Re “Million-Dollar Meat” (New York Times editorial, April 23):
To the Editor:
In vitro meat might not appeal to everyone, but I am guessing that the day PETA awards its prize money will be a happy day for the billions of land animals bound for slaughter.
We can treasure the cultural and historical bond between animals and domesticated animals only by ignoring the emotional bond. Children naturally love animals, but the many “uses we have found for them” lead us to teach our children to save their compassion for companion animals exclusively.
We encourage kids to gently pet baby lambs, cows, chickens and pigs, but we deny them this loving connection when we serve animals for dinner by surreptitiously calling them chops, hamburger, nuggets and bacon.
There is no happy ending for even the most humanely raised animal. And there is no good reason to breed, confine and kill animals for food unless we believe that economic benefit justifies killing. More and more people do not. We call ourselves vegetarians.
Patti Breitman
Fairfax, Calif., April 23, 2008
•
You suggest that the raising of animals for food should be done “in ways that are both ethical and environmentally sound.” This is asking for the impossible.
More than nine billion chickens are slaughtered each year in the United States. When you treat animals as objects on an assembly line, it is not possible to provide for their basic needs.
You argue that we must treasure a “cultural and historical bond” between us and those we eat. But that bond is based on exploitation and abuse.
If domesticated animals “exist only because of the uses we have found for them,” let me ask you: Would you have recommended 150 years ago that we preserve and treasure the bond between whites and their black slaves — and develop a more humane slave trade?
Vadim Liberman
New York, April 23, 2008
human rights, animal rights, vegetarianism
April 26, 2008
April 25, 2008
First Draft of Maya Angelou's Open Letter Supporting Hillary Clinton
Dear Friend:
I am writing to tell you about my friend, Hillary Clinton, and why I am standing with her in her campaign for the presidency in 2012 after she ruins Senator Obama and the Democratic party this year. I know the kind of president Hillary Clinton will be because I know dozens of the personalities she has assumed over the years.
I am inspired by her insincerity and her dishonesty. She is a reliable and trustworthy opportunist. She is someone I not only fear but one for whom I have profound worry regarding stability.
Hillary does not waver in standing up for her prerogative. She has always been a passionate protector of her husband's sexual appetites. As a child, she was taught that all Iraq's children are politically expedient, and as a mother, she understood that her child wasn't safe unless all Iranians were obliterated. As I wrote about Hillary recently in a praise song: "She is the slayer of every hope and every man who longs for fair play, botcher of health care, champion of NAFTA and Wal-Mart."
It may be easy to view Hillary Clinton through the narrow lens of those who would ask her to explain her lies. Hillary sees us as we are, black and brown and white and yellow and pink and relishes our differences knowing that fundamentally we are all exploitable. She is able to look through complexion and see hollow wedge issues.
She has endured great scrutiny, and still is barely scrutinized. Hillary Clinton will not give up on you, unless you are a caucus-goer or black. She is a long-distance runner even though she previously agreed that the race should be a sprint. I am honored to say I am with her until her loss is so obvious that it would be an act of transcendent madness for even Carville to claim otherwise.
I am supporting Hillary Clinton because I know that she will make the most positive difference in the lives of corporate donors and she will help our country continue to be what it currently is. Whether you are her supporter, leaning towards her, undecided, or supporting someone else, I believe Hillary Clinton will never forget anyone who didn't fall in line - and she will make you pay. It is no small thing that along the way we will repeat history together.
Vote for Hillary Clinton and show your support at www.hillaryclinton.com. I know she will make use of her power.
[Satire from 236.com; but not far from reality: see Angelou's video endorsement from last year and her more recent "poem" and comments ("You may write me down in history / With your bitter, twisted lies, / You may tread me in the very dirt / But still, like dust, I'll rise."). While we're on the subject, don't miss the old "Stale" parody, "I, Poem".]
I am writing to tell you about my friend, Hillary Clinton, and why I am standing with her in her campaign for the presidency in 2012 after she ruins Senator Obama and the Democratic party this year. I know the kind of president Hillary Clinton will be because I know dozens of the personalities she has assumed over the years.
