-
Killing Manufacturing
May 10, 2011 | 83 comments
The Energy Spectator
A True Energy Policy
The president has talked up natural gas — yet he remains silent about the bipartisan NAT GAS Act.
On March 31, speaking at Georgetown University, President Obama said, “Now, in terms of new sources of energy, we have a few different options. The first is natural gas. Recent innovations have given us the opportunity to tap large reserves — perhaps a century’s worth of reserves, a hundred years worth of reserves — in the shale under our feet.”
Indeed, recent technological breakthroughs have opened up recoverable reserves sufficient to supply America with natural gas probably for closer to 200 years, even at increased use levels. These breakthroughs create exciting new opportunities to reduce the use of oil-based fuel for personal transportation, replacing it with the now bountiful, American-produced natural gas instead. This change would provide the added benefit of dramatically reducing CO2 emissions.
The technology for using natural gas as a vehicle fuel is already perfected. The energy contained in Nat Gas is more than sufficient to power modern vehicles. The primary infrastructure to deliver the supply to consumers already exists.
Countries the world over have already embarked on this path. But you would be making a false presumption if you believe that the Obama administration is actually developing an all inclusive energy policy with natural gas as its cornerstone.
There are good reasons for this conversion. Domestic oil production had increased every year for the past 6 years, but that stopped in April of last year. President Obama made claims of increased domestic oil production in 2010, Yet, from April forward domestic production declined because the President shut down production in the Gulf, violated court orders to resume issuing permits, and imposed undefined regulatory impediments on the issuance of new drilling permits.
In fact, since April 20, 2010, and the Gulf oil spill, domestic production has declined by more than 500,000 barrels per day. This may not seem like much considering that we as a nation consume more than 19 million barrels per day. But consider that a reduction in worldwide supply of little more than 2 million barrels per day in 2008 resulted in a wholesale price increase of almost 100%.
Until April 2010, our imports from the Middle East had declined to less than 18% of total oil imports. Unlike 1973, until April, we could lose access to Middle Eastern oil without having our supply channels disrupted for more than a month or so. Today with the reduction in supply and the stalled permitting process, we are increasing our reliance on Middle Eastern imports. This affects the cost at the pump and could negatively impact the United States economy if Middle East supplies are disrupted.
While I am a firm believer in drilling domestic oil as much and as rapidly as possible, this is only a small part of the answer. In fact it truly isn’t the long-term answer. Trying to drill our way out of the problem, while necessary for the short term, won’t solve the long-term energy use issue.
Timing and cost are the real issues. Gone are the days of pumping from the large underground reservoirs in places like Pennsylvania, Texas, California, or Alaska. Recovering oil from the Bakken fields requires deep horizontal drilling and fracking. Offshore recovery requires setting up drill sites under vast amounts of water. Recovering oil from the tar sands of Canada or Colorado requires huge inputs of energy. All are very expensive operations that push the cost of oil higher.
Short-sightedness and political expedience has left us with inadequate infrastructure to pipe domestically produced oil out of the fields. Pipelines from the Canadian and Colorado tar sand fields and the Bakken fields don’t exist. Existing pipelines from Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico refineries are full.
Also, oil must be refined for use as fuel. America has prohibited the construction of new oil refineries since the mid 1970s. Even if we issue permits and begin pumping to capacity, our ability to convert the increased domestic production into gasoline or diesel fuel is minimal. We need updated infrastructure and additional refineries to continue using oil as a transportation fuel.
Trying to increase our supply with ethanol is also folly. Corn, sugar, cellulosic, and grain-based ethanol is not economically viable. The yield is minimal and the industry only survives when receiving government subsidies. Mandating that a significant percentage of the nation’s corn crop be diverted to the production of ethanol is counterproductive and raises the price of all corn crops. Algae-based bio fuels actually make sense due to the yield, but have development problems that are as yet inhibiting commercialization. Additionally, their chemical properties make them more feasible as a jet fuel than an auto fuel.
