrated that different oils sorbed PCBs similarly and extensively (Koil up to 108.3 for PCB 169), and that weathering caused an almost 2-fold increase in sorption of the lower chlorinated PCBs. Koil values indicated that at the PCB equilibrium concentrations tested (pg-ng/L range), for many congeners weathered oil is a stronger sorbent than pure soot and soot-like materials. Due to attenuation of adsorption to the latter materials in sediments (caused by competitive adsorption with organic matter), sedimentary weathered oil will therefore, if present as a separate phase, defeat sedimentary soot, coal, and charcoal as PCB sorbent in most cases. Consequently, weathered oil probably is the ultimate sedimentary sorbent for PCBs and should be included in HOC fate models.

Coal Fired Power Plants – Moratorium needed

Byoliveridley

Cleaner Coal Is Attracting Some Doubts – New York Times

Within the next few years, power companies are planning to build about 150 coal plants to meet growing electricity demands. Despite expectations that global warming rules are coming, almost none of the plants will be built to capture the thousands of tons of carbon dioxide that burning coal spews into the atmosphere.

This is batshit insane and irresponsible. The US of A does not have a carbon policy (other than use as much as you possibly can!), and, only in the last few months have phrases like cap and trade and carbon taxes been used in respectable society. I am not going to get into the policy solutions here, there are much better discussions going on elsewhere.

My question is this. When you know that 150 coal fired power plants are going to have a significant effect on the carbon emissions, how can you even think of approving them unless you have a carbon emissions mitigation policy in place already? If you let them be built, they will somehow grandfather themselves out of the controls. The power of existence is a big deal. Will anyone dismantle one of these once they’re operational? Think of the children!!

There needs to be a moratorium on any large new power plants and other global warming sources until this country has figured out what emission targets it’s going to meet, how it’s going to meet them, and when it is going to meet them. Only then can the market decide which choices are feasible and which ones just don’t make sense. How will I know whether gasification or conventional burning/sequestration is better unless I have the metrics to measure them by? Depending on the emission reduction targets, they could both be economically viable, or neither.

Something tells me that the word “moratorium” and the phrase “coal fired power plant” will never be uttered in the same sentence.