Donna--Good to know we're on the same page. Demonstrating,
protesting, and boycotting I can also do, but without violence,
scandal, or sex the media doesn't give such much attention--public
not interested in quiet demonstrations, protests, and boycotts.
Plus, the Farm Bill continues to perpetuate the cheap and easy to fix
type of food we find in stores. And as long as corn products are
cheap and/or most convenient to buy, the public continues to buy
them. In other words, there needs to be a majority of the market
(not just a few enviros) insisting on additive- free food that is
also cheap.
First and foremost we need legislators who aren't beholden to
corporate polluters and are actually willing to do the right thing
without concern for getting elected/re-elected. Until we get away
from our bought-and-paid-for legislators, not much is going to
change. Ever since the environmental movement began, and this is not
to belittle the tremendous work of the enviro groups, there has been
merely legislative tokens given to those causes from both parties.
And our pollution and environmental devastation problems haven't
changed all that much. They just go on and on.
So in order to have the type of democracy our founding fathers
desired, to get away from the rule by the wealthy and actually have a
government of the people, by the people, and for the people, the
people need to get a lot more involved and knowledgeable. And maybe
even get away from the whole idea of a republic with
"representatives" for the people.
Just some musings on a cold winter night in Iowa.
Susan West
On Dec 5, 2010, at 7:04 AM, Donna Buell wrote:
> I didn't realize there had been vandalism in NE Iowa, Susan. I
> wasn't suggesting crimes against others or against property. I was
> thinking more of cash register-kind of civil disobedience.
> Disobeying the command to be a passive consumer rather than a
> participating citizen.
>
> "Iowans boycott CAFO ham and eggs."
>
> "Iowans against high fructose corn syrup."
>
> Personally, I never put ethanol in my car. And I feel good at the
> pump every single time. (And I drive a car that gets 38mpg, etc.)
>
> It is time to move Beyond Corn. And consumer demand may be our
> best (only?) weapon. Although we may have an ally in the Tea Party
> if we can somehow kill the ethanol, oil and coal subsidies all in
> one swoop....
>
> Donna
>
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2010, at 9:26 PM, Norm West wrote:
>
>>
>> Am not sure how far we'd get with civil disobedience, but causing
>> a big enough ruckus over the pollution/environmental destruction
>> that's going on to keep it in the headlines of all the media seems
>> the only way wrongs get corrected in this country, or any other
>> country for that matter. As many bad points as there are to
>> CAFOs, don't think vandalism that's been going on up here in NE
>> Iowa does anything except keep public sympathy on the side of the
>> CAFOs. Plus there's always the risk that the vandalism will
>> result in increased suffering of the animals in the CAFOs.
>> Certainly no quick nor simple answer to getting the public on the
>> environment's side instead of focused on more and more
>> consumerism. As some famous military figure has often been
>> quoted, "Attack, attack, attack is the best
>> defense". Susan West
>>
>>
>> On Dec 4, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Donna Buell wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, agreed. Both parties are far more beholden to Big Ag than
>>> to the common resources of the people.
>>>
>>> Is it time for more civil disobedience?
>>>
>>> Donna
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 4, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Norm West wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Be interesting to ask Mr. Petty WHERE he saw the studies and
>>>> what qualifications he has to analyze the data and have a
>>>> different conclustion than the researchers! As you mentioned,
>>>> whatever he got was probably spoon-fed to him from Farm Bureau.
>>>> Doesn't seem to matter which party is in power at the State
>>>> House or White House neither party is very serious about
>>>> protecting our environment. Sad. Susan West
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 4, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Wally Taylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Regarding the Chesapeake Bay, I was at a recent EPC meeting
>>>>> when, during a break, Dave Petty, one of the EPC members, came
>>>>> over to where Ed Tormey and Randy Clark (DNR lawyers) and I
>>>>> were standing. He started talking about the "damn
>>>>> environmentalists" who were blaming CAFOs (chickens in that
>>>>> case) for the pollution of the Bay. He claimed it was the
>>>>> increasing human population around the Bay that was causing the
>>>>> problem. I said I doubted that since human waste is treated
>>>>> before it is discharged; animal waste is not. He claimed he had
>>>>> seen the studies. He probably saw the information Farm Bureau
>>>>> gave him. And this is a member of the EPC appointed by Vilsack
>>>>> and reappointed by Culver (or Patty Judge).
>>>>>
>>>>> Wally Taylor
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Chesapeake pollution issues are NOT driven by computer
>>>>> modeling, but by
>>>>> direct measurement of pollutants and absence of normal lifeforms.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Searles, Leland <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Sent: Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:16 pm
>>>>> Subject: Re: I always thought an "environmental lawyer" worked
>>>>> for the environment...
>>>>>
>>>>> This line from the attorney, Bodine, contains a grotesque
>>>>> oversimplification.
