Home   ||   FA/RM Blog   ||   Goals   ||   Individual Rights   ||   Activism   ||   Contact FA/RM

Bloggers Monica Hughes Guy Adamson Diana Hsieh Blog Links RSS Feed RSS by E-Mail Blogroll Archives December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 September 2009

Saturday, June 27, 2009 Science vs. Dogma By Monica @ 9:15 AM You’ve heard me say I don’t have any firm beliefs about climate change, though I’ve blogged a tad on the issue from time to time when it relates to evolutionary biology. I’ve learned firsthand the dangers of trusting conventional wisdom on matters of much import. (I’m speaking chiefly of nutrition where the conventional wisdom is mostly wrong and a lack of objectivity among researchers seems to abound.) I’ll make a brief but somewhat rambling foray into “climate change” in this post. This is due to current events (Cap and Trade bill passing the House yesterday) and the fact that the USDA has already admitted that EPA regulation of CO2 would radically impact how agriculture would be conducted in the United States (see pages 67 and 68). While I’m a big fan of pasture-based animal agriculture and think it’s a win-win-win-win situation for human health, animal welfare, pollution (not CO2), and economic benefits to farmers (Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed!), I’m not naïve enough to think that these are the types of changes the USDA would attempt to make in order to stem “climate change”. This is wholly apart from the question of whether that change is occurring, what its causes are if that is the case, and whether the USDA’s attempts at central planning would actually work (and I suspect they would not). This is simply not going to happen in the current political climate in the US, when politically connected Monsanto al. preen about "sustainability", the farmers who grow Monsanto’s crops receive literally billions in corporate welfare yearly, and environmental do-gooders everywhere exalt the benefits of a plant-based diet to reduce environmental impact and feed more people. Monsanto also gloats over a 10% reduction of methane by using rBST (a product it has now sold to another company) in feedlot cows when a 50% reduction is reported using pasture and the milk from pastured cows is more nutritious. There’s sustainability and there’s sustainability*. Interestingly, New Zealand has a huge animal products market for the size of its country, and has pasture-based animal husbandry with very low costs of production. Guess what else New Zealand did last year? They halted their new climate change program. Of course, that’s not a scientific point and doesn’t prove anything about climate change either way. However, it’s worth considering that New Zealand is a pretty “green” country. The fact that they can step back and re-assess the value of a cap and trade scheme is worth noticing. The fact that New Zealand, and now Australia, are questioning the wisdom of cap and trade schemes, has not been lost on the climate change alarmists, whose message gets shriller and shriller by the day -- nay, the hour. Practically 50% or more of the articles coming in through my Scientific American feed are about climate change. Some of the titles are truly absurd. Then there’s this post from realclimate.org popped up in my Google Reader yesterday. It’s basically an attempt to dismiss an EPA document that raises the idea that the EPA’s position on climate science might be wrong. Click on over and check it out. (You might want to have a paper bag handy, though. It’s that nauseating.) So I got curious and clicked on Alan Carlin’s EPA document, which is linked in the realclimate.org post, to see whether Gavin Schmidt’s (of realclimate.org fame) allegations were true. Besides the fact that I think Carlin makes some good points (I only skimmed this), the review of Carlin’s document at realclimate.org is very lacking in substance. Gavin Schmidt minimizes the impact that bloggers can have (one wonders if this also includes him?) and attempts to detract from the opinions of anyone who disagrees with him when they are not climate scientists. He also under-reports the amount of peer-reviewed research Carlin cites. While peer review does not necessarily mean anything important scientifically, Carlin cites at least 30 peer-reviewed papers, a heft minority of them published in Science. Did Schmidt think no one would click the link to Carlin's document and read? But here’s the main problem with Schmidt’s line of argumentation (besides the fact that it’s rude and condescending, which is an immediate turn-off). Generally, he mentions someone’s lack of climate science credentials as often as he possibly can. Interestingly, Gavin Schmidt leaves out the point that although Carlin is an economist, he is an environmental economist and has a degree in physics. Claiming that someone is unqualified to comment on climate science because he is a physicist is a bit like saying that someone is unqualified to comment on nutrition because he’s a biochemist. It’s ridiculous. I don’t like the tactics of the APGW community. Argument from authority and ad hominem argumentation are simply not arguments. I’ve seen such comments all too many times in the field of nutrition. The comments line to this post is a good example. If a person can’t debate a matter by referring to the facts of reality, cannot admit errors, and/or must instead defensively sling insults to persuade others, then I can come to no other conclusion than that person is intellectually dishonest. (Or they could just be ignorant – but this doesn’t apply when the person has staked their entire career on a particular stance.) Ordinarily, none of this would matter much, but as fellow ecologist and evolutionary biologist Elisheva Levin explains, in this case the government is on the side of the global warming alarmists that think regulation and taxes are the answers to all of our problems: These people in Congress are not benevolent. They live for a momentary gain, and do not consider the future of tax slavery and misery to which they condemn their own posterity. They are like lemmings running blindly over a cliff. And it will not matter one iota in the vast reaches of planetary time. The climate cycles of the planet will continue to wax and wane in great temporal cycles. Species will come, and species will go. Earth abides. sustainability* The Feasibility of a Pastured Animal Production Model Diet for an UNhealthy Planet The Cow Tax and PeTA’s Dishonesty More on Meat and Sustainability — and a Challenge to Environmentalists Thoughts on the Environmental Effects of Carnivory and Veganism Labels: Global Warming, Government Idiocy E-mail Monica    PermaLink    3 Comments   Tuesday, March 24, 2009 More on Meat and Sustainability -- and a Challenge to Environmentalists By Monica @ 3:54 PM I've had several diligent people forward me this news story via email over the past few days. It's a popular summary of a new "study" that "proves" that red meat causes cancer. The particular claims with regard to this article have already been thoroughly rebutted elsewhere and I have it on Dr. Eades' own word that he is going to blog on this study as well. Update: he has. The first thing that occurred to me when I read this popular report was that lots of Americans get their "cancer causing" red meat served to them on a great big white bun with a load of other carbohydrates (soda, chips, fries) and inflammation-causing n-6 vegetable oils (chips, fries, salad dressings) on the side. Correlation is not causation. The authors of this study need to go back and take a good statistics course and learn how to control other dietary variables correctly. But now I get to my point. Interestingly, this "red meat causes cancer" article heavily mixes "dietary" science (not that the dietary science is even good) with "advocacy" science. In other words: not only is meat bad for us, it's bad for the environment. Here we go again. Articles such as these are why I recently blogged on this topic of meat and the environment here and here. Some people may not care, but I think it's important to evaluate these claims to see whether they are actually true. The idea that meat eating is unsustainable is appearing more and more in the popular press, and the message is getting shriller and shriller. Someone whom I can't remember once said, "Advocacy science is not science." I think there's a great deal of truth to that statement. When we become advocates of something, it can cloud our judgment and objectivity and create a confirmation bias. (This is also true for "paleo" dieters and meat eaters.) We should always be on the lookout for deviations from our assumptions -- unless, of course, they are the most basic of facts. Thankfully, I am not the only blogger who has recently picked up on this topic of meat and the environment. Here are some excerpts from an enlightening post by Robb Wolf entitled Meat, Global Warming and Markets: The Fish paper starts off with some dismissive language about the “over-hyped” benefits of fish oil…then changes tac(sic) completely and begins hand wringing about fish-stocks and sustainability. Oweee-kayyy. Tens of thousands of studies citing the benefits of n-3’s, synergy with what we know about our ancestral diet, the ONLY cited reason for the aparent(sic) health of the Inuit on their ancestral diet…and it’s all han(sic)-waved away, never explained…and the rest of the paper is focussed(sic) on the hot topic of global warming and sustainability! Keep this in mid as we look at a clinical intervention of the paleo diet in humans. In this paper a represnetitive(sic) paleolithic diet is compared to the the much vaunted mediteranian(sic) diet…in a sick population of folks WITH ischemic heart disease. It’s worth noting that the paleo-nay-sayers have whined for years: “there is no evidence! We need clinical studies!!” Well…here is a clinical trial showing compelling evidence for the superiority of a paleo diet over a medeteranian(sic) diet…and the main critiques of the paper focus on sustainability, not the validity of the science at hand. Here is a similar study with similar, non-science related critiques which focus instead on environmental issues and sustainability. Before I go on I want to come clean with what my political leanings are: Lover of free-markets, strongly identify with the Liberatarian(sic) party. This puts me squarely in a position to constantly piss-off and annoy left-leaning hippies and religious right-wingers alike. If you can piss nearly everyone off, you know you are onto something good. So, on the one hand I’me(sic) very happy to see the positive press these paleo clinical trials are getting. Right on the heels of that excitement and optimism is a sinking feeling when the discussion shifts to global warming, sustainability and the like. Why? Because it is shifting the argument just as the vegetarians are getting painted into a corner with no escape. The notion that our ancestral diet is the healthiest one, if right, will gain momentum and support. The only way to discredit this way of eating then is to throw up a boogey-man of fear and play on peoples guilt... Fast forward to today, we still have the hand-wringing Malthusiast’s who are convinced we are all on a collision course with disaster unless we bocome low-fat vegetarians and export this lifestyle to everyone else on the planet. Much todo is made that a more meat based diet is unsustainable…but then again, modern farming practices rely on non-renewable fossil fuels, and as such plant based diets are apparently unsustainable also! Somehow the study authors find that a lacto-ovo diet is superior to alternative approaches…I’d like to dig through that study and see what they are using for numbers, but it just does not sit well. Interestingly, no one looks at the picture when we are talking grassfeeding and a more paleo type diet. Perhpas(sic) counter intuitively, a meat, fruit and vegetables diet appears to kill FEWER animals than a vegetarian, grain based diet…this throwing the least harm notion on it’s head. Also, small scale grassfed meat production appears to not only be sustainable, but also highly profitable. Most of the energy production of meat is tied up in grain production. Shift to grassfed meat and you remove this expensive and dirty process from the equation while also increasing the health of meat consumers. Can we feed everyone like this? Will global warming kill us all? The best way to control ALL these problems is some kind of population control and ironically, the best population control is prosperity. Rich nations have fewer children. The counter salvo from the Malthusiasts is that rich nations require a lot of energy…true, but we are only seeing the beginning of green, sustainable energy, and the main driving force here is an open market. India and China are bypassing decades of development the US went through and are comparitively much cleaner than we were. Speaking of sustainability…the US is headed for a serious problem with health/healthcare and the answer being bantied about is state funded healthcare…whcih has been a stunning failure everywhere else it’s been instituted, but we seem bent on this path…because in the words of Sen. Mcgovern(sic) “We must do something”. My main point here is that we need to tackle these issues ONE AT A TIME. When the vegetarians start shifting arguments mid-stream this is BS and it obscures the topic at hand. This is also the classic ploy of someone who is loosing an argument. My secondary point is that the “sustainability” issue is anything but clear and history has shown that markets and innovation trump doomsayers…no matter how badly they want the end-days to be at hand. Indeed. In my previous writings, I hadn't even gotten into the idea that cattle might create a carbon sink on pasture, because foraging on grass spurs its growth via activation of the intercalary meristem. I would