December 5, 2008
The Facts
In an effort to eliminate air pollution, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to impose a fee on farmers for their livestock polluting the air via flatulence. The EPA says this is a legal thing to do because the United States Supreme Court has ruled that flatulence from farm animals is polluting the air. An article by CNBC says farmers are fighting the EPA on this.
My View
Ok, here’s the big question; how in the hell did the environment survive the hundreds of millions of years of the Triassic and Cretaceous periods? Answer: evidently we didn’t and the human race is a figment of our imagination.
The more immediate question; with the toxic chemicals that’s being released into our air and drinking water by our industries and automobiles, how can the EPA possibly have time to worry about cows & pigs farting? Cows & hogs release about 9.5 billion pounds of nitrogen per year into the atmosphere, which is only considered to be noxious, but does cause some minor damage to the atmosphere. On the other hand, US industries release about 575 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the air each year which kills about 175 people per day via cardio-pulmonary diseases. And that doesn’t include what they put in our drinking water and soil (we grow our other food in soil). Toxic chemicals of heavy metal pollutants, including lead, arsenic, and mercury from the burning of coal and oil cause a wide variety of other health disorders. And the EPA wants to fine farmers (who are already on the verge of going out of business) $175 and $87.50 respectively per head per year for farting, a natural phenomenon of nature? Give me a break!
But when you read further into the article referenced above, you get to what’s probably at the core of this ridicules idea. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are in hopes this will force the cattle & pig farmers to get out of the livestock business and switch to healthier crops. Their spokesman, Bruce Friedrich, said “it makes perfect sense if you are looking for ways to cut down on meat consumption and recoup environmental losses”. Evidently, they and other opponents of livestock production for consumption have produced studies that support their ideological objectives, and they’ve succeeded in convincing the EPA to no only buy into it, but place this ahead of policing pollutant toxins that are killing people. Pretty powerful influence, I’d say.
No Comments so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.