EPA could create U.S. CO2 cap-and-trade: Sierra
Tue Sep 8, 2009 6:45pm EDT
By Peter Henderson
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would step in and regulate carbon dioxide emissions by creating a cap-and-trade system or take other measures if Congress fails, but is likely to wait for 2010 elections, the head of the Sierra Club said on Tuesday.
The possibility of an end-run around Congress makes the prospect of U.S. carbon emission regulation likely despite current legislative debate, although President Barack Obama would prefer Congress lead the way, Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope told the Reuters Global Climate and Alternative Energy Summit in San Francisco.
"I would guess that between now and the (2010) midterms, you will see two things happen. One, EPA will begin actively regulating all of the other kinds of problems with coal fired power plants," Pope said, naming mercury emissions, particulate matter and mountaintop removal mining as examples.
"They will begin to create a context in which all the clunkers (coal plants) are going to get retired anyway. And they will lay the ground work for establishing carbon emissions standards for all large sources of carbon dioxide," he said. Read More
There is a very simple solution to all of the problems surrounding climate change legislation and that is for Congress to pass a one sentence bill that states carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. That would make this whole thing disappear and it would be in line with the original intent of the Clean Air Act. Even the original writers of that legislation said that they never intended for carbon dioxide to be regulated. Regardless of all that, it appears that the EPA will try to go around Congress and decide for themselves how to do this if the current legislation doesn’t go anywhere in the Senate. It’s obvious that people do not want cap and trade because if they did the free market system would already be meeting that demand.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
OH Issue 2
Issue 2 would decide who regulates animal care in Ohio's biggest business
Sunday, September 6, 2009 3:59 AM
By Alan Johnson
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
JOHNSTOWN, Ohio -- Jim Heimerl is among relatively few people in Ohio who know what State Issue 2 is about.
That's because Heimerl, 52, has a 2,500-acre, family-owned hog and cattle farm outside of Johnstown. He says his farm would be severely affected if a livestock-standards constitutional amendment is not approved in the Nov. 3 election.
Heimerl said he fears more-restrictive animal-care standards advocated by the Humane Society of the United States could be enacted, crippling agriculture, Ohio's No. 1 industry.
"I've become very involved in this," he said during an interview last week at his farm in rural Licking County, 23 miles from Downtown Columbus. "I've been in this business for 30 years. This is about our livelihood, my family's livelihood."
Issue 2 would set up the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board. The governor and legislature would appoint members, including family farmers, veterinarians, a food-safety expert, a representative of a local humane society, members of statewide farm organizations, the dean of an Ohio agriculture college and two consumers. The state agriculture director would lead the panel.
While Issue 2 might sound banal, even boring to Ohioans not involved in agriculture, it's far from that. Behind the scenes, it's a high-stakes, big-bucks financial battle that showed a flash of political intrigue this year when the Ohio General Assembly acted at lightning speed to put the issue on the ballot. Read More
Ohio family farmers have worked hard to put together Issue 2. In order for them to stay in business they must be afforded some sort of protection from Washington DC lobbyist groups swooping in and putting them out of business. In farming and ranching, you need to plan for several years down the road and this will allow them to do that. The passage of this bill by the citizens of Ohio will tell Wayne Pacelle and his anti-animal agriculture group to quit trying to put family farmers out of business.
Sunday, September 6, 2009 3:59 AM
By Alan Johnson
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
JOHNSTOWN, Ohio -- Jim Heimerl is among relatively few people in Ohio who know what State Issue 2 is about.
That's because Heimerl, 52, has a 2,500-acre, family-owned hog and cattle farm outside of Johnstown. He says his farm would be severely affected if a livestock-standards constitutional amendment is not approved in the Nov. 3 election.
Heimerl said he fears more-restrictive animal-care standards advocated by the Humane Society of the United States could be enacted, crippling agriculture, Ohio's No. 1 industry.
"I've become very involved in this," he said during an interview last week at his farm in rural Licking County, 23 miles from Downtown Columbus. "I've been in this business for 30 years. This is about our livelihood, my family's livelihood."
Issue 2 would set up the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board. The governor and legislature would appoint members, including family farmers, veterinarians, a food-safety expert, a representative of a local humane society, members of statewide farm organizations, the dean of an Ohio agriculture college and two consumers. The state agriculture director would lead the panel.