not be surprised if the articles Robb links above mention this point. I didn’t bother to do a search on Cambridge Scientific Abstracts to find articles that supported my point when I wrote about environmental effects of meat here and here, and more distantly in the past, here. Why didn't I do this? First, I already have a firm grasp of ecology (I have a bachelor's, master's, and PhD degrees in biology with a heavy focus on courses in ecology). Thus, I can already deduce that the basic arguments from the vegan/environmentalist side do not add up. However, my arguments would have been more well-supported with evidence from quality peer-reviewed articles. (I stress the term quality since we all know there is a good deal of very bad science that has been nominally peer-reviewed.) So I have to thank Robb for providing these links to some apparently peer-reviewed sources in his post above. Though I haven't read them yet, I suspect they will provide a good start for more in-depth research. I may do a heavier literature search at some point with better supporting documentation for the exact energy inputs for vegan/industrial, vegan/nonindustrial, meat heavy/industrial, and meat heavy/nonindustrial diets. Someone really needs to do such research and that research, whatever the findings, needs to be honestly publicized. Unfortunately, the popular press has a tendency to skew the reporting toward their own biased position. People have heard the "meat is unsustainable" claim so frequently that I fear it is growing a life of its own. Regardless of the fact that it may be interesting to know how much energy is used to produce various types of foods, I don't understand why people are getting worked up about cattle and the potential effect of cattle on global warming. This is "science" that is conducted in a manner that is blinkered to evolutionary history, just like the dietary "science." It makes no sense, even if you think global warming is a significant long-term problem for humanity. What were pre-industrial levels of these supposed "greenhouse gases"? We know the answer for CO2, but methane is rarely discussed in global warming circles in this regard, though it is reputed to have a much more potent effect than CO2. Grass-fed cows may produce half the methane as grain-fed cows, but reasonable estimates are that there were, in pre-settlement days, anywhere from equal to twice the amount of bison biomass as the biomass in our current national cattle herd. Thus, I pose the following questions to all enviromentalists who believe meat is a problem for the environment: 1) Was there a “methane” problem prior to white settlement during the days when millions of majestic bison roamed the plains of the Americas? 2) If the bison herd was producing roughly equivalent amounts of methane thousands of years ago in comparison to the national cattle herd today, why are we worrying about it? This is a natural level if you consider humans to be "non-natural" and the source of the problem here. I have not yet heard or seen a logical rebuttal to these two basic questions. I'm open to reasonable arguments. Any takers? Labels: Bison, Buffalo, Global Warming, Grass-fed, Just Say No To Bad Science, Meat Myths, Modern Ignorance, Nutritional Guidelines, Pastured E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Monday, March 9, 2009 The Cow Tax and PeTA's Dishonesty By Monica @ 12:55 PM I've written previously on the EPA's grand scheme to tax farm animals because they emit "greenhouse gases." Even Fox News reported on this story awhile back. Both a PeTA spokesperson, and the owner of Nature's Harmony Farm in Georgia, were interviewed with regard to the "cow tax". I can't find a way to embed the video of the interview in this post, so be sure to click here and view the video yourself before reading further. OK, did you watch it? You may be surprised to hear me say that I don't disagree with most of the points that the PeTA spokesperson presents. (I wholly disagree with the philosophy that farmers need to "give back". Wouldn't it be easier to just not let them take taxpayer dollars in the first place?) There are a few minor errors, but mostly, he's correct that tens of billions of dollars are poured into factory farming yearly, and that we have a socialized factory farming system. Before I get on to my analysis of his statements, let me say that one thing I found very interesting was the PeTA spokesperson's use of certain terms to appeal to people on both sides of the political spectrum. Instead of sound reasoning, this is a trick more and more people are using to disarm their opponents, and it borders on ad hominem argumentation. The term "socialized" appeals to the conservatives. The term "factory farming" appeals to the liberals. If you use these code words, you can subconsciously get a variety of people on your side who might otherwise oppose you. Clever. The dishonesty isn't in what facts were presented. The dishonesty is in what facts that were conveniently left out. Sure, cows emit methane and alter the biodiversity of natural ecosystems, and feedlots contribute to water pollution. However, it's extremely deceptive or ignorant to argue that one is aiding the environment simply by avoiding meat, as I've described in detail before. Let's get to the criticisms. First, which factory farmers are subsidized? Let's have a look at the agricultural products that get subsidies, shall we? Let's see... it looks like roughly 15 billion of the 177 billion in farm subsidies go to livestock production, a whopping 8 percent or so. Where does the rest of the 92% of the subsidy money go? To all the other crops and the chief behemoths of the USDA food pyramid : corn and wheat. None of these crops and the carbon released from tilling the soil to produce them, nor the darling of the vegan movement -- soy -- gets a mention by PeTA. He knows that soy is about as equaly subsidized as all livestock, erodes the soil, and poisons the Gulf of Mexico. However, he'd rather not share that due to his ideological bias. The second delusion is in thinking that farming is (or was, even 50 years ago) sustainable long term without animals. I ask any vegan reading this to please supply me with an example of an ecosystem where nutrients aren't returned to the soil via primary through tertiary consumers. Without domestic animals, where would this fertilizer come from? Humans, presumably? I'm all for that, but the fact is that we're not doing it. We have divorced animal fertilizer from the farm and replaced it with nitrogen that is pulled from the air and turned into fertilizer using incredible amounts of fossil fuel. We violate those laws of nature by not returning the other nutrients to our food as well, and we cannot continue that process indefinitely. Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. Do vegans care about soil fertility? Apparently not, or they would not suggest that healthy food can be grown without domestic animals, which they'd like to wipe from the face of the Earth. Remember, domestic animal extinction is PeTA's goal. Their goal is not just vegetarianism for everyone and the abolition of meat eating, and they are not particularly concerned about environmental quality or human health, either. While other vegans may be so deluded into thinking that agriculture is possible and sustainable without animals, PeTA is not. Their goal is ending any exploitation of animals whatsoever, including animals for any purpose in agriculture. Don't be fooled. Their goal isn't mere vegetarianism, it's veganism -- because if you want to make domestic animal species extinct that necessarily eliminates any source of non-meat animal products such as butter, milk, or eggs OR animal fertilizer. Vegans who are vegans for ideological reasons don't even eat honey because they believe they are exploiting the bees. (Obviously it goes without saying that this is a complete deviation from the evolutionary history of human foodways.) If you need some convincing that PeTA's goals are that radical, that they want to eliminate domesticated farm animals entirely and for any purpose whatsoever, here are some quotes of people from various organizations, most notably Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), with known alliances to PeTA: "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP of Humane Society of the US, formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Animal People, May, 1993 "My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." JP Goodwin, employed at the Humane Society of the US, formerly at Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, as quoted on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group in 1996. "The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to call ourselves advocates of animal rights." Gary Francione, The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55. "...the animal rights movement is not concerned about species extinction. An elephant is no more or less important than a cow, just as a dolphin is no more important than a tuna...In fact, many animal rights advocates would argue that it is better for the chimpanzee to become extinct than to be exploited continually in laboratories, zoos and circuses." Barbara Biel, The Animals' Agenda, Vol 15 #3. "It's not about loving animals. It's about fighting injustice. My whole goal is for humans to have as little contact as possible with animals." Gary Yourofsky, founder of Animals Deserve Adequate Protection Today and Tomorrow (ADAPTT), now employed as PeTA's national lecturer "We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd ed. "If that means going onto their farms, releasing their animals and burning the place to the ground, that's morally justifiable, in our opinion…There were always innocent people who got hurt somewhere along the way but it was important that those who oppressed one group of people be stopped, and we don't see the animal liberation struggle being substantially different from these [apartheid and slavery] other struggles.… A sustained campaign against a particular industry or a particular organization has the potential to be quite effective." Jerry Vlasak, in response to indictments of 11 ALF/ELF arsonists. AP, January 20, 2006. These true goals of PeTA align pretty well with such onerous schemes as the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and the cow tax. NAIS won't really hurt factory farmers since they are the ones who have been pushing for this program for 20 years and are the only ones who will benefit. But if you can shut down family farming of animals through a cow tax or NAIS, and if you can create extinctions of certain animal breeds through NAIS, then you can eventually shut down factory farming of animals, too. The goal of the animal rights activists is the elimination of animal agriculture, not factory farms. That's why PeTA supports the cow tax, which will only possibly be afforded by those producing animals at a huge economy of scale. Don't be fooled. PeTA are a group of bald-faced liars with an obvious agenda. I've already discussed the cattle emissions issue in a previous post, so if you haven't read it, it bears mentioning. As for the issue of biodiversity, I think I'll leave that to an excellent comment from a man named MikeL in this Mark Sisson post on veganism: And finally, anyone who argues that farming soy and grains is more sustainable than, for example, huge herds of free-ranging cattle and bison, has completely forgotten—or never knew—that the prairies of the American midwest were once home to some of the richest plant diversity in the temperate latitudes. But it’s gone now, ripped away to feed our insatiable appetite for cheap and unhealthy carbohydrates. And the residues of that farming is drifting down the Mississippi, killing life at the delta. Think about that the next time you bite into a faux-meat soy burger. So my advice to vegans and vegs: dump the sanctimony and eat some meat. We’ll all be better off for it. Indeed. Labels: Bison, Buffalo, corn, Ethics, Global Warming, Grains, Heritage Varieties, Meat Myths, NAIS, Nutritional Guidelines, soy, Subsidies E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Sunday, March 8, 2009 Thoughts on the Environmental Effects of Carnivory and Veganism By Monica @ 5:24 PM The popular press is awash with stories these days of how meat contributes to global warming and how many people are turning to veganism to reduce their "carbon footprint". There is even a proposed EPA tax on emissions from farm animals. From Scientific American articles, change.org pieces, and statements like this from respected nutritionists: "The more rice, corn, potatoes, sweet potatoes, and beans you eat, the trimmer and healthier you will be – and with those same food choices you will help save the Planet Earth too", environmentalists, vegans, and animal rights activists are attacking any and all methods of raising animals -- whether for meat, dairy, or any other use -- as contributing to "climate change." But is it true? Before I deal with actual truth or falsehood of such statements, I'd like to state my position on "climate change" so that I can be as transparent as possible here. First, I do believe the globe is probably warming, and that it might be happening at least partly from human activities. I honestly don't know. However, I don't believe that this in any way justifies the political "solutions" being proposed to "climate change" (cap and trade, coercive laws, etc.). I haven't actually investigated the global warming issue seriously from a scientific standpoint and don't really have time to do so right now. I used to be a dyed in the wool member of the global warming camp and have gone back and forth on the issue over the past, but the fact is that wherever the truth lies, my knowing it would make very little difference in my day to day activities, and thus, it ranks pretty low on