Posts Tagged environmentalism

On the Offensive

July 9, 2009 at 6:19 PM · Filed under Uncategorized ·Tagged , , , ,

Moo?

Moo?

This new article from Treehugger claims that attempts to present the argument that eating meat (albeit “ethically raised” “happy meat,”) is necessary to slow climate change. What the article does address is that ruminants (cows, bison, goats, etc) are a necessary part of the grassland ecosystem, providing the soil with a natural source of carbon. Lately, the carbon levels in the soil have decreased to merely a quarter or less of the carbon they once had. Allegedly, the carbon has switched phases from residing in the soil to residing in the atmosphere.

Ok, so cows need to roam free in their natural habitat. I don’t disagree with that.

The part that really offends me is that the author is implying that because the cows exist, we need to eat them, and that the cows only exist because there is a demand for them to exist. That is just not right. Cows existed in the wild ages before they were bred to serve “our needs” as a food source. Cows were placed on earth to fill a void in the ecosystem and to live for their own means. Because we’ve removed them from their natural habitat and bred them to best serve us as we feel we need them to, we have re-created the void. Furthermore, cows will not cease to exist if we stop eating them, just as apples wouldn’t cease to grow if we suddenly stopped picking them.

Additionally, the article is suggesting that we all switch to “organic,” grass-fed beef, which simply is not viable. The resources do not exist to produce the vast amount of beef that Americans consume every year in this manner. Meat is produced on factory farms for a reason- because that is the most economical means to produce the quantity of meat that is demanded. As long as Americans eat triple-bacon cheeseburgers and 21oz steaks, at least some of the meat will have to be obtained from factory farms, which are innately ethical and eco-disasters.

Comments (1)

Amazon.com’s Amazing Disappointment

July 9, 2009 at 3:25 PM · Filed under Uncategorized ·Tagged ,

This post isn’t necessarily about veganism, but I feel that veganism and environmentalism go hand-in-hand.

Yesterday, I ordered a couple of books from Amazon.com for a summer reading assignment. The default for when you order multiple items is if they can get one item to you faster than another, they will ship the two items separately. Well, this seems to happen to me quite frequently that they split up my orders, despite a note I wrote them last time I ordered requesting an option for the order to be delayed and shipped together. Amazon thinks they are providing good customer service by shipping the parts of the order as fast as possible, and not charging additional shipping. As an environmentalist, however, I would much prefer to wait for my order to ship as one unit and spare the extra set of packaging, especially since the delay would usually be only a couple days.

My other complaint is that I often receive items packed in boxes much larger than the actual item I ordered, stuffed with that plastic balloon packaging stuff to fill the box. Amazon.com is a large enough company to be able to stock a variety of different sized boxes instead of just a couple sizes that they use for everything.

In short, I think that Amazon.com could make a huge impact if they cut back on their packaging. If every person, or even every other person who orders from Amazon.com had the same issues with their orders, you could take all of that “spare” packaging and fill landfills! (not to mention the extra gasoline burned to transport the packages from place to place.)

So, I have a request: please join me in writing Amazon.com to complain and suggest that they offer the option of holding the parcel until all items can be sent together. (They don’t even have to do that with every order- just offer the option!) That way, we can keep more CO2 out of the air, and more packaging out of the landfill, and if some people still want to receive the same rapid service they’ve come to love from Amazon, they can. And if you want to complain about the mis-sized packaging, be my guest.
Furthermore, if you order something and they ignore your request to lump the order together and use less packaging, be sure to leave feedback about your dissatisfaction! Tell your friends! The more people we can get in on this, the more likely it is that we’ll see a change!

Leave a Comment

Eco-Terrorism Part Three: Where Obama Stands

March 1, 2009 at 11:48 PM · Filed under Uncategorized ·Tagged , , , , ,

In a 2005 hearing on eco-terrorism, Senator Barack Obama stated:

“In America, we have the right to disagree over personal beliefs – whether they are religious, philosophical or moral – and to express those beliefs peaceably. We have the right to assemble and to demonstrate. But, we do not have the right to destroy others’ property and to commit acts of violence in the name of free speech.”

Obama supports our right to legally exercise free speech in the name of any cause.

“I hope we are not headed down the path of infringing on the ability of legitimate advocacy organizations to express their opinions and to raise funds in order to do so. I do not want Americans to equate groups that advocate violence with mainstream environmental organizations.”