While Issue 2 might sound banal, even boring to Ohioans not involved in agriculture, it's far from that. Behind the scenes, it's a high-stakes, big-bucks financial battle that showed a flash of political intrigue this year when the Ohio General Assembly acted at lightning speed to put the issue on the ballot. Read More
Ohio family farmers have worked hard to put together Issue 2. In order for them to stay in business they must be afforded some sort of protection from Washington DC lobbyist groups swooping in and putting them out of business. In farming and ranching, you need to plan for several years down the road and this will allow them to do that. The passage of this bill by the citizens of Ohio will tell Wayne Pacelle and his anti-animal agriculture group to quit trying to put family farmers out of business.
Giving Animals Rights Degrades Humans
What’s wrong with animal rights
By Fr. Francis Ongkingco
Cebu Daily News
First Posted 11:26:00 09/05/2009
Clyde’s face was covered with tears as he watched the neighborhood gardener digging a small hole in their backyard. The boy was gently cradling in his hands his pet hamster , Lilpigmy, which unexpectedly died.
"It's okay, Clyde," his father comforted him. "We'll buy you another one."
"But Lilpigmy was really cute ‘n' smat [SOB, SOB, SNIFFLE]. I don't shink [SNIFF] we'll find anosher one like him," he said having difficulty talking without his newly pulled out front teeth.
All of us, at one time or another, have gone through Clyde's experience of having to part ways with a beloved pet dog, cat or goldfish. I also recall how teary-eyed I was as I slowly dug a “grave” for my two pet dachshunds that unexpectedly succumbed to heartworm. I solemnly marked the grim spot with flowers and a decent piece of cardboard with their names on it.
Today, however, some people are treating animals in a rather special way. They claim that animals have "rights" like people and therefore must be protected and respected even to the extreme that livestock and poultry should not be killed for man's basic consumption.
But do animals have rights at all? If ever, to what extent can we understand such “rights”? Are they the same as the rights we humans have? Read More
There are many people who continue to actively call for animals to be given rights like people enjoy. This author of this article mirrors the things that I have been saying about it. If human rights are given to animals, it essentially lowers what it means to be human. We are unique on this planet in that we have the ability to realize and comprehend what human rights should be. We can also realize that our creator has blessed us with this ability and a soul. It is our duty to treat animals with respect and it’s also our duty to recognize that human rights are a gift that we should equally respect.
By Fr. Francis Ongkingco
Cebu Daily News
First Posted 11:26:00 09/05/2009
Clyde’s face was covered with tears as he watched the neighborhood gardener digging a small hole in their backyard. The boy was gently cradling in his hands his pet hamster , Lilpigmy, which unexpectedly died.
"It's okay, Clyde," his father comforted him. "We'll buy you another one."
"But Lilpigmy was really cute ‘n' smat [SOB, SOB, SNIFFLE]. I don't shink [SNIFF] we'll find anosher one like him," he said having difficulty talking without his newly pulled out front teeth.
All of us, at one time or another, have gone through Clyde's experience of having to part ways with a beloved pet dog, cat or goldfish. I also recall how teary-eyed I was as I slowly dug a “grave” for my two pet dachshunds that unexpectedly succumbed to heartworm. I solemnly marked the grim spot with flowers and a decent piece of cardboard with their names on it.
Today, however, some people are treating animals in a rather special way. They claim that animals have "rights" like people and therefore must be protected and respected even to the extreme that livestock and poultry should not be killed for man's basic consumption.
But do animals have rights at all? If ever, to what extent can we understand such “rights”? Are they the same as the rights we humans have? Read More
There are many people who continue to actively call for animals to be given rights like people enjoy. This author of this article mirrors the things that I have been saying about it. If human rights are given to animals, it essentially lowers what it means to be human. We are unique on this planet in that we have the ability to realize and comprehend what human rights should be. We can also realize that our creator has blessed us with this ability and a soul. It is our duty to treat animals with respect and it’s also our duty to recognize that human rights are a gift that we should equally respect.
More Fear Tactics That Hurt Family Farmers
Food Is Power and the Powerful Are Poisoning Us
Posted on Sep 6, 2009
By Chris Hedges
Our most potent political weapon is food. If we take back our agriculture, if we buy and raise produce locally, we can begin to break the grip of corporations that control a food system as fragile, unsafe and destined for collapse as our financial system. If we continue to allow corporations to determine what we eat, as well as how food is harvested and distributed, then we will become captive to rising prices and shortages and increasingly dependent on cheap, mass-produced food filled with sugar and fat. Food, along with energy, will be the most pressing issue of our age. And if we do not build alternative food networks soon, the social and political ramifications of shortages and hunger will be devastating.
