March 24th, 2008
In the USA, the organisation responsible for implementing and checking on pollution etc is the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). The following report on TreeHugger throws things in a different light:
EPA Doesn’t Want To Know About Factory Farm Pollution
Some people think that EPA stands for Environmental Protection Agency; for the Bush Administration, it might be Evidence of Pollution is Annoying. Right now a factory farm has to report to federal, state and local officials when ammonia emissions exceed a hundred pounds per day, which in 2004 the EPA said could irritate the respiratory tract, eyes and mucus membranes for a few days. Hydrogen sulfide at that level could have the same but longer-lasting effects accompanied by memory problems, headaches and dizziness, and have to be reported as well.
But there are no limits or rules on this, so the EPA says that the reports create an unnecessary burden on the giant factory farms like the one in Oregon that puts out 15,500 pounds per day. Said a spokesman: “It is…consistent with the agency’s goal to reduce reporting burden where there would likely be no federal, state or local emergency response to such release reports” Because we know the EPA is there to save paper and energy, don’t we.
According to Erica Werner in the Associated Press:
There are no federal laws or regulations capping release of these substances from animal waste so EPA critics argue that the reporting requirements are the only way for communities to know what they’re being exposed to.
“If the public doesn’t know that the emissions in their area are hazardous to their health how are they going to find out unless the sources are required to report?” asked Bill Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. Becker said the reports are used by some states to respond to local concerns about farm pollution.
Of course the cattle people disagree. “In the end what we’re talking about here is not a hazardous substance,” said spokeswoman Karen Batra. “It’s not toxic sludge or a chemical spill. It’s cow manure.”
March 24th, 2008
The UK’s chief environment scientist has called for a delay to a policy demanding inclusion of biofuels into fuel at pumps across the UK. Professor Robert Watson said ministers should await the results of their inquiry into biofuels’ sustainability. Some scientists think biofuels’ carbon benefits may be currently outweighed by negative effects from their production.
The Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) is to introduce 2.5% biofuels at the pumps from 1 April. Professor Robert Watson warned that it would be insane if the RTFO had the opposite effects of the ones intended. He said biofuels policy in the EU and the UK may have run ahead of the science.
His comments in an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today programme appear on the day when a coalition of pressure groups from Oxfam to Greenpeace writes to the Department for Transport (DfT) demanding that the policy be delayed until after the review. More
March 7th, 2008
As reported in The Guardian, the UK Government’s new Chief Scientific Advisor , Professor John Beddington gave his first major speech at the Govnet Sustainable Development UK Conference in Westminster:
“There is progress on climate change. But out there is another major problem. It is very hard to imagine how we can see a world growing enough crops to produce renewable energy and at the same time meet the enormous increase in the demand for food which is quite properly going to happen as we alleviate poverty.”
He predicted that price rises in staples such as rice, maize and wheat would continue because of increased demand caused by population growth and increasing wealth in developing nations. He also said that climate change would lead to pressure on food supplies because of decreased rainfall in many areas and crop failures related to climate. “The agriculture industry needs to double its food production, using less water than today,” he said. The food crisis would bite more quickly than climate change, he added.
But he reserved some of his most scathing comments for the biofuel industry, which he said had delivered a “major shock” to world food prices. “In terms of biofuels there has been, quite properly, a reaction against it,” he said. “There are real problems with unsustainability.”
Some of the biofuels are hopeless. The idea that you cut down rainforest to actually grow biofuels seems profoundly stupid.
Hiliary Benn, the environment secretary commented that the relative wealth of people in developing countries is increasing, but this leads initially to an increase in demand for meat and dairy products, and ultimately processed and packaged foods - all of which are detrimental the the environment.
Moving forward with minimal impact
As unappealing as this may sound to some people, the message from Benn and others is that to help everyone around us, including the earth as a whole, humans should adopt a low or no meat diet, low or no dairy, avoidance of processed and over-packed foods and quickly remove our reliance on fossil fuels. What I’m describing will be a complete lifestyle change for many westerners, but there will be no alternative - things like biofuels only serve to give the green light for people to ‘carry on as before’, but with perhaps less guilt, whereas what is needed is a total re-think - it is no longer OK to carry on as we have been doing - that old way has clearly not worked.
In the UK, a new movement has been growing at grass roots level called ‘Transition Towns’. Started by Rob Hopkins, the purpose is to create a plan or framework to move a town or city towards oil independance by looking at the likely implications of ‘peak oil’ on the services and products a town uses. Doing this, creates resilience within the town to drastic change.
I have just bought Rob’s book ‘The Transition Handbook‘ and will be penning my thoughts on it in due course.
