You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #6: Also, the New York Times. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
shockra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-05 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
6. Also, the New York Times.
Editorial

A Malodorous Fog

Published: August 7, 2005

Here is an axiom for farmers and consumers: Crowding animals together in large numbers always leads to problems. It turns hog manure, for instance, from a source of fertility into toxic waste. It creates enormous opportunities for disease, which tends to be warded off by inappropriate use of antibiotics. And in central California, it turns dairies, which are environmentally benign on a small scale, into major sources of air pollution - perhaps as bad as automobiles.

One of the smoggiest places in the country is the San Joaquin Valley, where one-fifth of the country's dairy cattle live - some 2.5 million animals and still growing. Local environmentalists and some local legislators argue that cow emissions - which come mostly from the front end of the animal rather than the tailpipe - have gotten out of control. There is a growing call to impose new rules that would improve air quality. The best way to do this isn't completely clear. But few, if any, of the proposed solutions would be palatable to the dairy farmers.

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District estimates that at present each cow emits 19.3 pounds of pollutants a year in the form of gases from manure, from regurgitation and from flatulence. Defenders of the dairy farms - a large and powerful California industry - say that number is a wild overestimation. But behind the debate over the emissions measurements and their regulatory implications, there is a simple fact to contend with: the eye-stinging, nose-burning smell of cattle congestion in rural California.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/opinion/07sun4.html?th&emc=th&oref=login
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC