I apologize for hyperbole in using terms like "the least of the problems,"
but to be more accurate, my point is still that I have met biofuels folks
who have made enthusiastic friendships with factory farmers as though waste
and fuel were the only issues, not the horrific treatment of living beings.
It hurts to see that, much like it would if we were involved in this field
during the ninetheenth century and formed affectionate relationships with
slaveholders who were a good source of cottonseed oil. The people may indeed
be nice individuals, but they are involved in a significant social evil that
we must not turn a blind eye to. That was all I was trying to get across. I
love and respect animals for the same exact reasons I want to use and
support biofuels. How can the two be separated?
Bo
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 14:51:56 +0900
Hello Bo
Please friends, let's realize the problem with factory farms is factory
farming -- not the discharge of wastes.
Nope - both are problems, and they're not the only ones. Of course without
the factory farms the waste problem wouldn't exist, but the waste problem
is nonetheless a useful approach, for raising awareness and for bringing
pressure to bear.
There is no stretch of the imagination that can condone the torture,
cruelty and insanity of raising "food" in that way.
I fully agree.
Ever been inside one?
Yup.
Please don't even respond to this e-mail unless you have, or at least have
seen truthful film footage of how animals are raised and treated. I'd like
to think that anyone interested in biofuels would be absolutely opposed to
factory farming.
Absolutely - and if not why not.
The wastes are the least of the problems, in my view.
The wastes are a severe problem in their own right. It's all a problem.
There's nothing good about any aspect of it.
You will, I believe, find previous posts on many or most of the other
problems associated with factory farming in the list archives. That
includes for instance how the feed is produced, a whole other nightmare,
the effects of which are global, with some horrendous results.
One reason that I posted this here is that we keep having these band-aid
allegedly new-tech industrial "solutions" offered (eg with turkey wastes)
that will turn the wastes into energy, hey, "solving" the whole problem so
we can all ride off into the sunset and everyone lives happily ever after
(except the turkeys). Then some list member enthuses over its being
wondrously environmental, and some of them have been completely baffled
when I've said there's more to it than that. You see the problem.
Best wishes
Keith
Bo Lozoff
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Biofuel] Cleaning Up Factory Farms
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 05:24:15 +0900
http://www.alternet.org/story/21391
Cleaning Up Factory Farms
By J.R. Pegg, Environment News Service. Posted March 2, 2005.
The Bush administration thinks it's perfectly OK to let factory farms
discharge waste into the nation's waters. A federal appeals court says
the policy stinks.
The Bush administration's regulations to limit water pollution from
factory farms violate the Clean Water Act and must be revised, a federal
appeals court ruled Monday. The court found the regulations failed to
ensure that factory farms would be held accountable for discharging
animal wastes into the nation's waters.
The ruling, released Monday by a three judge panel of the 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, is a major victory for
environmentalists who filed suit against the February 2003 rules. Robert
F. Kennedy Jr., president of the Waterkeeper Alliance and an NRDC senior
attorney, called the regulations the "product of a conspiracy between a
lawless industry and compliant public officials in cahoots to steal the
public trust."
"I am grateful that the court has taken the government and the barons of
corporate agriculture to the woodshed for a well-earned rebuke," Kennedy
said.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which issued the rules,
was not available for comment on the ruling.
The decision continues a long-running battle over how to regulate factory
farms - known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). CAFOs
have emerged as the dominant force in the modern production of
agricultural livestock as the size of livestock operations has grown over
the past two decades. These operations produce some 500 million tons of
animal waste annually - disposal and storage of this waste presents
serious risks to public health and the environment.
CAFOs often over-apply liquid waste on land, which runs off into surface
water, killing fish, spreading disease, and contaminating drinking water
supplies. Waste can leak onto the land and into groundwater and drinking
water supplies from the massive waste storage units on the farms.
Three decades ago the U.S. Congress identified CAFOs as point sources of
water pollution to be regulated under the Clean Water Act's water
pollution permitting program. The 2003 rule aimed to implement that
decision - it applies to some 15,500 livestock operations across the
country.
Large CAFOs are defined in the regulations as operations raising more
than 1,000 cattle, 700 dairy cows, 2,500 pigs, 10,000 sheep, 125,000
chickens, 82,000 laying hens, or 55,000 turkeys in confinement.
The regulations require these operations to apply for discharge permits
under the Clean Water Act every five years and develop nutrient
management plans to manage and limit pollution - or otherwise demonstrate
that they have no potential for discharge.
The Bush administration said the rules balanced environmental protection
with the concerns of a competitive and economically important industry.
But the court described the regulations as "arbitrary and capricious" and
said the Clean Water Act "demands regulation in fact, not only in
principle."
The court determined the rules illegally allowed permitting authorities
to issue permits without reviewing the terms of CAFO plans to manage and
limit pollution.
"The CAFO rule does nothing to ensure that each large CAFO will comply
with all applicable effluent limitations and standards," the panel wrote
in its 65-page ruling.
The rule also "deprives the public of the opportunity for the sort of
regulatory participation that the Act guarantees because the rule
effectively shields the nutrient management plans from public scrutiny
and comment," the judges wrote.
The panel agreed with environmentalists who argued that the regulations
violate federal law because they do not ensure that permits contain
specific limits on the amount of pollution CAFOs can discharge.
"To accept the EPA's contrary argument - that requiring a nutrient
management plan is itself a restriction on land application discharges -
is to allow semantics to torture logic," the court said.
The agency also failed to require factory farms to use the necessary
technological controls to reduce bacteria and other pathogens from their
pollution, according the ruling.
"The court agreed that there is a better way than the Bush
administration's plan," said Eric Huber, a Sierra Club attorney. "When
technology and existing law can keep animal waste out of our rivers, why
should Americans have to settle for a plan that puts polluters before the
public?"
J.R. Pegg is Washington D.C. Bureau Chief for Environment News Service.
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
