It’s not down on the farm these days, alas. The healthy, natural beef of years gone by is almost extinct. It has been driven out by cheap beef, raised on gigantic feedlots, fattened on corn. The problem is: corn isn’t healthy for cows, and raising beef this way ultimately isn’t healthy for us either. Here are some things to watch out for and ways to be more healthy when it comes to your beef-related choices.
(more…)

No Comments -->

We’ve all heard by now that corn-based ethanol has turned out to be a bad idea.

• Corn is energy intensive to grow, gobbling up fossil-fuels at every stage of production, from transporting seeds to fertilizing the fields (with petrochemical fertilizers) to final harvest.
• Corn is also a spectacularly water-intensive crop.
• The ethanol production stage consumes more fossil fuels and water.
• Once it finally reaches your gas tank, ethanol burns around 30% less efficiently than gasoline (meaning your per-mile cost is actually 30% more than you think it is).
• Estimates of how much actual energy we get out of the process range from barely breaking even to around 20 percent more than the input energy.
• And of course, every step of the process spews CO2 into the atmosphere.

It’s been almost a year since The New York Times editorialized on the subject:

The economics of corn ethanol have never made much sense. Rather than importing cheap Brazilian ethanol made from sugar cane, the United States slaps a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on ethanol from Brazil. Then the government provides a tax break of 51 cents a gallon to American ethanol producers — on top of the generous subsidies that corn growers already receive under the farm program.

And unlike our inefficient corn-based ethanol, that Brazilian product actually yields 370% of the energy put into it.

So, why are we doing this? What possible calculus could convince us to even consider corn ethanol?

Corn is big business - and big agribusiness hires the best lobbyists.

Here, the return on investment is spectacular: plant a few tens of millions of dollars in seed money in the form of campaign contributions to senators and members of Congress, and reap billions of dollars in federal farm subsidies.

And for agribusiness, corn is king. (more…)

1 Comment -->

I want to change the environment, I really do. I want to have a green house, buy locally, and one day own a beautiful hybrid car that I’ll name Daisy, or Sunshine. I own a ton of reusable bags, but I forget them 90% of the time, so I’m stuck using plastic…and I’m stuck getting dirty looks. When did giving a shit about our environment, and being “green” become such a class issue? People that would normally throw a cigarette butt out of their SUV now shoot me dirty looks when I complain about the price of organic milk.

Down the road from my house, there is a shack [quite literally]  and in that shack there is a family of five that burn their own wood, grow their own food, shoot their own deer for meat, and live off the land as best they can.  Five years ago the SUV driving, designer bag toting, wasteful upper class would have scoffed and called them “white trash..” but now they are simply green. These people don’t live off the land because they want to save the planet, and look good doing it, they are just trying to survive on very little.

If you buy your flour in bulk, good for you. If you remember your reusable bag every single time you go to Whole Foods and blow half your paycheck? Excellent! If you can afford a hybrid car, I’m happy. If you buy all your products locally, high five. Do it for the environment, not because you think it makes you better then anyone else. Don’t look down on the person that DOES buy 140 candy bars from Costco because they don’t know better - instead, suggest to  them a better solution.  Don’t get all high and mighty because you ride your bike to work, and stop at the farm stand for lunch on the way. No one gives a shit.

After all, you’re not doing US a favor by being as crunchy as possible, you’re doing the earth one. And I mean, that’s why you’re going “green” after all? Isn’t it?

[2] Comments -->

You may well be wondering - why the heck is Nancy Pelosi pushing through a bill that allows for offshore drilling? Isn’t that against everything we’re supposed to stand for? Is this another example of business-as-usual betraying core Democratic principles?

Alas, sometimes green areas fall in grey areas. Here’s the scoop:

Where’s the fire? Why rush it through now?

The offshore drilling ban, in place now for decades, has a “sunset provision”. It has to be renewed every few years.

Unless a bill is passed, the ban expires on September 30. At which point… Bush could immediately hand out leases anywhere he wants to.

So, we need a bill, and a bill that can pass, by September 30.

What’s in the bill?