my list of self-education priorities. If that disqualifies me in your mind from commenting on the issue of carnivory vs. veganism as it relates to "climate change", so be it. I believe peoples' actual arguments, and whether they are logical or not, are the things that we should be dealing with. Now that we have that out of the way, let's consider the issue. First, let's be honest. Vegans and vegetarians raise a number of valid points when it comes to meat production. Some of these are actual problems and some may not be problems but the facts remain: feedlots often contribute to waterway pollution, cattle release methane, and that the way in which the animals are raised (indoors, confined, unsanitary conditions, fed antibiotics as a routine measure because of the immense crowding and wrong food which both foster illness) is, by and large, inhumane. I've blogged on each of these points before, including the absurdity and wastefulness of subsidizing this inefficient method of raising animals through the EQIP program. Further, it is absolutely true that as we increase in each level of the food chain from primary producer (plants, algae) to primary consumers eating primary producers, to secondary consumers (animals that eat primary consumers), to tertiary consumers (this last category are the top predators in any ecosystem and eat both primary and secondary consumers: wild cats, dogs, humans, eagles, etc. are examples) about 90% of the energy ingested as food is lost as heat and only 10% is converted to biomass. There are some variations in those numbers, but those are the basics: lots of energy lost as heat or waste products as you go up in the food chain/food web. This all makes perfect sense from the standpoint of physics and basic physiology/metabolism. It's so well-documented in the literature that I see no reason to provide references. No one disputes that most of the energy from the fuel in the internal combustion engine is lost as heat rather than converted into mechanical power. It's the same principle in living organisms. This is the reason that in any given ecosystem, there's an immense amount of biomass of primary producers and hardly any biomass, comparatively speaking, of tertiary consumers, i.e. top predators. This is also the basis for claiming that meat contributes to global warming. After all, if you are running grass or grain through an animal before that animal food gets to a human, lots of the energy is lost as heat or waste. Waste products of respiration are CO2 and water (or CO2 and ethanol or lactic acid if you're a fermenter). One of the waste products of the bacteria in ruminants is methane. Of course, we all know that CO2 and methane are the alleged "bad actors" of "climate change." The logic of the vegan argument is that if you bypass eating the ruminants (or any other animal, for that matter) you are more efficient at converting the calories of primary production (plants) into biomass and you avoid the energy "wastage" and extra CO2 and methane production. But there are just a few problems with this very simplistic line of argumentation. Let's address them. First, the assertion that humans evolved as vegetarians, or that their most recent common ancestor was vegetarian, has been blown out of the water. Personally, I think a good vegan diet with proper supplementation and avoidance of processed food is probably head and shoulders about even the standard American diet. But that's not the point. The point is, should people have the right to eat the diet they are designed evolutionarily to eat, the diet that is in their own best interest? Or should they eat a vegan diet to "save the planet", in the words of Dr. McDougall? It's a valid question. If you believe a vegan diet is optimal, that's fine for you, but there are serious issues with the scientific basis of such an argument from an evolutionary and nutritional standpoint. And certainly such a diet shouldn't be foisted on humans everywhere for political reasons if the point of morality is to teach us how to enjoy life to its fullest (as opposed to sacrificing for someone or something else, ultimately suffering or dying sooner than necessary). Let's take the issue of energy loss. Yes, it's true that lots of food energy is lost as heat when we eat animals. However, there are more subtle points to consider. How does the caloric intake differ between vegans and carnivores or even vegans and meat-heavy omnivores? If Good Calories, Bad Calories is any indication, those with carb-heavy (read: plant-heavy) diets are driven to ingest more calories. I've certainly found this to be true in my own experience. A meat-heavy diet, at least as far as my own personal experience, results in spontaneously reduced caloric intake of as much as 800 calories daily. That's something that is never accounted for in the "carbon footprint" calculations. And honestly, what quantity of greenhouse gases are produced by grain- and legume-fed vegetarians? Beans, beans, the musical fruit, the more you eat the more you toot. Seriously, eating high-carb plant foods causes the production of more intestinal gas. I'm not sure what the chemical composition of that gas is, but the presence of the gas is something everyone who has switched from a high carb to a low carb diet, or spends a lot of time around bean-eating vegetarians, can amply attest to. Moving on. Is most of the world's land arable and suitable for crop production? It is not. I've blogged about that before. In fact, this is considered a major problem of plant biotechnologists who develop breeding programs to develop crops for less than optimal conditions. Lots of the earth's land, however, is rangeland and quite suitable for animal production. Another problem is the simplistic assumption about modern-day vs. ancient production of CO2 and methane from cattle. Actually, I'm not even sure the vegan "climate change" activists or their followers want to consider this. There are currently about 100 million head of cattle in the United States. Most of our cattle are grain-fed for at least part of their lives and grain-fed cattle produce about twice as much methane as grass-fed cows. However, they are not grain-fed their entire lives. My best estimate is that at any given point, around 25 million head are being fed this way. Estimates of the number of bison present in pre-settlement times is also as high as 100 million head, with bison being about twice as big as cows. I'm sure many people find it difficult to believe that the American continent could foster twice as much ruminant biomass as it currently does, but the fact is that the Americans plains soil was extremely fertile before modern grain- and soy-based agriculture washed much of it into the ocean, with enormous amounts of primary production (much of it underground in the form of prairie grass). I'm not sure how many head of bison were turned over yearly to predation or hunting. Today, approximately 1/4 of the national