On 1/15/16, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1/15/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Don't pin it on poor old Bossy. Climate never seemed to be an issue
Adler writes: "Ranchers using federal land, like the Bundy family that is
leading the occupation and the Hammond family in whose name they took up
arms, are recipients of massive federal subsidies for activities that
exacerbate climate change and damage sensitive ecosystems. It's time the
taxpayers stopped indulging these whiny welfare queens and kicked them
off
the dole."
Cattle grazing in a field. (photo: Max Whittaker/Reuters)
Cattle Grazing Is a Climate Disaster, and You're Paying for It
By Ben Adler, Grist
14 January 16
The rules governing cattle grazing on federal lands are so obscure that
your
average climate change correspondent hasn't given much thought to them.
But
now that a gang of pathetic losers with guns has occupied a federal
wildlife
sanctuary in Oregon to gripe about the federal government's audacity to
set
rules for how ranchers use publicly owned land, it's worth taking a look
at
this policy.
As it turns out, ranchers using federal land, like the Bundy family that
is
leading the occupation and the Hammond family in whose name they took up
arms, are recipients of massive federal subsidies for activities that
exacerbate climate change and damage sensitive ecosystems. It's time the
taxpayers stopped indulging these whiny welfare queens and kicked them
off
the dole.
Why this land matters to the climate
Grasslands are, like trees, essential carbon sinks. Shrubs and grasses
breathe in carbon dioxide and thereby regulate atmospheric concentrations
of
carbon. Loss of grasslands contributes to rising rates of carbon in the
atmosphere and therefore to global warming. These lands are also
important
habitats for threatened species and their ruination contributes to the
ongoing massive loss of biodiversity. Only 5 percent of the original
grasslands in the U.S. remain.
Climate change can cause the degradation or loss of grasslands because
drought and heat waves damage or kill plants. This problem is currently
plaguing the West. And, in a vicious cycle, that contributes even more to
climate change.
Putting cattle on these grasslands just leads to more problems: The
livestock can rip plants to shreds, push other species toward extinction,
and turn the land to dust. According to the Center for Biological
Diversity,
"In the arid West, livestock grazing is the most widespread cause of
species
endangerment." The group explains: "Cattle destroy native vegetation,
damage
soils and stream banks, and contaminate waterways with fecal waste. After
decades of livestock grazing, once-lush streams and riparian forests have
been reduced to flat, dry wastelands; once-rich topsoil has been turned
to
dust, causing soil erosion, stream sedimentation and wholesale
elimination
of some aquatic habitats; overgrazing of native fire-carrying grasses has
starved some western forests of fire, making them overly dense and prone
to
unnaturally severe fires."
In 2012, a study by Oregon State researchers found that climate change is
worsening environmental stressors on Western grasslands, and therefore
the
federal government should consider reducing or eliminating livestock
grazing
on public lands.
At the core of this current kerfuffle in Oregon is a dispute over the
penalty for ranchers who illegally set fire to federal grassland. The
militants who took over the wildlife sanctuary think the prison sentence
set
forth in federal law is inherently invalid. But from a climate
perspective,
the behavior at issue is totally unacceptable.
In the face of an overwhelming climate crisis, you would think the
federal
government would make preserving and protecting these carbon sinks the
overriding purpose of its land management. You would be wrong. Instead,
the
government leases out 270 million acres of public land in the West for
livestock grazing. It's just as outrageous as leasing out public land for
coal mining and oil drilling.
How cattle hurt the climate
Even aside from their impact on grasslands, cattle are terrible for the
climate.
Cows emit methane - a greenhouse gas that is 86 times more damaging than
carbon over 20 years - when they burp, fart, or poop. As CNN recently
noted,
"14.5% of all greenhouse gas pollution can be attributed to livestock,
according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the most
reputable
authority on this topic. And a huge hunk of the livestock industry's role
-
65% - comes from raising beef and dairy cattle." A pound of beef has
about
the same carbon footprint as driving an average American car 70 miles.
This is far worse than most foods. The Environmental Working Group found
that beef has the second highest carbon footprint of any common food
after
lamb. Pound for pound, it is twice as bad for the climate as cheese and
pork, four times worse than chicken, and more than 14 times worse than
broccoli.
And that's not even considering the other unsustainable aspects of beef,
such as using land and water much less efficiently than plants or
chickens
to produce food. There's just no reason for our government to actively
promote cattle raising and beef.
Taxpayers are subsidizing these ranchers
If the federal grazing-lease program were enormously profitable, and the
profits were put to some good use, then there would at least be a
counterargument in the program's favor.