Electric cars are at best a novelty. They have the dual problem of limited range and long recharge times. Their use is very limited and will not go mainstream unless and until there is a paradigm shift in battery technology. Current technology, such as Lithium Ion and Lithium polymer cells, do not provide sufficient storage for the range requirements of most Americans and the four plus hour average charge times further limit their acceptance. Even if they become successful, deployment will still require huge increases in grid-based electricity generation to charge the batteries. Of our current crop of electric cars, Prius and Volt are short range and still use gas as a primary fuel. Tesla and Fiskars are an option, but not ready for the mainstream and much too expensive. Electric cars are, in my estimation, 5 to 15 years away from legitimacy.
THE ONLY LOGICAL ANSWER to bridge the conversion from oil based fuels to paradigm alternatives lies in the conversion of personal transportation to the use of natural gas. Consider the following reasons:
• Daily demand for oil in the U.S. is between 19 and 20 million barrels per day. Of this demand, approximately 12 MM BPD of oil is used to fuel our motor vehicles.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (44) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Roger Pol
More Articles From The Energy Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/24/a-true-energy-policy
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Shamus| 5.24.11 @ 7:19AM
You can't trust Barrack Obama.
SpiralArchitect| 5.24.11 @ 11:56AM
Obummer is easy to read just look at what is in plain sight, be it spoken or by action or inaction.
Ever frustrating it is that so few people see what Obummer is about. He is not an American, that is, he does not like America and despises it's success.
He is akin to the school bully that see's a kids fancy new bike and takes it or tries to destroy the bike - the bike, again, is the USA.
Everything he does and says, as well as his intentional inaction precisely illastrates his eagerness to defame this nation and bring down this great nation.
He has a plan for the take down of this country, for one not to see such is to not want to see.
So far his plan seems to be working just as he presumably desires.
How many illegal actions must this man do before there is any form of outrage...
Richard Hanson| 9.16.11 @ 11:08AM
The reason Obama will not get on board is because natural gas is still a carbon based energy source that will add money to the pockets of big oil. Obama and his cronies hate both and anthing thing that promotes carbon based energy or inriches oil companies will not be supported.
bulging disc in neck treatment
Timothy L. Pennell| 5.24.11 @ 7:38AM
He HAS an Energy Policy. He's gonna be BRAZIL'S "Best Customer".
Michael Tomlinson| 5.24.11 @ 8:16AM
Timothy not only its best customer, but its bank. Don't forget Obama promised them (i.e., George Soros) billions of dollars in US taxpayer's money.
Fredrick Ward| 5.24.11 @ 1:15PM
That is the exact reason why he is not getting behind this plan. He has so much money sunk into foreign oil that if he backs this plan he, and all his buddies, will lose hand over fist.
Louis Jenkins| 5.24.11 @ 8:11AM
Can't figure out why natural gas hasn't caught on. We're dalying around with electric instead. It's already available, maybe that's why Obama isn't blowing its horn. He believes in reaching out a long way.
Michael Tomlinson| 5.24.11 @ 8:46AM
In states like Missouri the Democrat Carnahan family invested big in "green energy." That's why Obama and the Democrat Congress are throwing away taxpayer's dollars on these scams - subsidizing more Democrat boondoggles.
Stan Redmond| 5.24.11 @ 9:07AM
There's a couple reasons Nat Gas hasn't caught on for automobile fuel. One is the infrastructure just isn't set up to build the cars with the system installed. Gasoline is still relatively cheap.
AND THE BIGGIE!!! Politicians are figuring out how to tax the heck out of it!!!
John Navratil| 5.24.11 @ 7:11PM
Louis Jenkins,
Natural gas is a "natural" for local fleet vehicles. It can certainly be used as a motor fuel and conversions are relatively simple. It's even half the price of gasoline, today. So what's the problem.
CNG (the only practical choice) is 1/4 the density of gasoline and requires pressure vessels capable of storing it at 3000 psi. Convert an automobile and you lose the trunk. Convert an 18-wheeler and reduce your maximum trailer length. Convert a train and pull a few cars of fuel for each tractor and plan on adding tractors. You cannot convert an aircraft, the weight is prohibitive.
It has a place which is already being exploited and will, no doubt, be used ever more in the future. But it is no panacea.
