WWPBlog

A report released today from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization makes it clear - Cattle Produce More Greenhouse Gases Than Transportation!  Some emissions occur as enteric fermentation within cattle produce methane - a greenhouse gas which warms our atmosphere 23 times more than carbon dioxide.  To compound that, methane takes a long time to break down, and when it finally does - it becomes CO2.  Additionally, livestock production constitutes 65% of human caused nitrous oxide emissions - emissions which warm the globe at rate of 296 times more than CO2 and occur from their manure.    

The UN report delves into the plethora of environmental harms cattle cause including soil degradation, water contamination and shortage, desertification, chemical contamination from hormones etc., biodiversity loss, even acid rain!…  The list goes on and on!

It’s time to start rethinking our subsidized destruction of public lands, public waters, public air, and public atmosphere… 

Bush’s EPA just gave the go-ahead to spray waterways with pesticides without first obtaining a permit.

Mosquito abatement has been the significant issue relevant to the decision made by the EPA that because pesticides are purposeful applied, they do not constitute a "pollutant" regulated under the 1972 Clean Water Act. 

Unfortunately, the ecosystems, wildlife, and aquatic organisms disrupted - if not killed - by the decision are not likely to enjoy healthier environments because the toxic chemicals lacing their habitat is aerially sprayed with purpose.

If only the political officials at EPA spent half their time considering the environmental implications of their decisions as they spend crafting semantically derived avoidances of their regulatory responsibilities. 

The chemical lobby has been hard at work pushing pesticides - and succesfully.  

This decision comes as BLM readies its "ambitious" Final Environmental Impact Statement concerning Vegetation Treatments, which will further OK the aerial application of over one million acres of land with toxic chemicals.  The action will mask the bio-pollutant weed infestation that has become much of our public lands, one insideous externality consequence of the public lands grazing industry, with a less visible one - invisible chemicals.  And the tax-payer picks up the tab!  

The sad truth regarding the quick-fix chemical solutions - embraced by politicians whose pockets are stuffed with Monsanto’s dirty money- is that they don’t work - at least not in the long term.

But in the short term they work wonders!  Pesticides work so well, in the short term, in their disruption of hormonal and metabolic processes within their targets that it kind of makes you wonder…  where else are these hormone/metabolic altering agents "working"? 

Long Term

When you spray for mosquitos and kill their natural predators - either directly or for lack of food, the mosquitos eventually come back in full force.  The lag time for natural predators to rebuild their relative populations rarely competes with spray-happy management efforts (CHA-CHING!).  By replacing several predators’ niches with an artificial quick fix we get to perpetuate a dangerous chemical dependency.  The same principle holds true with weeds - especially when the aggravating factors continue their disturbance of the soils. 

Even scientists within the EPA are afraid we’re in danger with the EPA’s approach to pesticide approval.

Here’s a snippet of pretty good post Kos had on his blog today lambasting Naral, The League of Conservation Voters, and the Sierra Club for their endorsements of Republican candidates during the mid-term:

Let’s look at McConnell on the environment:

2005  Senator McConnell supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 0 percent in 2005.

2005  Senator McConnell supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 0 percent in 2005.

2005  Senator McConnell supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 0 percent in 2005.

2005  Senator McConnell supported the interests of the Republicans for Environmental Protection 0 percent in 2005. Points for significant non-voting actions were added to or subtracted from percentages calculated from voting records. Thus, the rating may be less than 0 or greater than 100.

And so on… You get the point.

Yet if it was up to the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters, both which endorsed Chafee, we’d have a viciously anti-environment senator heading up the Senate. If they’d had their way and Chafee won, the environmental agenda would remain under siege by a hostile Republican Senate.

There’s no better way to illustrate the self-centered myopia of today’s progressive interest groups. That’s not to gloss over their many contributions to the cause, but we lose if our interest groups remain in their silos, focused on their own narrow agenda to the exclusion of the broader progressive movement.

The whole post…

Kos’s take on these organizations’ stances is pertinent to many local issues at hand.  This post signals a promising direction within the net-roots community. 

Idaho Statesman 

"The Idaho Cattle Association added its support to Sen. Mike Crapo’s bill to ["]protect["] wilderness and ranching in the Owyhee Canyonlands."

However, the support hinges on the full funding of the proposal which would line fifteen ranchers’ pockets with over $15 million in outright cash and land. 

The bill’s cost is expected to exceed $20 million. 

Unfortunately, the conservationist supporters of the bill, whose complacency to the egregious industry hand-outs the bill affords leave over 80 grassroots conservation groups in dismay, remain sitting on their hands even after the mid-term election results.

"You’ve got to go to the dance with the one who brung you," said Gehrke. 

Even when it’s Stepford-style.

88 grassroots organizations call on Congress to provide for meaningful wilderness: 

Honorable Senators and Members:

Please see the attached letter, originally issued before the midterm election, in which 88 grassroots organizations called for a moratorium on harmful public land bills. As we anticipated at that time, there has been a significant shift in the makeup of the U.S. Congress which we believe will create a  much friendlier environment for our public lands.

We are asking your help in stopping the passage of several damaging public land bills that may be rushed through in the short time remaining to the 109th Congress. We look forward to working    with you in the new Congress to protect our public lands!

Respectfully submitted,

88 signatories

An Open Letter to the Conservation Community 

 

A few organizations’ contributions to the four "quid pro quo" wilderness bills have enabled their industry backed sponsors to get away with touting so-called "collaborative" efforts.  With the change-up in Congress, proponents of the bills are trying to slam them through the lame duck session, possibly on an appropriations bill.

If the past is any indicator, the newly appointed party in control will need direction.  Upholding meaningful wilderness designation rather than the proposed industry friendly "wilderness" demonstrates the resolved volition of the conservation community.