people of faith engaging creation and justice
Mark Bittman who, like Michael Pollan, seems willing to defend some sort of omnivorism most of the time, has a column today where he reckons honestly with a study that indicts meat on both health and environmental grounds.
Does happy, grass-fed, organic, or local meat get a free pass? Only sort of. The final paragraph:
This study, like others, assumes that “meat” means industrially produced meat. No one knows the differences between that and meat that comes from traditionally raised animals. Maybe animals from small-scale producers are less dangerous to our health, and maybe they’re not. But because traditional production is less “efficient” — there’s that nasty word again — we’ll most likely not be able to produce as much or eat as much of it as we ever have of industrially produced stuff. That would be a very good thing, and we don’t need a study to figure it out.
Nice to see a video from inside a dairy farm that doesn’t feature beating and brutality. But this may be taking things too far…
This news from, of all places, the Guardian.
I know others here disagree but it confirms my suspicion that (a) it’s going to happen and (b) the best approach is to fight for strict regulatory control, rather than full moratoria…
Wayne Pacelle (Head of the Humane Society USA) and
Nathan Runkle (Mercy for Animals founder) in one weekend… not bad!
We could do this in Ithaca if we ever got our acts (and fundraising) together…
I drive through Pennsylvania regularly now (commuting to Pittsburgh) and on almost every trip I encounter cavalcades of heavy trucks headed for fracking sites. It’s ugly, no doubt, and it slows traffic and may be damaging the roads. But, even in a nearby NY county (where fracking is still illegal) there are economic benefits it seems.
Check out Mercy for Animals’ new commercials below. I wonder: is this kind of thing effective, or does it just harden hearts?
This is good news. Down by a pound a year!
Or in one university in the South, at least.
Go North Texas! (Didn’t think I’d ever utter that particular phrase.)
Go Bill!
(Though, admittedly, the photo that the LA Times attached to the story doesn’t make him look all that healthy.)
Hydro-fracking headlines the Ithaca Journal today; apparently a lot of New Yorkers are still undecided on the issue, even as the industry continues to swap big bucks for development rights in Pennsylvania’s portion of the Marcellus.
We were traveling around the Finger Lakes last week, staying in various B&B’s and campgrounds. Kristen and I noticed that outside of Ithaca the campaign in favor of fracking has really picked up steam. In Spencer, for instance, the owner of a big hotel placed a massive arrow on his lawn, pointing to the ground with a sign that says “Frack Here, Please!” In Candor almost every property sports a pro-natural-gas lawn ornament. And all around Cayuga, Seneca, and Keuka lakes, most of the residents we talked to seemed excited about the prospects for economic renewal.
One couple who own 100 acres near Seneca Lake admitted that there are environmental concerns about hydro-fracking, but kept referring to a new technology that splits the shale with propane instead of nasty-chemical-laden water. We hadn’t heard about this before: “Wait — propane is safer than water?” Apparently so. And “greener” too.
Moving to propane doesn’t, of course, deal with the truck traffic issue. In fact, it exacerbates it, since presumably the propane has to be delivered, whereas the water is locally sourced (and then locally polluted).
I agree with Elizabeth that the truck traffic is a huge issue. It’s worth noting thast there is a movement in Tompkins County, at least, to hold gas companies responsible for damage to roads caused by projects involving more than 1000 truck trips.
But, for better or worse, folks in smalltown Finger Lakes didn’t seem too concerned about the trucks.