Food shortages have been tinder for social upheaval throughout history. But this time around, because we have lost the skills to feed and clothe ourselves, it will be much harder for most of us to become self-sustaining. The large agro-businesses have largely wiped out small farmers. They have poisoned our soil with pesticides and contaminated animals in filthy and overcrowded stockyards with high doses of antibiotics and steroids. They have pumped nutrients and phosphorus into water systems, causing algae bloom and fish die-off in our rivers and streams. Crop yields, under the onslaught of changing weather patterns and chemical pollution, are declining in the Northeast, where a blight has nearly wiped out the tomato crop. The draconian Food Modernization Safety Act, another gift from our governing elite to corporations, means small farms will only continue to dwindle in number. Sites such as La Via Campesina do a good job of tracking these disturbing global trends. Read More
Here’s another article trying to use fear to convince consumers that family farmers have disappeared and large corporations are forcing people to eat junk food. This article simultaneously talks of the dangers of rising food prices yet advocates for a less efficient system of producing food. Every grocery store I have ever been in, other than a Whole Foods store, has fresh meats and produce available at the most affordable prices on the planet. The biggest fallacy with this tired argument that’s been put forth again is that anything can be grown or raised anywhere and that there are people lined up to engage in subsistence farming. Neither of which is the case.
Posted on Sep 6, 2009
By Chris Hedges
Our most potent political weapon is food. If we take back our agriculture, if we buy and raise produce locally, we can begin to break the grip of corporations that control a food system as fragile, unsafe and destined for collapse as our financial system. If we continue to allow corporations to determine what we eat, as well as how food is harvested and distributed, then we will become captive to rising prices and shortages and increasingly dependent on cheap, mass-produced food filled with sugar and fat. Food, along with energy, will be the most pressing issue of our age. And if we do not build alternative food networks soon, the social and political ramifications of shortages and hunger will be devastating.
Food shortages have been tinder for social upheaval throughout history. But this time around, because we have lost the skills to feed and clothe ourselves, it will be much harder for most of us to become self-sustaining. The large agro-businesses have largely wiped out small farmers. They have poisoned our soil with pesticides and contaminated animals in filthy and overcrowded stockyards with high doses of antibiotics and steroids. They have pumped nutrients and phosphorus into water systems, causing algae bloom and fish die-off in our rivers and streams. Crop yields, under the onslaught of changing weather patterns and chemical pollution, are declining in the Northeast, where a blight has nearly wiped out the tomato crop. The draconian Food Modernization Safety Act, another gift from our governing elite to corporations, means small farms will only continue to dwindle in number. Sites such as La Via Campesina do a good job of tracking these disturbing global trends. Read More
Here’s another article trying to use fear to convince consumers that family farmers have disappeared and large corporations are forcing people to eat junk food. This article simultaneously talks of the dangers of rising food prices yet advocates for a less efficient system of producing food. Every grocery store I have ever been in, other than a Whole Foods store, has fresh meats and produce available at the most affordable prices on the planet. The biggest fallacy with this tired argument that’s been put forth again is that anything can be grown or raised anywhere and that there are people lined up to engage in subsistence farming. Neither of which is the case.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Ranchers Win Court Battle Against Environmentalists
Wyoming environmental group loses challenge to livestock grazing in national forest
by The Associated Press
Thursday September 03, 2009, 8:30 AM
CHEYENNE, Wyo. -- A federal judge has sided with managers of northern Wyoming's Bighorn National Forest and ruled against an environmental group that challenged livestock grazing in the forest.
Hailey, Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project filed suit in 2007 over a 2005 revision to the forest management plan. The group said the revision process should have considered various alternatives for grazing in the forest, including reduced amounts of grazing.
U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer in Cheyenne ruled Monday that forest managers did as the law required -- took a "hard look" at the environmental consequences of the forest plan.
"Simply because the WWP may not like the ultimate outcome does not mean that the Forest Service was in violation of the law," Brimmer wrote.
Three Wyoming counties straddled by the forest -- Big Horn, Sheridan and Johnson -- intervened on the side of the U.S. Forest Service. The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Wyoming Stock Growers Association and the Muddy Creek Grazing Association also intervened on the agency's side.