herd of cattle makes its way into the food chain yearly. But assuming that grass-fed bison produce similar amounts of methane to grass-fed cows, and that there could have been twice as much bison biomass as current cattle biomass, that means there were probably very similar amounts of methane being produced all along and that this hasn't changed much historically. This pretty much blows away the argument that we should consider cattle per se a significant problem when it comes to global warming. Finally, let's consider the darling of the environmentalist/vegan movement: soy. Let's be fair -- soy is a nitrogen fixing plant, meaning it can pull useless nitrogen gas from the air and turn it to valuable, fertilizing ammonia with the aid of bacterial endosymbionts in the root tissue. Even Thomas Jefferson recognized the value of using legume crops such as vetch to restore fertility to depleted soil. Still, soy is a plant with a shallow root system that results in soil erosion when grown in monoculture. Soy is often shipped up from South America, grown on land where rainforests once grew. Then, if the pure soybeans aren't eaten, and they usually aren't, they are processed in an extruder. Here is a picture of a soy extruder: Hint: that puppy doesn't work on solar or wind power. Now let's consider the grain-based diet that the vegans want us to go on. Any crop grown in the US today post-1950s in the era of subsidy-powered commodity agriculture requires vast amounts of ammonia fertilizer input through the Haber process. Animals could provide a much more balanced source of fertilizer, and played an important role in agriculture besides meat production prior to the 1950s. Long-term, there is simply no way to completely amend soil without farm animals if we want optimal plant (and thus, human) nutrition. These are the very animals many vegan activists would like to see eliminated to solve "climate change". Even that is absurd. Let's consider the Haber process, shall we? It is responsible for 1/4 of the world's nitrogen fixation and works by burning nitrogen and hydrogen gas through four rounds of heating to between 300-550 degrees C, to produce NH3. Hint: the fuel for the Haber process does not come from solar or wind power. OK, vegan activists for climate change. Please tell me which of the two options you think uses more fossil fuel: 1) The Haber process and the fuel required to transport the products of the Haber process to the fields? Or 2) locally raised animals depositing their dung directly on the fields, with all the necessary nutrients (not just nitrogen), as they did 50 years ago and as they still do on many family farms in the United States? I hope I have demolished the idea that you have any idea how much carnivory vs. veganism truly contributes to "climate change" or "greenhouse gas" production without doing a lot more in-depth calculation in all of the areas mentioned above. Personally, I think my locally raised real bacon is a lot more environmentally friendly than the soy-based Smart Bacon grown with Haber-produced ammonia, shipped to the US, and then processed in an extruder which uses petroleum products. Here are the ingredients in Smart Bacon: Water, soy protein isolate, wheat gluten, soybean oil, textured soy protein concentrate, textured wheat gluten, less than 2% of: natural smoke flavor, natural flavor (from vegetable sources), grill flavor (from sunflower oil), carrageenan, evaporated cane juice, paprika oleoresin (for flavor & color), potassium chloride, sesame oil, spice extractives, fermented rice flour, tapioca dextrin, citric acid, salt. Look at the amount of processing involved. Many of the substances in bold are produced or extracted through an industrial process. How much fossil fuel is used to produce "environmentally friendly" products like Smart Bacon vs. real bacon? Want to bet? Having fallen prey to "meat is bad for the environment" arguments myself in the past, it disturbs me to see these arguments advance. More and more people are adopting the idea that they will "save the planet" through veganism, often at the expense of their own health. It's fine if their choices stop with them, but ten years ago "cap and trade" would been inconceivable to most people. Today it's being offered up as an actual political "solution", and not a voluntary one. If someone had told me five years ago that the EPA would even consider taxing emissions from farm animals, I'd have laughed in your face. In light of that, ask yourself whether any of the following is truly an exaggeration: How long before our animal protein is rationed for the sake of "saving the planet"? How long after that before vegans, animal rights activists, and environmentalists seriously push to limit or forbid raising livestock in the name of protecting the environment? And how long after that before we're all forced to be vegan? In my practical experience, many of the followers of the vegan movement who do so for environmental reasons are, for whatever reason, unable to understand or investigate the science behind the claims for their action. They are simply woefully ignorant. They aren't actually evil people. But the originators of such claims (PETA and others), those who can understand science and who either knowingly start or perpetuate lies for their own ideological ends at the expense of the truth, are hopelessly corrupt. These lies need to be exposed. More than the simple truth is at stake. For some of us, our very sustenance depends on it. HT for soy extruder picture: Cheeseslave Labels: Bison, Buffalo, Ethics, Global Warming, Government Idiocy, Grass-fed, Individual Rights, Meat Myths, Pastured, Subsidies E-mail Monica    PermaLink    4 Comments   Saturday, December 27, 2008 USDA Announces New Bureaucratic Branch By Monica @ 2:39 PM From Grainnet: Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer announced Dec. 19, the intention to establish a new USDA Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets and the creation of a federal government-wide Conservation and Land Management Environmental Services Board to assist the Secretary of Agriculture in the development of new technical guidelines and science-based methods to assess environmental service benefits which will in turn promote markets for ecosystem services including carbon trading to mitigate climate change. "Our Nation's farms, ranches and forests provide goods and services that are vital to society - natural assets we call "ecosystem services," said Schafer. "The Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets will enable America's agriculture producers to better compete, trade their services around the world, and make significant contributions to help improve the environment." Agriculture producers provide many ecosystem services which have historically been viewed as free benefits to society - clean water and air, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and scenic landscapes. Lacking a formal