Nunya| 5.24.11 @ 8:33PM
I actually know a couple of people who use CNG in their cars. They love it because the cost is so cheap compared to gas, but they also found they need to fuel about every 125 miles or so, because the pressure drops to the point the car won't keep running. Most have said that they've been able to find stations that carry nat gas, but out here in the Wild West there are places they simply cannot go because of the distances. I like nat gas as an option, but we've got to figure out how to make it work as well as gasoline--or get more stations to carry it as an alternative.
john| 5.26.11 @ 7:16PM
In the Europe lots of cars run on CNG, if they run out of it they can switch to the gas in their gas tank and drive to the next CNG station for a refill!
Redstateboy| 5.24.11 @ 8:48AM
what? more evidence of the incompetence of the One we've been waiting for? Alert the Media.. Oh.. that's right, they already know he's incompetent but since he's a Liber-ul incompetent, it's ok.
DonW| 5.24.11 @ 8:59AM
The regime will not only endorse drilling and infrastructure for natural gas, but will drill for oil under one condition. The prerequiste is that the Federal Government nationalizes the energy industry and reaps the profits.
This is how Russia, Iran, Venezuela and other dictatorships fund their regimes. American Thinker had a graph illustrating the 98% of oil production worldwide is government owned and operated. The U.S., Canada, Britain and Austrailia are the exceptions. The other three governments are trending toward liberty. Ours is embracing statism like the former mentioned.
SpiralArchitect| 5.24.11 @ 12:14PM
With a Marxist leader and Socialist Cabinet this should be a surprise to no one.
The takedown of the US is Obummers goal, he is proceeding just as planned.
Alert1201| 5.24.11 @ 9:02AM
The reason Obama will not get on board is because natural gas is still a carbon based energy source that will add money to the pockets of big oil. Obama and his cronies hate both and anthing thing that promotes carbon based energy or inriches oil companies will not be supported.
Stan Redmond| 5.24.11 @ 9:09AM
I don't think it has anything to do with being carbon based (I don't accept that premise anyway).
Who will community organizers (thugs) organize if people have cheap, clean, plentiful fuel sources? You can get a lot of pitchforks in the hands of people when they are tired, cold and hungry.
George S| 5.24.11 @ 9:18AM
The only energy policy liberal Democrats are interested in is separating you from your money. The bedrock of our freedom and quality of life is the accessibility to cheap, uninterrupted energy. As a result, the revenue stream generated in the use of energy is a tempting target to the political class, which is why the likes of Chavez make nationalizing energy production top priority. Here in the U.S. the Constitution makes it difficult for government to get its claws into the private sector so government instead resorts to taxes and regulations to get a piece of those energy dollars.
Even if natural gas replaces gasoline, the fact that we have an abundant supply will make it difficult for government to tax or regulate it to the levels where they can dictate energy policy. Natural gas burns consistently and therefore cannot be "locally regulated" for different blends depending on the whims of state regulators applying their own emissions standards; it does not need energy to convert from a raw form to several different products, thereby depriving the environmentalist a club to limit production; it does not mix well with politically favored crops so corporate welfare cases like Archer Daniels Midland will find themselves politically impotent; it does not contain benzene nor emit high levels of carbon monoxide so the EPA would have to shut down dozens of departments that handle gasoline emissions; nor can elements such as weather, pipeline damage or world events have an effect on the supply, thus keeping the prices relatively constant and depriving politicians a "crisis" to take away more of our freedoms.
That is no energy policy, it only benefits us. What's in it for the political class? Unfortunately, that is the deciding factor.
SpiralArchitect| 5.24.11 @ 12:51PM
Precisely. Contrast the amount the Gov makes off of each gallon of gas to what the 'Big Oil' companies make - the margin is anywhere from 6-1 to 9-1 if one uses state taxes as well.
Nunya| 5.24.11 @ 8:35PM
George, well stated. You are (unfortunately) absolutely spot on!
PattyMor| 5.24.11 @ 9:22AM
Stan Redmond, is correct. If citizens are prosperous, what does he need community organizers for? So they keep the inner cities uneducated by giving them poor schools and hand outs to keep them on gov'ment plantation.
