The British government, just as it aggressively promotes its "neutral" support of the wind-power industry against local opposition, is now beginning a propaganda campaign for mad scientists torturing animals. In the interest of "informed" debate, they will argue the side of the animal abusers.
They have also made all protest of corporate and academic activities, even letters and leaflets, essentially illegal. A police state in thrall to business interests -- that's fascism, folks. Fascism is bad.
February 23, 2005
February 21, 2005
"Raising children as vegans 'unethical', says professor"
After studying impoverished children in Kenya, and finding that supplementing their very poor diet with meat or milk made the children healthier, this dope concludes that vegetarianism is evil.
I dare say she would have seen the same (or better) improvement had she provided the children with seitan and soy milk and a wide range of greens, for instance, along with vitamin B12 supplements (which most vegans know they need). It is obviously more difficult to maintain a comparable diet without changing the economic desperation of the people she studied, but that underscores the relative ease with which we in the "developed" world can avoid resorting to eating dead animals.
Besides B12 (available as a cheap supplement), calcium and iron are noted as concerns. Many greens have calcium, and many products, such as rice and soy milks and even orange juice, are fortified with it. Significantly, the metabolism of animal protein leaches calcium out of the body, which is why government nutritionists recommend so much. Vegans require quite a bit less to maintain their calcium. Iron (and other minerals) is available in many greens and other vegetables. Cooking in iron pots is an easy way to add it as well.
To characterize vegetarians as unethical implies that it is ethical to kill animals for food (let alone for "sport") when we no longer have to. Yet vegetarians are well documented as a much healthier group in general than animal-eaters. Not only for the sake of our fellow creatures but also for our own health, vegetarianism is without doubt the ethical choice at every stage of life.
Even if you have no problem eating dead animals, to call vegetarianism unethical is the sign of a troubled psyche.
[Click here for more information.]
categories: animal rights, vegetarianism
I dare say she would have seen the same (or better) improvement had she provided the children with seitan and soy milk and a wide range of greens, for instance, along with vitamin B12 supplements (which most vegans know they need). It is obviously more difficult to maintain a comparable diet without changing the economic desperation of the people she studied, but that underscores the relative ease with which we in the "developed" world can avoid resorting to eating dead animals.
Besides B12 (available as a cheap supplement), calcium and iron are noted as concerns. Many greens have calcium, and many products, such as rice and soy milks and even orange juice, are fortified with it. Significantly, the metabolism of animal protein leaches calcium out of the body, which is why government nutritionists recommend so much. Vegans require quite a bit less to maintain their calcium. Iron (and other minerals) is available in many greens and other vegetables. Cooking in iron pots is an easy way to add it as well.
To characterize vegetarians as unethical implies that it is ethical to kill animals for food (let alone for "sport") when we no longer have to. Yet vegetarians are well documented as a much healthier group in general than animal-eaters. Not only for the sake of our fellow creatures but also for our own health, vegetarianism is without doubt the ethical choice at every stage of life.
Even if you have no problem eating dead animals, to call vegetarianism unethical is the sign of a troubled psyche.
[Click here for more information.]
categories: animal rights, vegetarianism
February 18, 2005
Another annual time vs. output curve
Here is a variation from Denmark on the infeed curves shown earlier this month from Ireland and Germany.
It shows the number of hours during which total infeed from Denmark's 2,374 MW of installed wind-generating capacity in 2003 was within each indicated range. The note (by Mike Hall, as presented at the Views of Scotland conference, January 15, 2005) adds the first three columns (3,250 + 1,750 + 1,000 = 6,000 hours, or 68% of the year) to state that for this amount of time (i.e., two-thirds of the year) the total infeed was not more than 600 MW, about one-fourth of the capacity.
Denmark's average wind-generation output in 2003 was 19% of capacity, or 451 MW. Drawing a curve over the graph allows us to guess that total output was 401-451 MW for 1,200 hours. Adding that to the first two columns shows that for 71%, more than two-thirds, of the time output was below the annual average. Again, that is exactly what the infeed graph from Germany shows: Wind plants produce power at or above their annual average only one-third of the time.
It shows the number of hours during which total infeed from Denmark's 2,374 MW of installed wind-generating capacity in 2003 was within each indicated range. The note (by Mike Hall, as presented at the Views of Scotland conference, January 15, 2005) adds the first three columns (3,250 + 1,750 + 1,000 = 6,000 hours, or 68% of the year) to state that for this amount of time (i.e., two-thirds of the year) the total infeed was not more than 600 MW, about one-fourth of the capacity.
Denmark's average wind-generation output in 2003 was 19% of capacity, or 451 MW. Drawing a curve over the graph allows us to guess that total output was 401-451 MW for 1,200 hours. Adding that to the first two columns shows that for 71%, more than two-thirds, of the time output was below the annual average. Again, that is exactly what the infeed graph from Germany shows: Wind plants produce power at or above their annual average only one-third of the time.
Bush's Willing Sycophants
Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review, writes:
"The Republican House of Representatives saw fit to impeach President Clinton for lying about sex. The same Republicans defend to the hilt Bush's lies that launched America into an unjustified war that has killed and maimed tens of thousands of Iraqis and Americans, cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, ruined America's reputation, and lost forever the hearts and minds of Muslims.
"... The function of a journalist is to speak truth to power and to hold accountable those with power. Abandoning this role, the conservative media cheerleads for war, incompetent leaders, and a police state."
February 17, 2005
John Negroponte
Death squads right here at home! Bush certainly doesn't disappoint in the pursuit of evil. Not combatting it -- manifesting.
February 16, 2005
"mckibben emotes over his love of windturbines"
"This is just sad sad sad. here is someone who should know better, but what an ass -- it is so convenient to leave out all the ugly, pesky little details about giant wind turbines, as the hard truths about these industrial installations are too much to deal with for these pro-corporate shills who just want a quick fix to make them feel good. o look how I have contributed and sacrificed, I have lost my lovely view! (or someone else has, most likely) but how much we have all gained! and how it will stir the heart to see these monsters floating ever so gently and silently in the breeze!"
[guest comment]
Bill McKibben is tired of looking at trees
To the Editor, New York Times:
Bill McKibben ("Tilting at Windmills," op-ed, Feb. 16) criticizes opponents to industrial wind power projects as concerned only with local effects (i.e., the destruction of a landscape -- strange criticism from an environmentalist!). He himself, however, ignores the big picture.
For example, he states that Denmark gets almost 25% of their electricity from the wind. In fact, they are able to use only a small fraction of it. The grid operator in western Denmark had to dump 84% of its wind production in 2003. Whatever the actual figure, a salient fact is that, despite being saturated with giant wind towers, Denmark's CO2 emissions have not gone down.
McKibben also cites Germany's commitment to wind-generated power. A government study was recently leaked to Der Spiegel concluding that the elusive goal of CO2 reduction could be achieved much more cheaply (and without industrializing more landscapes) by simply installing filters on existing coal plants.
Here in the U.S., the Energy Information Agency estimates that if the recently renewed renewable energy production tax credit is extended, 42,000 1.5-megawatt wind turbines would be constructed by 2025. They would produce only 2-3% of our electricity and occupy a total area potentially larger than Connecticut.
Less than a third of the fossil fuels we consume goes to generating electricity, further diminishing the small positive impact wind power might have. More people switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs, or trading in gas-guzzling pickups and SUVs -- any number of efforts to increase conservation and efficiency -- would easily surpass the possible benefit of tens of thousands of giant wind turbines. The Adirondacks, along with countless other areas targeted by wind developers, could remain "forever wild" a little longer.
Enron was a big investor in wind power (their wind assets are now owned by GE), because it is indeed "business as usual," letting us think we're doing something about our energy problems when in fact we are not. Persuading us to hand over common lands in the name of a greater good, when in fact the only result is profit for the developers. The benefits McKibben describes are wishful thinking only, demanding no change at all in our habits of consumption. His claims are supported by sales brochures from the wind industry but not by the facts of actual experience or good sense.
Bill McKibben ("Tilting at Windmills," op-ed, Feb. 16) criticizes opponents to industrial wind power projects as concerned only with local effects (i.e., the destruction of a landscape -- strange criticism from an environmentalist!). He himself, however, ignores the big picture.
For example, he states that Denmark gets almost 25% of their electricity from the wind. In fact, they are able to use only a small fraction of it. The grid operator in western Denmark had to dump 84% of its wind production in 2003. Whatever the actual figure, a salient fact is that, despite being saturated with giant wind towers, Denmark's CO2 emissions have not gone down.
McKibben also cites Germany's commitment to wind-generated power. A government study was recently leaked to Der Spiegel concluding that the elusive goal of CO2 reduction could be achieved much more cheaply (and without industrializing more landscapes) by simply installing filters on existing coal plants.
Here in the U.S., the Energy Information Agency estimates that if the recently renewed renewable energy production tax credit is extended, 42,000 1.5-megawatt wind turbines would be constructed by 2025. They would produce only 2-3% of our electricity and occupy a total area potentially larger than Connecticut.
Less than a third of the fossil fuels we consume goes to generating electricity, further diminishing the small positive impact wind power might have. More people switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs, or trading in gas-guzzling pickups and SUVs -- any number of efforts to increase conservation and efficiency -- would easily surpass the possible benefit of tens of thousands of giant wind turbines. The Adirondacks, along with countless other areas targeted by wind developers, could remain "forever wild" a little longer.
Enron was a big investor in wind power (their wind assets are now owned by GE), because it is indeed "business as usual," letting us think we're doing something about our energy problems when in fact we are not. Persuading us to hand over common lands in the name of a greater good, when in fact the only result is profit for the developers. The benefits McKibben describes are wishful thinking only, demanding no change at all in our habits of consumption. His claims are supported by sales brochures from the wind industry but not by the facts of actual experience or good sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)