I am inspired by her insincerity and her dishonesty. She is a reliable and trustworthy opportunist. She is someone I not only fear but one for whom I have profound worry regarding stability.
Hillary does not waver in standing up for her prerogative. She has always been a passionate protector of her husband's sexual appetites. As a child, she was taught that all Iraq's children are politically expedient, and as a mother, she understood that her child wasn't safe unless all Iranians were obliterated. As I wrote about Hillary recently in a praise song: "She is the slayer of every hope and every man who longs for fair play, botcher of health care, champion of NAFTA and Wal-Mart."
It may be easy to view Hillary Clinton through the narrow lens of those who would ask her to explain her lies. Hillary sees us as we are, black and brown and white and yellow and pink and relishes our differences knowing that fundamentally we are all exploitable. She is able to look through complexion and see hollow wedge issues.
She has endured great scrutiny, and still is barely scrutinized. Hillary Clinton will not give up on you, unless you are a caucus-goer or black. She is a long-distance runner even though she previously agreed that the race should be a sprint. I am honored to say I am with her until her loss is so obvious that it would be an act of transcendent madness for even Carville to claim otherwise.
I am supporting Hillary Clinton because I know that she will make the most positive difference in the lives of corporate donors and she will help our country continue to be what it currently is. Whether you are her supporter, leaning towards her, undecided, or supporting someone else, I believe Hillary Clinton will never forget anyone who didn't fall in line - and she will make you pay. It is no small thing that along the way we will repeat history together.
Vote for Hillary Clinton and show your support at www.hillaryclinton.com. I know she will make use of her power.
[Satire from 236.com; but not far from reality: see Angelou's video endorsement from last year and her more recent "poem" and comments ("You may write me down in history / With your bitter, twisted lies, / You may tread me in the very dirt / But still, like dust, I'll rise."). While we're on the subject, don't miss the old "Stale" parody, "I, Poem".]
April 22, 2008
The really inconvenient truth
From BBC News, April 22:
Opening a UN forum on the global impact of climate change on indigenous peoples, [Evo] Morales said that capitalism should be scrapped if the planet is to be saved from the effects of climate change.
"If we want to save our planet earth, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system," he said.
Bolivia's president said unbridled industrial development was responsible for the pillaging of natural resources.
environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights
Opening a UN forum on the global impact of climate change on indigenous peoples, [Evo] Morales said that capitalism should be scrapped if the planet is to be saved from the effects of climate change.
"If we want to save our planet earth, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system," he said.
Bolivia's president said unbridled industrial development was responsible for the pillaging of natural resources.
environment, environmentalism, human rights, animal rights
April 20, 2008
Best comment on ABC's disgraceful "debate"
"Such defacing of American values is to be expected, I guess, from a network whose debate moderators refuse to wear flag pins."
--Frank Rich, New York Times, Apr. 20
April 14, 2008
The Fog of War Memory
From "What Have We Learned, If Anything?" by Tony Judt, New York Review of Books, May 1, 2008:
We are slipping down a slope. The sophistic distinctions we draw today in our war on terror -- between the rule of law and “exceptional” circumstances, between citizens (who have rights and legal protections) and noncitizens to whom anything can be done, between normal people and “terrorists,” between “us” and “them” -- are not new. The twentieth century saw them all invoked. They are the selfsame distinctions that licensed the worst horrors of the recent past: internment camps, deportation, torture, and murder -- those very crimes that prompt us to murmur “never again.” So what exactly is it that we think we have learned from the past? Of what possible use is our self-righteous cult of memory and memorials if the United States can build its very own internment camp and torture people there?
Far from escaping the twentieth century, we need, I think, to go back and look a bit more carefully. We need to learn again -- or perhaps for the first time -- how war brutalizes and degrades winners and losers alike and what happens to us when, having heedlessly waged war for no good reason, we are encouraged to inflate and demonize our enemies in order to justify that war’s indefinite continuance. And perhaps, in this protracted electoral season, we could put a question to our aspirant leaders: Daddy (or, as it might be, Mommy), what did you do to prevent the war?