If we have no jobs, we need the gov'ment for unemployment, food stamps, and housing. If energy costs are high, some will need subsidies to keep afloat.
Dustoff| 5.24.11 @ 9:49AM
Many great comments. Yet one that hasn't been brought up. The storage of NG in a car is a problem. Gas tanks in cars are easy to make and can be bent into a hundred different directions.
But NG tanks must be round because of the high pressure of the fuel. This causes problems on where you can put the tank. I've seen a few cars and trucks that were converted and the tank either went in the trunk of the car or the bed of the truck taking up usable space.
SpiralArchitect| 5.24.11 @ 12:52PM
NG is excellent for many applications that will not include the auto. Public transit is a prime example.
Roger Pol | 5.25.11 @ 11:51AM
Dustoff, You are certainly on target about the necessity of a cylindrical tank at this time, but the need to place the tanks in the trunk or bed of a vehicle is only necessary when the vehicle is bi-fuel. Eliminate gas as a fuel source and you can replace the gas tank with a single or pair of 14x36 tanks in the same space as the gasoline tank. Range with a single 14x36 is greater than a 16 gallon gasoline tank for the same powerplant.
Thomas Wilbur| 5.24.11 @ 10:05AM
I know natural gas vehicles - Grandad in AZ had a pumping station on his ranch (1960's - 80's) and could switch gas/natural on his pickups with a switch on the dash. Not only cleaner air but a cleaner engine too. My Father-in-Law in Lithuania can buy gas cylinders in most stations (and in that part of the EU too) - no pumping, just swap it out. Cleaner and competition for gas. I used car diesel - 30 mpg for a station wagon. Diesels are a 1/3 of the market in much of the EU - way better mileage, last longer too. But the US can't figure out diesel or natural gas, wastes billions on rail and 'alternatives'.
Dee See| 5.24.11 @ 10:10AM
AS the globalist media cover-up of what's
now surely the greatest world nuclear disaster
in history (Fukishima) swings into its 6th week
---and as the actuarial psychopaths of 'population
reduction' (ie kindly genocide) are working out
those cost projections -----we marvel at the cool
with which the designers of the flawed reactors
(GE) go about their current business of, among
other things, constructing other dirty plants
across China and the world.
Not so much as a quality peep to be heard
anywhere on our ever more obviously controlled
'political spectrum'.
Anyway, be sure to get those policy upgrades on cancer,
birth defects and sterility insurance----'cause the
bargains AIN'T gonna last....
Nunya| 5.24.11 @ 8:37PM
You know, you REALLY should lay off the psychotropics...
Bob K.| 5.24.11 @ 10:46AM
This is a political problem and it cannot be solved by people like T. Boone Pickens and his shills.
A true energy policy would not concentrate on one single savior like Natural Gas.
A true energy policy would address all uses of energy instead of transportation.
A true energy policy would also open up drilling for oil in the North Slope and off the California Coast. It would also reopen the Gulf of Mexico to the United States and would not cede the oil there to Mexico, China, Cuba and all our other "friends."
A true energy policy would also allow the start up of new Oil Refineries.
A true energy policy would also allow the startup of new Nuclear Power Plants.
A true energy policy would increase our Coal Generation plants because they are the most efficient producers of electricity now, after water power which is limited.
All of the above have been taxed and regulated to death and that is why we are where we are at.
Mr. Pol has addressed all that in passing but he is never the less shilling for Pickens and the Natural Gas Industry.
If he really thinks that it will solve our energy problems he is a bigger fool than he thinks the readers are here.
He doesn't talk about the costs involved. How much it costs to develop and fracture the shale to produce the gas from a well. How many millions of gallons of water it takes to do so. How many hundreds of trips it takes for tankers to deliver the water to fracture one well. How much it costs to pump the water back out of the well and treat it and transport it via hundreds of trips to a treatment facility. How much damage these trips do to the road and bridge infrastructures in the area. How much it costs to build new pipelines and pumping stations to transport this gas and maintain them. And make no mistake, the great percentage of this gas is sold far from where it is found!
He doesn't address the absolutely incompetent way the Gas Industry has tried to sell this technology to the people who live where the shale is found.