"The interveners were not confident that the Forest Service would protect their interests, so they intervened to protect themselves," an attorney for the interveners, Dan Frank, explained in a release. Read More
Proper grazing is one of the most beneficial things you can do for grasslands. These grasslands have adapted over thousand’s of years to use grazing to it’s advantage. Western Watershed’s plan to kick ranchers off these public lands is not a management plan, it’s an agenda. Luckily, the ranchers have won this fight for now and the American public will continue to benefit from an affordable food supply.
by The Associated Press
Thursday September 03, 2009, 8:30 AM
CHEYENNE, Wyo. -- A federal judge has sided with managers of northern Wyoming's Bighorn National Forest and ruled against an environmental group that challenged livestock grazing in the forest.
Hailey, Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project filed suit in 2007 over a 2005 revision to the forest management plan. The group said the revision process should have considered various alternatives for grazing in the forest, including reduced amounts of grazing.
U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer in Cheyenne ruled Monday that forest managers did as the law required -- took a "hard look" at the environmental consequences of the forest plan.
"Simply because the WWP may not like the ultimate outcome does not mean that the Forest Service was in violation of the law," Brimmer wrote.
Three Wyoming counties straddled by the forest -- Big Horn, Sheridan and Johnson -- intervened on the side of the U.S. Forest Service. The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Wyoming Stock Growers Association and the Muddy Creek Grazing Association also intervened on the agency's side.
"The interveners were not confident that the Forest Service would protect their interests, so they intervened to protect themselves," an attorney for the interveners, Dan Frank, explained in a release. Read More
Proper grazing is one of the most beneficial things you can do for grasslands. These grasslands have adapted over thousand’s of years to use grazing to it’s advantage. Western Watershed’s plan to kick ranchers off these public lands is not a management plan, it’s an agenda. Luckily, the ranchers have won this fight for now and the American public will continue to benefit from an affordable food supply.
Egg Council Responds
Iowa Egg Council CEO says methods used are humane
Thursday, September 3, 2009, 12:45 PM
by Jerry Oster, KNAX, Yankton
The C.E.O. of the Iowa Egg Council says producers in the state are not using inhumane production practices, despite what was shown in an undercover video shot by the group Mercy for Animals at the Hy-Line plant in Spencer. The video showed male chicks being separated out and being thrown into a grinder.
Kevin Vinchattle says the methods used to destroy male baby chicks as part of the egg production process are approved and standard operating procedure in the industry. He says there is no market for the male chicks.
"We're in egg production, and boys don't lay eggs and girls do, and so if you could tell in the shell which was going to be a male and which was going to be a female, you'd never even incubate the male eggs and they would get diverted to different use. Right now we don't have the ability to do that," Vinchattle says.
He says the male chicks don't have enough meat on them to be economical as a meat bird, and the euthanasia process is designed to be instantaneous and that is accepted by the industry in the U.S. and Europe. Read More
It seems that many animal rights activists are just finding out that male chickens do not lay eggs. Since the video has come out, they have consistently been emphasizing this fact. This is a non-story in that respect but apparently it’s been a revelation for them. No form of euthanasia is pretty, but I can’t imagine a quicker way to do it. It’s a method that’s been approved here and in Europe, which is where many animal rights groups point to as being the example we should follow. Besides, if Mercy for Animals was really concerned about animal welfare, they would have brought this issue forward right away. This is nothing more than a staged publicity stunt.
Here's the main thing to remember. Mercy for Animals will not be happy about any form of euthanasia or use of livestock for human benefit. So this really makes the video footage a moot point. They could video tape cows standing in a pasture and they are still going to advocate that people be vegans.
Thursday, September 3, 2009, 12:45 PM
by Jerry Oster, KNAX, Yankton
The C.E.O. of the Iowa Egg Council says producers in the state are not using inhumane production practices, despite what was shown in an undercover video shot by the group Mercy for Animals at the Hy-Line plant in Spencer. The video showed male chicks being separated out and being thrown into a grinder.
Kevin Vinchattle says the methods used to destroy male baby chicks as part of the egg production process are approved and standard operating procedure in the industry. He says there is no market for the male chicks.
"We're in egg production, and boys don't lay eggs and girls do, and so if you could tell in the shell which was going to be a male and which was going to be a female, you'd never even incubate the male eggs and they would get diverted to different use. Right now we don't have the ability to do that," Vinchattle says.