structure to market these services, farmers, ranchers and forest landowners are not generally compensated for providing these critical public benefits. Market-based approaches to conservation are proven to be a cost-effective method to achieve environmental goals and sustain working and natural landscapes. Without financial incentives, these ecosystem services may be lost as privately-owned lands are sold or converted to development. Earth to government, earth to government! Here's the real market-based approach the government could use: get out of agriculture. The USDA should not be setting up a new bureaucracy to pay farmers to do something sensible because it has been paying them to do something un-sensible for the past 90 years. It's the whole bailout nonsense all over again. This news is frustrating, because when you look at the history of the USDA it becomes clear that the policies it has supported in the past, which encouraged unsustainable agriculture, have clearly led to "conservation" incentives like EQIP and CRP. USDA policies have given rise to so many problems that we have today, including the depression of agricultural land prices that has spurred the sale of agricultural land for development -- which is now to be "offset" but this Office of Ecosystem Services! What else will need to be offset by the Office of Ecosystem Services? The USDA's biofuels boondoggle. The USDA is subsiziding ethanol to the tune of 50 cents on the dollar because corn-based ethanol (as opposed to cellulosic) is economically unsustainable on its own. What is the effect? Net CO2 released into the atmosphere (not sequestered as was originally thought and intended) and the promotion of ecologically unsustainable soil erosion and nutrient depletion as farmers for the first time ever plant corn on corn on corn. (And of course this is a violation of taxpayers' rights by stealing the wealth of all to provide gifts to corn farmers for a product that could not compete in a free market.) The logical solution is to eliminate the ethanol subsidies, eliminate the grain subsidies, and return to a sustainable system of agriculture with animals as the basis of healthy, fertile soil as we largely had before the Butz era. A lack of government intervention would honestly lead to more ecosystem services (and yes, it's a valid concept). This won't happen because Obama has appointed Tom Vilsack for Secretary of Agriculture, who is a true believer in biofuels and NAIS. It is going to be business as usual at the USDA, despite all of Obama's talk of "change". Now we will have an Office of Ecosystem Services to deal with the ethanol problem that largely rose in the Bush administration. Do you see how this works? There is no admission of a problem by the USDA. Even though they know biofuels is a boondoggle, they can't reverse ethanol spending too quickly because it would undermine their credibility (ethanol subsidies actually were reduced in the most recent Farm Bill, but the spending has only gone down by around 10%, around 5 cents on the dollar). No, instead the USDA will distract the public and spend more of their tax dollars on another new bureaucracy to pretend that it is actually doing something useful. It's all about job security for the folks at the USDA. Farmers periodically took their land out of production for millenia, all without a government directing them to do it, and they would have been doing so all along if the USDA hadn't interfered in the first place. We would have had more scenic landscapes, less water pollution, more wildlife habitat, and probably more carbon sequestration if the USDA hadn't been so busy trying to "feed the world" with grain subsidies for the past 40 years. Now we have a new bureaucracy designed to "fix" the "problems" it has created. Business as usual at the USDA. And the only "change" we will have is what little is left in our wallets at the end of the Obama administration. Labels: Global Warming, Government Idiocy, Why the USDA is Not Your Friend E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments   Tuesday, December 16, 2008 Exemption to Cow Fart Tax in the Works By Monica @ 9:10 AM From MadisoNet.com: An aide to Sen. John Thune says Thune's bill to exempt livestock from the Clean Air Act has been filed with the clerk of the U.S. Senate. ... The Environmental Protection Agency has denied it is targeting livestock as a potential tax source. ... Last month, the American Farm Bureau Federation said it is convinced the EPA's proposal to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act will result in new taxes on livestock operations. The farm group cited U.S. Department of Agriculture figures and said any farm or ranch with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs emits more than 100 tons of carbon equivalent per year. Therefore, the Farm Bureau says, those operations -- making up more than 90 percent of U.S. dairy, beef and pork production -- would have to get a permit under the proposed EPA rules. The Farm Bureau says the fees would mean annual assessments of more than $100 per dairy cow, $87.50 per head of cattle and $20 per hog. As usual, the bureaucrats back down and deny everything when their evil plans are exposed. I'm glad the lawmakers are sitting up and taking notice on this one. Plans for a cow fart tax under the Clean Air Act emerged only a few weeks ago, mostly in obscure local newspapers, online sources, and only one source which I would consider mainstream (Yahoo news). However, there was an enormous stink about this in the blogosphere and farming communities who contacted their lawmakers, which I'm sure had an effect. (This is yet another reason why it is so important to keep the government's slimy hands off the internet, too!) This goes to show that putting up a stink to protect our rights will work but it has to happen early on -- before the bureaucratic nonsense begins. Constant vigilance! Labels: EPA Tyranny, Global Warming, Government Idiocy E-mail Monica    PermaLink    1 Comments   Monday, December 8, 2008 Cow Fart Tax Coming Your Way By Monica @ 4:06 PM If someone had told me five years ago that the EPA would start taxing farting cows to control greenhouse gas emissions, I would have laughed in their face. It is now happening. The flatheads at the EPA are going to tax flatulence. But first, a bit of history. This summer, Dr. John Lewis published a timely call to action: In July the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which details their plan to force Americans to reduce emissions of CO2 and other so-called “greenhouse gases.” This follows on an Executive Order signed by President Bush, which was made possible by a U.S. Supreme Court decisions ruling that CO2 is a “pollutant.” (!) This plan will strip the American people of their freedom, and place them under the control of a single, all-powerful, federal agency. Industrial permits, furnace regulations, auto emissions testing, building permits, transportation, and food production—all will fall under the boot of the EPA. Environmentalists will use lawsuits to pressure the EPA to tighten an ever-shrinking noose around the neck of every American. The EPA's document starts with a clear warning that using the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 will lead to uncontrollable growth of the agency’s power: "EPA’s analyses leading up to this ANPR have increasingly raised questions of such importance that the scope of the agency’s task has continued to expand. For instance, it has become clear that if EPA were to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act, then regulation of smaller stationary sources that also emit GHGs [Greenhouse Gases] – such as apartment buildings, large homes, schools, and hospitals – could also be triggered. One point is clear: the potential regulation of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land." (ANPR p. 5) The ANPR also includes the following, in a comment by the Department of Agriculture: "many of the emissions are the result of natural biological processes that are as old as agriculture itself. For instance, technology does not currently exist to prevent the methane produced by enteric fermentation associated with the digestive processes in cows and the cultivation of rice crops; the nitrous oxide produced from the tillage of soils used to grow crops; and the carbon dioxide produced by soil and animal agricultural respiratory processes. The only means of controlling such emissions would be through limiting production, which would result in decreased food supply and radical changes in human diets." (ANPR pp. 66-67) To the many who believe that these excerpts from the EPA's document are exaggeration, recent events have proven otherwise. The EPA has not lost any time in calculating how much to tax agriculture under its new plan to cut CO2 emissions, according to NoNAIS: In a massive power grab the EPA is attempting to tax all sources of greenhouse gasses. If your cow farts they want your money. Same goes for your pigs. Your house. Anything.... If the USDA EPA has their way it would impose an annual tax of $20 per pig and $87.50 per cow. Who knows how much they’ll tax your home or wood stove but you can bet once they get their slimy claws into your life they’ll never let go. (link inserted by me) Moreover, as explained by the blog author, Jeffries: In the Federal Registry the USDA comments discuss: If GHG emissions from agricultural sources are regulated under the CAA, numerous farming operations that currently are not subject to the costly and time-consuming Title V permitting process would, for the first time, become covered entities. Even very small agricultural operations would meet a 100-tons-per-year emissions threshold. For example, dairy facilities with over 25 cows, beef cattle operations of over 50 cattle, swine operations with over 200 hogs, and farms with over 500 acres of corn may need to get a Title V permit. It is neither efficient nor practical to require permitting and reporting of GHG emissions from farms of this size. Excluding only the 200,000 largest commercial farms, our agricultural landscape is comprised of 1.9 million farms with an average value of production of $25,589 on 271 acres. These operations simply could not bear the regulatory compliance costs that would be involved. Jeffries explains that presumably, the cost per animal is calculated through the Title V regulations. This has become more widely substantiated through other press releases and independent associations (you can simply google for other news reports if you desire). It is crucial for everyone to understand that the proposed tax on livestock is just the beginning. The underlying premise here is a tax on greenhouse gas emissions. According to EPA documents, they will have the authority to regulate any emissions of so-called greenhouse gases. This means the rest of agriculture as well (tilling the soil releases CO2), your woodstove, your barbeque grill, etc. The predictable result is that massive amounts of farmers would go out of business, consumer food prices would be driven through the stratosphere, and the EPA will continue to expand its powers as they draw new minimum thresholds of greenhouse gases. Jeffries further notes: You will have to make your house meet EPA standards, pay fees to get it inspected and approved or have it condemned. Want to talk housing crisis? Very few homes in America will meet the standards. This means all those homes will get dumped on the market for pennies on the dollar. That will create a new round of foreclosures and depress real estate prices further. The EPA is throwing gas on the fire. Having just read Harvest of Sorrow about the dekulakization of towns in Russia, I can’t help but notice the similarities between Soviet Russia and what our future situation might look like in the United States if we don't act and speak out. The result would be mass unemployment and an even greater reliance on foreign countries for our food. If these rules were to be strictly enforced, the ultimate result would be famine, death, and waves of people being hauled off to prison camps for minor infractions of agricultural codes, such as keeping a few extra chickens. In the end, it would be the downfall of the United States. It is all there in the government documents above. Unfortunately, both NAIS (see the post above) and the EPA taxes would dovetail to create disastrous government controls over our food, because the USDA would have the knowledge about all premises in the country where animals are raised and could simply pass this information to the EPA so they can collect their taxes. Many farmers are already being enrolled in the USDA’s “voluntary” NAIS program without their knowledge or consent. Both of these programs must be stopped before they are started. What can you do? First, you can speak up to the coming Obama administration about your views on such matters. Visit http://change.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment_agenda/ and http://change.gov/pages/rural_agenda/ and leave your comments about such matters as the USDA’s NAIS and EPA taxes on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. Second, you can look at my proposal on Obama's site and vote for it, here: http://www.change.org/ideas/view/stop_the_proposed_epa_taxes_under_anpr 158 more votes to get it to first place in the category of Global Warming! Come on, activists, let's overwhelm them with votes! Second, save the comments you submit to the Obama change.gov site and write your representatives and officials for office about your views. Write op-eds or letters to the editor. It is also of vital importance to simply spread the news to others. Alert your friends and family to these proposals by pointing them to our website and blog so that they can remain updated. Labels: EPA Tyranny, Global Warming, Government Idiocy, NAIS E-mail Monica    PermaLink    0 Comments