Obama understands that not all animal rights (or environmental) activists seek to commit crimes or other disrespectful acts, and wants this fact to be recognized by legislators and law enforcers.

“So, while I appreciate the Chairman’s interest in these fringe groups, I urge the Committee to focus its attention on larger environmental threats, such as the dangerously high blood lead levels in hundreds of thousands of children. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I believe the Committee’s time would be better spent learning why EPA has not promulgated regulations to deal with lead paint in remodeled homes. Such an oversight hearing could have a significant impact on improving the lives of children all over the country.”

All I have to say is, way to go Barack!

And from his inaugural address:

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

Once again, I’m going to have to disagree with Green is the New Red. Will pessimistically blogged that he doesn’t think Obama will confront any of these eco-terrorism issues and that those who are looking to Obama as a “savior” are overly hopeful and will be greatly disappointed. (Forgive me, I closed the page and can’t seem to re-discover this particular blog entry). I won’t say I’m worshipping the man, but I have great confidence in his power and determination to facilitate change (and to right all the wrongs that occurred during the Bush administration). Just as the magazine cover above suggests, I truly do look to Obama as “A New Hope.”

Photo courtesy of Rolling Stone.

Comments (1)

Eco-terrorism Part Two: Domestic Terror

March 1, 2009 at 8:38 PM · Filed under Uncategorized ·Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ever since 2005, the FBI has cited eco-terrorism as the number one domestic terrorist threat. (Never mind the fact that there are probably more important and more threatening security issues for them to be worrying about.)

The FBI has gone so far as to send undercover spies to events as innocent as vegan potlucks. This scares me, because I’m not one to risk attending protests and things that might reasonably get me in trouble with the police or FBI, but a vegan potluck is something that I’m likely to attend. In fact, whenever two activists connect, the FBI has their antenna out.

In January of 2006, the 109th Congress signed the Animal Enterpreise Terrorism Act, and a couple of weeks ago, according to Green is the New Red, four California activists were convicted under it, with charges of (as quoted from GITNR):

  • Protesting outside the home of a University of California Berkeley professor. Some activists, “wearing bandanas to hide their faces, trespassed on his front yard, chanted slogans, and accused him of being a murderer because of his use of animals in research.”
  • At another protest, activists “marched, chanted, and chalked defamatory comments on the public sidewalks in front of the residences.”
  • At one protest, a group of five or six activists allegedly “attempted to forcibly enter the private home of a University of California researcher in Santa Cruz.”
  • Fliers titled “Murderers and torturers alive & well in Santa Cruz July 2008 edition” were found at a local coffee shop. They listed the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of several researchers. The fliers said “animal abusers everywhere beware we know where you live we know where you work we will never back down until you end your abuse.” The FBI says three of the defendants are tied to the “production and distribution of the fliers.”

Now, only the third charge is actually illegal, and even the “threat” in the flyers is too vague to prove anything. Now, I don’t disagree with the act in itself- the provisions seem to be reasonable, being based around things that are indeed illegal. I guess what strikes me as weird is that they felt like they had to create it at all. We already have laws in place against arson and theft. So I guess my biggest complaint about it is that it paints the picture of activists as being “bad guys” and encourages others to think the same.

What do you think?

Leave a Comment

Think Beyond the Bottle

February 15, 2009 at 12:44 PM · Filed under Uncategorized ·Tagged , , , ,

An environmental evil

An environmental evil

One everyday item- the plastic water bottle- makes a HUGE carbon footprint, and by giving it up, we can make a huge difference. It takes 17 million barrels of oil to make all the bottles of water every year in the U.S.- just think of how many cars could run off of that fuel! In addition, 2.5 million tons of CO2 are released into the atmosphere every year from the transportation of the bottles and the factories that produce them. And, it turns out that bottled water isn’t regulated like we all think it is, so it’s not really safer or better for you than tap water. This is such an easy thing to change! It’s a small step, but it will make a huge difference. Just buy a sports water bottle if you have to carry water with you all the time and fill it with tap water.

Try one of these environmentally friendly options

Try one of these environmentally friendly options

Visit www.thinkoutsidethebottle.org for more details, and take the pledge to stop drinking bottled water.

And please, don’t replace your bottled water with other bottled beverages like soda or sports drinks. Really try to make an effort to give up the bottle as much as you can, or else you’re not really making the impact you think you are.

Leave a Comment