He says the male chicks don't have enough meat on them to be economical as a meat bird, and the euthanasia process is designed to be instantaneous and that is accepted by the industry in the U.S. and Europe. Read More
It seems that many animal rights activists are just finding out that male chickens do not lay eggs. Since the video has come out, they have consistently been emphasizing this fact. This is a non-story in that respect but apparently it’s been a revelation for them. No form of euthanasia is pretty, but I can’t imagine a quicker way to do it. It’s a method that’s been approved here and in Europe, which is where many animal rights groups point to as being the example we should follow. Besides, if Mercy for Animals was really concerned about animal welfare, they would have brought this issue forward right away. This is nothing more than a staged publicity stunt.
Here's the main thing to remember. Mercy for Animals will not be happy about any form of euthanasia or use of livestock for human benefit. So this really makes the video footage a moot point. They could video tape cows standing in a pasture and they are still going to advocate that people be vegans.
EPA Visits a Farm
EPA Officials Make Their First Trip to Farm Country
09/02/2009
NAFB Newws Service
Thursday is the day Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley hosts officials from the Environmental Protection Agency in his home state of Iowa. Grassley asked the EPA to come to Iowa for a first-hand look at family farming, after learning that the government official who heads the department writing the guidelines for - “indirect land use changes” - has never set foot on an American farm. Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at EPA, and Margo Oge, Director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality at EPA, are the Senators guests.
The daylong tour, in an area near Des Moines, Iowa, begins with an information session to discuss low carbon fuel standards, corn and soybean technology, and EPA’s AgSTAR program. The group will then move to a family farm to learn about the work farmers are doing to produce safe, quality products in an environmentally friendly manner. Last, the group will visit the Renewable Energy Group’s facility in Newton for a tour and an overview and update from the ethanol and biodiesel industries.
In preparing for the day, Senator Grassley said, "The EPA has tremendous power and authority, and the decisions it makes on several issues will have a major impact on the rural economy, from the family farm to opportunities in value-added agriculture industries, including renewable energy." According to Grassley, "It is absolutely essential that the government officials in charge understand the issues and the impact of their rules, regulations and directives." Link
The only disconnect that might be wider than rural and urban is probably between Washington DC and the rest of the country. Sen Grassley pointed out to the country that we had EPA employees writing regulations about things they had never even seen and that could devastate farming families. If the healthcare and cap & trade debates have done anything, they have reminded people how important it is to be involved in our political process. I remember meeting with EPA officials in Washington several years ago when they were writing CAFO regulations. The lady we were dealing with that day didn’t realize that grass didn’t grow year-round. This is why we must all step up and become part of the solution.
09/02/2009
NAFB Newws Service
Thursday is the day Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley hosts officials from the Environmental Protection Agency in his home state of Iowa. Grassley asked the EPA to come to Iowa for a first-hand look at family farming, after learning that the government official who heads the department writing the guidelines for - “indirect land use changes” - has never set foot on an American farm. Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at EPA, and Margo Oge, Director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality at EPA, are the Senators guests.
The daylong tour, in an area near Des Moines, Iowa, begins with an information session to discuss low carbon fuel standards, corn and soybean technology, and EPA’s AgSTAR program. The group will then move to a family farm to learn about the work farmers are doing to produce safe, quality products in an environmentally friendly manner. Last, the group will visit the Renewable Energy Group’s facility in Newton for a tour and an overview and update from the ethanol and biodiesel industries.
In preparing for the day, Senator Grassley said, "The EPA has tremendous power and authority, and the decisions it makes on several issues will have a major impact on the rural economy, from the family farm to opportunities in value-added agriculture industries, including renewable energy." According to Grassley, "It is absolutely essential that the government officials in charge understand the issues and the impact of their rules, regulations and directives." Link
The only disconnect that might be wider than rural and urban is probably between Washington DC and the rest of the country. Sen Grassley pointed out to the country that we had EPA employees writing regulations about things they had never even seen and that could devastate farming families. If the healthcare and cap & trade debates have done anything, they have reminded people how important it is to be involved in our political process. I remember meeting with EPA officials in Washington several years ago when they were writing CAFO regulations. The lady we were dealing with that day didn’t realize that grass didn’t grow year-round. This is why we must all step up and become part of the solution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)