Talk about public relations idiots! They walk into Pennsylvania and in effect say "Here now, we are going to shit where you sleep, and we are going to save America. Aren't you happy?" "And besides we have paid off your legislators so live with it."
This is one of the reasons, among others to be sure; that Reagan Democrats voted Republican in Pennsylvania and took control of the Legislature, the Governors office and replaced democrats with republicans in Washington DC. And it might be one of the reasons they switch back in 2012.
And the industry has been fighting a small Extraction Tax that they pay in every other state that would help defray the costs to the damages to the infrastructure. And although those taxes will be reflected in the cost of the product they will be spread out over a vast array of users but they will be used to benefit the states where the gas is found.
Roger Pol | 5.25.11 @ 11:59AM
Bob K., I live in the Marcellus Shale field, I have a Nat Gas well in my back yard. I have no problem selling the concept and the benefits of Nat Gas.
Also, to address your other points about copmmercial energy generation, Part 2 of the true energy policy will come out in about a month.
cicero| 5.24.11 @ 11:45AM
For close to 40 years, we have had no refineries built in this country. For close to the same period, we have had no permits issued for construction of nuclear plants. All of the efforts at energy production have required heavy government subsidies. Our political class is only interested in staying in power, and this includes those in both parties. There is no real concern for the well being of this country, or we would not have the people in Washington more concerned with "so called" endangered species that are variations of species depending on location, rather than the well being of the American citizen.
The political class is only interested in staying in power. If we are to have a sane energy policy, we will have to throw out the incumbents, since we know what they are capable of, and bring in new people who will promise to drill, refine, license, etc.
We also have to disband and shut down those regulatory agencies who set policy, but are unaccountable to the voters. (see EPA) Government by fiat is inconsistent with America.
SpiralArchitect| 5.24.11 @ 12:55PM
I back 'cicero' for the position of 'Oversight & Disbanding'.
Nunya| 5.24.11 @ 8:41PM
I second the motion. All for?
Allen Hanson| 5.24.11 @ 1:48PM
Captain Skippy is not interested in solving the problem. He wants to continue it. If the problem is solved, we won't need loser politicians like him anymore.
Johnny| 5.24.11 @ 3:08PM
All one huge game to the controllers of the universe. They are concerned with the well being of this country, by the way. The concern they have is that we live much too rich a life and need to share the wealth with the poor countries that the political class deems appropriate. Our economy couldn't handle the truth.... it would implode upon itself if things were set right and the people were actually in charge because of the damage done over the last several administrations.
Richard B Hall| 5.24.11 @ 3:47PM
Good article, except for the mention of CO2 emissions. We don't have a problem with CO2 emissions in this country, unless we have too little of it. Plants require it for growing, and we need them for oxygen. That means, the more CO2, the merrier :).
Roger Pol | 5.25.11 @ 12:01PM
Richard, I mention CO2 only to blunt any opposition from the environmentalists.
Richard Baker| 5.24.11 @ 9:25PM
Why should we worry? With the flatulence emanating from the mouth of the Chief Executive and his administration there should be an excess of gas to power the country.
Ore Gone| 5.24.11 @ 9:41PM
I have been running a diesel jetta that gets 35 in town and 50 on the highway for the last 10 years. Most of the people around the country have never even seen one. When I tell them what kind of mileage I get they are amazed. Half the cars in Europe are diesel but they are hard to find here. I find it amazing that they still sell crap gas cars here. The mileage goes down if you run them hard and they don't get very good mileage to start with. Whenever you find something that defies logic if you look closer you will find politics at the bottom of it. People don't want to spend twice as much for fuel if they can help it but someone is making it very difficult to find a diesel car. That would save at least 30% in use over night with no changes at all. It has become obvious that our economy is being directed away from being market based.
Bob K.| 5.25.11 @ 12:00AM
Maybe that is why the price of Diesel is higher than the price of premium gas? And since food is delivered by trucks that run on diesel, the price of food goes up! Another excuse to force people to get into natural gas!
By taxing and regulating the Oil industry to death and leaving the Natural Gas industry alone the government is in effect subsidizing Natural Gas.