Instead, the program is a big money-loser - a giant taxpayer subsidy for
an
environmentally destructive industry. As FiveThirtyEight points out, "In
2012, the [federal government's] fees for grazing were 93 percent cheaper
than the average market rate in 16 Western states ($1.35 versus $20.10
per
AUM, which is a fancy acronym for the amount of land needed to support a
cow
and her calf for a month)." These minimal grazing fees are the same ones
Bundy family patriarch Cliven Bundy refuses to pay.
The Center for Biological Diversity calculates that below-market grazing
fees amount to a direct subsidy to ranchers of more than $100 billion per
year, and that indirect subsidies such as federal predator control
programs
that protect livestock may add up to $300 billion.
Keith Nantz, a rancher in Oregon, wrote Friday in The Washington Post
that
"many ranchers must lease [federal land] to create a sustainable
operation."
By "sustainable," he means profitable, not eco-friendly. If it's
unprofitable to raise cattle on private land, why is it the taxpayers'
responsibility to bail him out? Some things are worth taxpayer dollars:
education, national defense, health care. But beef?
What should we do?
The public should use the land it owns not for subsidized,
carbon-intensive
economic activities like cattle grazing and fossil fuel development, but
for
climate change mitigation and adaptation and habitat preservation.
Nantz complained in the Post that the federal government pushes ranchers
around by creating new rules to protect endangered wildlife. He wants the
feds to defer more to the ranchers on issues like whether to protect
endangered species.
OK, here's my counter-offer: Nothing. You don't like being told where,
when,
and how to graze your cattle on public land? Then get them off public
land.
The ranchers frame their complaint as being about government overreach,
but
what they really object to is federal policies that balance their
interests
with others'.
The Bundys, their compatriots, and the politicians who kiss their asses,
like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, argue that states and individuals should be
able to misuse grasslands ad infinitum. But if the federal government
were
to hand them over to anyone, the morally and ecologically responsible
recipients would be the Native Americans from whom this land was
originally
stolen in the first place, not a rentier class of entitled white men who
want to exploit it.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Cattle grazing in a field. (photo: Max Whittaker/Reuters)
http://grist.org/climate-energy/cattle-grazing-is-a-climate-disaster-and-you
re-paying-for-it/http://grist.org/climate-energy/cattle-grazing-is-a-climate
-disaster-and-youre-paying-for-it/
Cattle Grazing Is a Climate Disaster, and You're Paying for It
By Ben Adler, Grist
14 January 16
he rules governing cattle grazing on federal lands are so obscure that
your
average climate change correspondent hasn't given much thought to them.
But
now that a gang of pathetic losers with guns has occupied a federal
wildlife
sanctuary in Oregon to gripe about the federal government's audacity to
set
rules for how ranchers use publicly owned land, it's worth taking a look
at
this policy.
As it turns out, ranchers using federal land, like the Bundy family that
is
leading the occupation and the Hammond family in whose name they took up
arms, are recipients of massive federal subsidies for activities that
exacerbate climate change and damage sensitive ecosystems. It's time the
taxpayers stopped indulging these whiny welfare queens and kicked them
off
the dole.
Why this land matters to the climate
Grasslands are, like trees, essential carbon sinks. Shrubs and grasses
breathe in carbon dioxide and thereby regulate atmospheric concentrations
of
carbon. Loss of grasslands contributes to rising rates of carbon in the
atmosphere and therefore to global warming. These lands are also
important
habitats for threatened species and their ruination contributes to the
ongoing massive loss of biodiversity. Only 5 percent of the original
grasslands in the U.S. remain.
Climate change can cause the degradation or loss of grasslands because
drought and heat waves damage or kill plants. This problem is currently
plaguing the West. And, in a vicious cycle, that contributes even more to
climate change.
Putting cattle on these grasslands just leads to more problems: The
livestock can rip plants to shreds, push other species toward extinction,
and turn the land to dust. According to the Center for Biological
Diversity,
"In the arid West, livestock grazing is the most widespread cause of
species
endangerment." The group explains: "Cattle destroy native vegetation,
damage
soils and stream banks, and contaminate waterways with fecal waste. After
decades of livestock grazing, once-lush streams and riparian forests have
been reduced to flat, dry wastelands; once-rich topsoil has been turned
to
dust, causing soil erosion, stream sedimentation and wholesale
elimination
of some aquatic habitats; overgrazing of native fire-carrying grasses has
starved some western forests of fire, making them overly dense and prone
to
unnaturally severe fires."
In 2012, a study by Oregon State researchers found that climate change is
worsening environmental stressors on Western grasslands, and therefore
the
federal government should consider reducing or eliminating livestock
grazing
on public lands.
At the core of this current kerfuffle in Oregon is a dispute over the
penalty for ranchers who illegally set fire to federal grassland. The
militants who took over the wildlife sanctuary think the prison sentence
set
forth in federal law is inherently invalid. But from a climate
perspective,
the behavior at issue is totally unacceptable.
In the face of an overwhelming climate crisis, you would think the
federal
government would make preserving and protecting these carbon sinks the
overriding purpose of its land management. You would be wrong. Instead,
the
government leases out 270 million acres of public land in the West for
livestock grazing. It's just as outrageous as leasing out public land for
coal mining and oil drilling.
How cattle hurt the climate
Even aside from their impact on grasslands, cattle are terrible for the
climate.
Cows emit methane - a greenhouse gas that is 86 times more damaging than
carbon over 20 years - when they burp, fart, or poop. As CNN recently
noted,
"14.5% of all greenhouse gas pollution can be attributed to livestock,
according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the most
reputable
authority on this topic. And a huge hunk of the livestock industry's role
-
65% - comes from raising beef and dairy cattle." A pound of beef has
about
the same carbon footprint as driving an average American car 70 miles.
This is far worse than most foods. The Environmental Working Group found
that beef has the second highest carbon footprint of any common food
after
lamb. Pound for pound, it is twice as bad for the climate as cheese and
pork, four times worse than chicken, and more than 14 times worse than
broccoli.
And that's not even considering the other unsustainable aspects of beef,
such as using land and water much less efficiently than plants or
chickens
to produce food. There's just no reason for our government to actively
promote cattle raising and beef.
Taxpayers are subsidizing these ranchers
If the federal grazing-lease program were enormously profitable, and the
profits were put to some good use, then there would at least be a
counterargument in the program's favor.
Instead, the program is a big money-loser - a giant taxpayer subsidy for
an
environmentally destructive industry. As FiveThirtyEight points out, "In
2012, the [federal government's] fees for grazing were 93 percent cheaper
than the average market rate in 16 Western states ($1.35 versus $20.10
per
AUM, which is a fancy acronym for the amount of land needed to support a
cow
and her calf for a month)." These minimal grazing fees are the same ones
Bundy family patriarch Cliven Bundy refuses to pay.
The Center for Biological Diversity calculates that below-market grazing
fees amount to a direct subsidy to ranchers of more than $100 billion per
year, and that indirect subsidies such as federal predator control
programs
that protect livestock may add up to $300 billion.
Keith Nantz, a rancher in Oregon, wrote Friday in The Washington Post
that
"many ranchers must lease [federal land] to create a sustainable
operation."
By "sustainable," he means profitable, not eco-friendly. If it's
unprofitable to raise cattle on private land, why is it the taxpayers'
responsibility to bail him out? Some things are worth taxpayer dollars:
education, national defense, health care. But beef?
What should we do?
The public should use the land it owns not for subsidized,
carbon-intensive
economic activities like cattle grazing and fossil fuel development, but
for
climate change mitigation and adaptation and habitat preservation.
Nantz complained in the Post that the federal government pushes ranchers
around by creating new rules to protect endangered wildlife. He wants the
feds to defer more to the ranchers on issues like whether to protect
endangered species.
OK, here's my counter-offer: Nothing. You don't like being told where,
when,
and how to graze your cattle on public land? Then get them off public
land.
The ranchers frame their complaint as being about government overreach,
but
what they really object to is federal policies that balance their
interests
with others'.
The Bundys, their compatriots, and the politicians who kiss their asses,
like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, argue that states and individuals should be
able to misuse grasslands ad infinitum. But if the federal government
were
to hand them over to anyone, the morally and ecologically responsible
recipients would be the Native Americans from whom this land was
originally
stolen in the first place, not a rentier class of entitled white men who
want to exploit it.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
when the plains were teaming with huge heerds of Bison. Then there
were the Elk and the Moose and the Deer, all eating and pooping to
their hearts content. Flocks of North American Parrots were so vast
that they blocked the sun for days, as they flew past. Other flocks
were just as large. There appears to be only one change in the
perfect balance of Nature, and that is the arrival of Man. But this
is what Man does best, pass the blame. So poor old Bossy will just
have to endure our displeasure.
Carl Jarvis