>>>>> It's the kind of junky statement that I expect from such a
>>>>> meeting and the
>>>>> hand-picked presenters it has:
>>>>>
>>>>> "are just a few examples of issues driven by 'computer modeling
>>>>> and inaccurate
>>>>> assumptions.' "
>>>>>
>>>>> The Chesapeake pollution issues are NOT driven by computer
>>>>> modeling, but by
>>>>> direct measurement of pollutants and absence of normal
>>>>> lifeforms. Some of the
>>>>> Iowa rules (antidegradation is mentioned) are based on citizen
>>>>> and professional
>>>>> testing of water quality, not least of which occurs at major
>>>>> municipal drinking
>>>>> water facilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Modeling is made necessary in many cases by absence of better
>>>>> data. I work with
>>>>> the DNR Air Quality Bureau, and they have a rank order list of
>>>>> preferred forms
>>>>> of data for issuing air permits to facilities. Stack testing,
>>>>> followed by
>>>>> modeling, is second, and it is driven by knowledge of
>>>>> industrial through-put and
>>>>> stack measurements of pollutants. Pure modeling is well down
>>>>> the list. The
>>>>> speaker distorts the situation in Iowa, if not in other states,
>>>>> and
>>>>> misrepresents the guidance from EPA on how to establish levels
>>>>> of pollution in
>>>>> air and water. This is what counts as "sound science" - highly
>>>>> biased
>>>>> misrepresentations of the realities of what regulatory agencies
>>>>> actually do,
>>>>> often in cooperation with the regulated agencies, various
>>>>> organizations, and
>>>>> citizen volunteers.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the evidence of agricultural contributions to air pollution
>>>>> and greenhouse
>>>>> gases wasn't already clear enough five to ten years ago, the
>>>>> research that has
>>>>> been done in the last year or two puts the icing on the cake,
>>>>> that agricultural
>>>>> air and water (including, importantly, so-called nonpoint
>>>>> sources) emissions of
>>>>> pollution and agricultural releases of methane and other
>>>>> greenhouse gases are
>>>>> significant. While many farm organizations prefer voluntary
>>>>> adoption of control
>>>>> techniques, rather than legislated or regulated approaches, the
>>>>> evidence also is
>>>>> clear that voluntary programs to reduce air toxics (ammonia,
>>>>> hydrogen sulfide)
>>>>> and nutrients in surface waterways ARE NOT SUFFICIENT.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most environmental lawyers do go where the money is, I think,
>>>>> as Wally Taylor
>>>>> noted. I've been in the room trying to hammer out policy
>>>>> recommendations with
>>>>> corporate lawyers, and they do their jobs very well: obstruct,
>>>>> hinder, stall,
>>>>> make sideways accusations and implications, etc. It's too bad
>>>>> that corporations
>>>>> aren't more interested in accuracy and truth. But then American
>>>>> culture,
>>>>> economics, and politics are based on self-interest, not ethical
>>>>> responsibilities. Mission statements are often subterfuges,
>>>>> pretty language and
>>>>> little more. A musician/poet once describe such stuff as
>>>>> "antimatter language
>>>>> designed to conceal."
>>>>>
>>>>> Lee Searles
>>>>> Air Quality Program
>>>>> Iowa Environmental Council
>>>>> Des Moines
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Iowa Discussion, Alerts and Announcements on behalf of
>>>>> Cindy Hildebrand
>>>>> Sent: Fri 12/3/2010 10:06 PM
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: I always thought an "environmental lawyer" worked for the
>>>>> environment...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...but after reading the last paragraph in the article below, I
>>>>> see I was
>>>>> mistaken.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cindy
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ifbf.org/article.aspx?articleID=21494
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cindy Hildebrand
>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Ames, IA 50010
>>>>>
>>>>> "Flood control dams have no relation to the cause of floods.
>>>>> Check dams and
>>>>> terraces do not touch the cause of erosion...The practices we
>>>>> now call
>>>>> conservation are, to a large extent, local alleviations of
>>>>> biotic pain. They are
>>>>> necessary, but they must not be confused with cures." (Aldo
>>>>> Leopold)
>>>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>>> To unsubscribe
>>>>> from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: IOWA-TOPICS-
>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
>>>>> http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive
>>>>> Sierra Club Insider,
>>>>> the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features
>>>>> the Club's latest
>>>>> news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at
>>>>> http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>>> To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>
>>>>> Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
>>>>> http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
>>>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>>> To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
>>>>> [log in to unmask] Check out our
>>>>> Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://
>>>>> www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
>>>>
>>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>> To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
>>>> [log in to unmask] Check out our
>>>> Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://
>>>> www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
>>>
>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
>>> [log in to unmask] Check out our
>>> Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://
>>> www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To
>> unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: IOWA-
>> [log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv
>> Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/
>> lists/faq.asp
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To
> unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: IOWA-
> [log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv
> Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/
> lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
> http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
|