As it now stands, the bill (technically, it’s House Resolution 1433,Louise Slaughter’s Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act), keeps some limits: no drilling within 100 miles of shore (50 miles in some areas). And it works in a bunch of good things:

• Restores tax credits for renewable energy, which had expired (and Republicans were blocking).
• Closes tax loopholes for the oil companies (when you hear Republicans talking about “Tax Increases” tonight on the TV, that’s what they’re talking about - the bill closes loopholes, but doesn’t impose any new taxes)
• Curbs to energy speculation (we still don’t know how much of this summers sky-high prices were the result of speculators)
• Release 10 percent of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (which should also help to drive prices back down ahead of the election…)
• Includes a “Use It or Lose It” provision that says oil companies can’t just sit on leases, but have to actually drill for oil (companies currently have millions of acres of leases that they’re not doing anything with… leading some to wonder why we have to open up new areas for drilling if there are plenty of virgin fields just sitting there, undrilled…)
• Includes incentives for public transit, clean coal, and other good green goals.

Is this a good compromise?

Maybe. It might get a few things done that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. And we have to get something passed, or we’re stuck with drilling, regardless.

Will it work?

Good question.

The Senate has a completely different bill under consideration, a bi-partisan compromise measure proposed by a “Gang of 20″ which just happens to include the Republicans up for re-election this year who are considered most endangered - New Hampshire’s John Sunnunu, North Carolina’s Elizabeth Dole, Maine’s Susan Collins, Minnesota’s Norm Coleman and Oregon’s Gord Smith.

The two houses will have to hash our their differences, bring together a compromise bill, and then… Bush has threatened to veto it.

So wait - this isn’t actually going to become law?

Not likely. Again, the drilling ban expires in two weeks… which is what the Republicans want.

So what’s actually going on here?

Cover.

The Repubs can go back to their moderate-to-liberal constitutents in Oregon, Maine and New Hampshire and say, “Look, I care about the environment!”

Pelosi and Reid can say “Look, we tried the bipartisan compromise that everyone in the damn media has been claiming we should be doing - and Bush vetoed it. So much for bipartisanship!”

And drilling?

Hopefully President Obama can do damage control after he takes office in January. Along with damage control on Iraq, Wall Street, infrastructure, health care, employment… well, you get the picture.

(Photo: “Offshore Oil Platform Under Construction” — Image by © Royalty-Free/Corbis)

1 Comment -->

Most of us were in school for years, performing our studies, (maybe) doing our homework, and being graded, day in and day out. It was a constant process, and all of us were perpetually judged. (I recently wrapped it all up after 17 years.) Now it’s time to turn the tables and judge the schools, all in the name of the little blue planet we love.

The Sustainable Endowment Institute is dedicated to making universities greener and more eco-friendly, and over the last few years they’ve been conducting a process that literally yields a “report card” for each school. The College Sustainability Report Card 2009 is swiftly approaching, and colleges better be on their best, earth-friendly behavior. After all, the judging is tough and the requirements to achieve a high score are pretty far up there. In fact, no college has yet scored a straight-up A on the report card up until this year. Ivy League institutions have come the closest however, with Harvard, Dartmouth and Stanford all raking in very respectable A- rankings for 2007. Harvard and Stanford both unfortunately fell off that top podium in 2008, with only Darthmouth making a repeat appearance – kudos for consistency, Dartmouth! Carleton and Williams also boasted A- scores in 2008.

2009’s report card  is where YOU come in, dear reader. This is a democratic nation, after all, and we all have a say in what universities should be honored for their ecological efforts. If you think a school has shown great strides in this area, you may nominate it for the Sustainability Report Card 2009. The only stipulation is that the suggested school must have been involved with a public community “green project” in some shape, fashion or form. Aside from that, a nifty four question application is all it takes to garner your institution the acknowledgment and acclaim it deserves for looking out for Mother Earth.

Once submitted for review, the school is judged on any of a number of considerations, such as whether they are actively purchasing renewable energy, promoting new recycling programs, reducing carbon emissions, or utilizing hybrid cars, just to name a few criteria. If your university is doing their job on any of these fronts, they should be in line to make the grade.

Act now to support your school! The September 12th deadline is swiftly approaching. Click here for more.

Source: treehugger

No Comments -->