That is what T. Boone Pickens sees and likes. He has made money off of Oil and Wind and now sees an opportunity in Gas. Like Mr Pol the author of this article does. And Mr. Pol teaches courses in how to be an entrepreneur so he should know!
Vasu Murti | 5.26.11 @ 4:41PM
Veganism Is Direct Action!
"A diet that can lead to heart attacks, cancer, and numerous other diseases cannot be a natural diet," writes Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983). "A diet that pillages our resources of land, water, forests, and energy cannot be a natural diet. A diet that causes the unnecessary suffering and death of billions of animals each year cannot be a natural diet."
I understand there are conservative Christians who fear vegetarianism...which is kind of like being afraid of nonsmoking, nondrinking, or recycling. Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (largely because of the high consumption of grain fed to livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.
A pamphlet put out by Compassion Over Killing says raising animals for food is one of the leading causes of both pollution and resource depletion today. According to a recent United Nations report, Livestock's Long Shadow, raising chickens, turkeys, pigs, and other animals for food causes more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars, trucks and other forms of transportation combined.
Researchers from the University of Chicago similarly concluded that a vegetarian diet is the most energy efficient, and the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by not eating animal products than by switching to a hybrid car.
"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation."
--Union Nations' Food and Agriculture Association
Nearly 75% of the grain grown and 50% of the water consumed in the U.S. are used by the meat industry. (Audubon Society)
Over 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to grow grain for livestock. (Greenpeace)
It takes nearly one gallon of fossil fuel and 5,200 gallons of water to produce just one pound of conventionally fed beef. (Mother Jones)
Farmed animals produce an estimated 1.4 billion tons of fecal waste each year in the U.S. Much of this untreated waste pollutes the land and water.
The following points and facts are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by the mother-daughter writing team of Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:
"A reduction in beef and other meat consumption is the most potent single act you can take to halt the destruction of our environment and preserve our natural resources. Our choices do matter: What's healthiest for each of us personally is also healthiest for the life support system of our precious, but wounded planet."
--John Robbins, author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated Diet for a New America, and President, EarthSave Foundation
One study puts animal waste in the United States to between 2.4 trillion to 3.9 trillion pounds per year. The United states produces 15,000 pounds of manure per person. This is 130 times the amount of waste produced by the entire human population of the United States.
A 1,000-cow dairy can produce approximately 120,000 pounds of waste per day. This is the functional equivalent of the amount of sanitary waste produced by a city of 20,000 people.
A 20,000-chicken factory produces about 2.4 million pounds of manure a year. Poultry factories are one of the fastest growing industries throughout Asia.
One pig excretes nearly three gallons of waste per day, or 2.5 times the average human's daily total. One hog farm with 50,000 pigs in France produces more waste than the entire city of Los Angeles, and some pig farms are much larger.
Factory farm pollution is the primary source of damage to coastal waters in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. Scientists report that over sixty percent of the coastal waters in the United States are moderately to severely degraded from factory farm nutrient pollution. This pollution creates oxygen-depleted dead zones, which are huge areas of ocean devoid of aquatic life.
Meat production causes deforestation, which then contributes to global warming. Trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, and the destruction of forests around the globe to make room for grazing cattle furthers the greenhouse effect. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations reports that the annual rate of tropical deforestation has increased from nine million hectares in 1980 to 16.8 million hectares in 1990, and unfortunately, this destruction has accelerated since then. By 1994, a staggering 200 million hectares of rainforest had been destroyed in South America just for cattle.
"The impact of countless hooves and mouths over the years has done more to alter the type of vegetation and land forms of the West than all the water projects, strip mines, power plants, freeways, and sub-division developments combined."
--Philip Fradkin, in Audubon, National Audubon Society, New York
Agricultural meat production generates air pollution. As manure decomposes, it releases over 400 volatile organic compounds, many of which are extremely harmful to human health. Nitrogen, a major by-product of animal wastes, changes to ammonia as it escapes into the air, and this is a major source of acid rain. Worldwide, livestock produce over 30 million tons of ammonia. Hydrogen sulfide, another chemical released from animal waste, can cause irreversible neurological damage, even at low levels.