We are slipping down a slope. The sophistic distinctions we draw today in our war on terror -- between the rule of law and “exceptional” circumstances, between citizens (who have rights and legal protections) and noncitizens to whom anything can be done, between normal people and “terrorists,” between “us” and “them” -- are not new. The twentieth century saw them all invoked. They are the selfsame distinctions that licensed the worst horrors of the recent past: internment camps, deportation, torture, and murder -- those very crimes that prompt us to murmur “never again.” So what exactly is it that we think we have learned from the past? Of what possible use is our self-righteous cult of memory and memorials if the United States can build its very own internment camp and torture people there?
Far from escaping the twentieth century, we need, I think, to go back and look a bit more carefully. We need to learn again -- or perhaps for the first time -- how war brutalizes and degrades winners and losers alike and what happens to us when, having heedlessly waged war for no good reason, we are encouraged to inflate and demonize our enemies in order to justify that war’s indefinite continuance. And perhaps, in this protracted electoral season, we could put a question to our aspirant leaders: Daddy (or, as it might be, Mommy), what did you do to prevent the war?
April 4, 2008
Enron's revenge
Senator Patrick Leahy wrote:
Have you seen any evidence that industrial-scale wind measurably reduces, or even slows the growth of, greenhouse gas emissions? Since the wind doesn't always blow when you need it, and then blows variably, wind turbines can't replace other more reliable sources. And those other sources are forced to run less efficiently, i.e., with more, not less, emissions.
Furthermore, it is boilerplate pablum to mention foreign oil. Less than 3% of our electricity comes from burning oil, and most of that is the sludge left over from refining gasoline.
With such little benefit, and accumulating adverse impacts, industrial wind is a harmful boondoggle: Enron's revenge.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, human rights, Vermont
... I am firmly committed to reducing our nation's dependency on foreign oil and curbing greenhouse gas emission. That is why I have long supported tax incentives for the solar industry and wind power ...Reply:
Have you seen any evidence that industrial-scale wind measurably reduces, or even slows the growth of, greenhouse gas emissions? Since the wind doesn't always blow when you need it, and then blows variably, wind turbines can't replace other more reliable sources. And those other sources are forced to run less efficiently, i.e., with more, not less, emissions.
Furthermore, it is boilerplate pablum to mention foreign oil. Less than 3% of our electricity comes from burning oil, and most of that is the sludge left over from refining gasoline.
With such little benefit, and accumulating adverse impacts, industrial wind is a harmful boondoggle: Enron's revenge.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, human rights, Vermont
April 2, 2008
Cost, space, safety risk, threats to flora and fauna, noise, aesthetic intrusion, shadow flicker: problems with wind energy
Ton van de Wekken, of KEMA Nederland, an energy systems consultancy, writes in the April 1 Renewable Energy World (excerpts):
The costs of onshore wind ranges from €55–100/MWh, depending on the wind resource. For most locations, though, wind energy is not cost-effective and incentives are a prerequisite to make a wind farm profitable.
Inevitably, offshore wind farms are more expensive to develop than onshore farms – requiring about double the initial investment and double the operational costs – due to the extra costs of construction, transport to site and interconnection.
Initiation and feasibility
... Wind farms require large sites. Depending on the rotor diameter the required mutual separation is 300–500 metres with a similar separation distance from dwellings and commercial buildings to limit noise nuisance and provide a safety zone. Even for a medium-sized wind farm, say 5 × 2 MW machines, a substantial land area is required.
Planning requirements of local authorities
The wind farm site has to meet planning and regulatory requirements. In most countries wind turbines may not rotate above roads, railway tracks and waterways, and a minimum clearance from public infrastructure must be observed such as facilities for transport, storage or processing of hazardous goods, and residential, commercial or public buildings.
In northern countries and countries with a continental climate, specific attention has to be paid to the possibility of icing. Ice developed on rotating rotor blades can be thrown long distances, potentially causing injury and damage and planning authorities and regulatory bodies may require an additional risk analysis if the site is subject to icing.
There may also be a zoning plan that prohibits wind turbines or limits the maximum height of structures. Under such circumstances, the relevant authorities should be approached to investigate the possibility of obtaining permission at the earliest possible stage.
In most European countries wind turbines must also be certified according to the relevant national or international safety standards. Manufacturers have to demonstrate conformance by the production of a valid type-certificate.
For any proposed wind farm the following should be considered:
The wind farm must comply with all relevant environmental regulations. This may require a number of studies of, for example, the effects on birds, animals and plant life during the construction and use phases. Key parameters include noise, visual impact and safety, and most planning authorities also demand safety and risk assessment studies.
Wind turbines produce noise, mostly caused by the rotor blades and drive train, and the noise impact of wind turbines on the environment is one of the major planning issues. The distance to nearby residential buildings has to be sufficient to ensure that the noise level at the house front is below the statutory limit. The visual impact of a wind farm is also an important planning consideration. Wind farms require open, often elevated, sites and are consequently highly visible from a distance. Many of the potentially most productive sites are in areas of great natural beauty where planning regulation can be very restrictive. Shadow flickering on dwellings and offices due to the periodic – about once per second – passage of the rotating blades across the sun can be very annoying for the occupants, although it is not regulated by law.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights
The costs of onshore wind ranges from €55–100/MWh, depending on the wind resource. For most locations, though, wind energy is not cost-effective and incentives are a prerequisite to make a wind farm profitable.
Inevitably, offshore wind farms are more expensive to develop than onshore farms – requiring about double the initial investment and double the operational costs – due to the extra costs of construction, transport to site and interconnection.
Initiation and feasibility
... Wind farms require large sites. Depending on the rotor diameter the required mutual separation is 300–500 metres with a similar separation distance from dwellings and commercial buildings to limit noise nuisance and provide a safety zone. Even for a medium-sized wind farm, say 5 × 2 MW machines, a substantial land area is required.
Planning requirements of local authorities
The wind farm site has to meet planning and regulatory requirements. In most countries wind turbines may not rotate above roads, railway tracks and waterways, and a minimum clearance from public infrastructure must be observed such as facilities for transport, storage or processing of hazardous goods, and residential, commercial or public buildings.
In northern countries and countries with a continental climate, specific attention has to be paid to the possibility of icing. Ice developed on rotating rotor blades can be thrown long distances, potentially causing injury and damage and planning authorities and regulatory bodies may require an additional risk analysis if the site is subject to icing.
There may also be a zoning plan that prohibits wind turbines or limits the maximum height of structures. Under such circumstances, the relevant authorities should be approached to investigate the possibility of obtaining permission at the earliest possible stage.
In most European countries wind turbines must also be certified according to the relevant national or international safety standards. Manufacturers have to demonstrate conformance by the production of a valid type-certificate.
For any proposed wind farm the following should be considered:
- Check municipal zoning plan on competing activities and maximum building height
- Mutual distance between wind turbines 400 metres
- There are to be no buildings and as few obstacles as possible within 300–500 metres
- Authorities or concerned parties may request a risk analysis if other activities are to take place within 400–500 metres of the wind turbines.
The wind farm must comply with all relevant environmental regulations. This may require a number of studies of, for example, the effects on birds, animals and plant life during the construction and use phases. Key parameters include noise, visual impact and safety, and most planning authorities also demand safety and risk assessment studies.
Wind turbines produce noise, mostly caused by the rotor blades and drive train, and the noise impact of wind turbines on the environment is one of the major planning issues. The distance to nearby residential buildings has to be sufficient to ensure that the noise level at the house front is below the statutory limit. The visual impact of a wind farm is also an important planning consideration. Wind farms require open, often elevated, sites and are consequently highly visible from a distance. Many of the potentially most productive sites are in areas of great natural beauty where planning regulation can be very restrictive. Shadow flickering on dwellings and offices due to the periodic – about once per second – passage of the rotating blades across the sun can be very annoying for the occupants, although it is not regulated by law.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, human rights
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)