The World Conservation Union lists over 1,000 different fish species that are threatened or endangered. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 60 percent of the world's fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. Commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock, and flounder have fallen by as much as 95 percent in the north Atlantic.
The United States and Europe lose several billion tons of topsoil each year from cropland and grazing land, and 84 percent of this erosion is caused by livestock agriculture. While this soil is theoretically a renewable resource, we are losing soil at a much faster rate than we are able to replace it. It takes 100 to 500 years to produce one inch of topsoil, but due to livestock grazing and feeding, farming areas can lose up to six inches of topsoil a year.
Livestock production affects a startling 70 to 85 percent of the land area of the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union. That includes the public and private rangeland used for grazing, as well as the land used to produce the crops that feed the animals. By comparison, urbanization only affects 3 percent of the United States land area, slightly larger for the European Union and the United Kingdom. Meat production consumes the world's land resources.
Half of all fresh water worldwide is used for thirsty livestock. Producing eight ounces of beef requires an unimaginable 25,000 liters of water, or the water necessary for one pound of steak equals the water consumption of the average household for a year.
The United States government spends $10 million each year to kill an estimated 100,000 wild animals, including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, bears, and mountain lions just to placate ranchers who don't want these animals killing their livestock. The cost far outweighs the damage to livestock that these predators cause.
The Worldwatch Institute estimates one pound of steak from a steer raised in a feedlot costs: five pounds of grain, a whopping 2,500 gallons of water, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, and about 34 pounds of topsoil.
Thirty-three percent of our nation's raw materials and fossil fuels go into livestock destined for slaughter. In a vegan economy, only two percent of our resources will go to the production of food.
"It seems disingenuous for the intellectual elite of the first world to dwell on the subject of too many babies being born in the second- and third-world nations while virtually ignoring the overpopulation of cattle and the realities of a food chain that robs the poor of sustenance to feed the rich a steady diet of grain-fed meat."
---Jeremy Rifkin, pro-life AND pro-animal author, Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture, and president of the Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
According to the editors of World Watch, July/August 2004: "The human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future--deforestization, topsoil erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities and the spread of disease."
Brother David Steindl-Rast, a Benedictine monk, similarly says in the February 1995 issue of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future (a peace and justice periodical on the relgious Left): "...the survival of our planet depends on our sense of belonging--to all other humans, to dolphins caught in dragnets to pigs and chickens and calves raised in animal concentration camps, to redwoods and rainforests, to kelp beds in our oceans, and to the ozone layer."
Les Brown of the Overseas Development Council calculates that if Americans reduced their meat consumption by only ten percent per year, it would free at least twelve million tons of grain for human consumption--or enough to feed sixty million people.
The number of animals killed for food in the United States is nearly 75 times larger than the number of animals killed in laboratories, 30 times larger than the number killed by hunters and trappers, and 500 times larger than the number of animals killed in animal pounds.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is challenging those who think they can still be "meat-eating environmentalists" to go veg, if they really care about the planet.
peta2 is now the largest youth movement of any social change organization in the world.
peta2 has 267,000 friends on MySpace and 91,000 Facebook fans.
A few years ago, PETA was the top-ranked charity when a poll asked teenagers what nonprofit group they would most want to work for. PETA won by more than a 2 to 1 margin over the second place finisher, The American Red Cross, with more votes than the Red Cross and Habitat for Humanity combined.
“If anyone wants to save the planet,” says Paul McCartney in an interview with PETA's Animal Times magazine from 2001, “all they have to do is stop eating meat. That’s the single most important thing you could do. It’s staggering when you think about it. Vegetarianism takes care of so many things in one shot: ecology, famine, cruelty. Let’s do it! Linda was right. Going veggie is the single best idea for the new century.”
John DeMatteo| 7.11.11 @ 3:56PM
My property yeilds about 2500 barrels a day. I have no intentions of being told what to do with what is mine. We will pump what we want. They can go pound sand!!! It is MINE and I intend to live as a FREE man in my country and my land. To hell with their fabricated rules. Who the heck do they think they are? God bless America. Live free people, live free.