Trap Neuter Return, then Get Over Yourself

Washington Post Magazine article
Alley Cat Allies Response to WaPo
Dr. Fox's and Readers' comments on TNR

I have not been a dedicated blogger, I know. As with all diaries and journals I have tried to keep throughout my life, I start out strong and then just sort of peter out. My apologies to anyone who actually missed me. (Allow me a few delusions of importance, please.)

I feel inspired to post after reading the Washington Post Magazine's article on Trap Neuter Return programs operating in DC. I was extremely disturbed by some of the comments reported.

I do believe that pet cats should be kept indoors to the greatest extent possible, or at least to escape-proof back yards (I wouldn't want my dog to wander around unsupervised, why would I want that for my cat?).  It does seem to me that felis catus probably should be categorized as an invasive species in the Americas and certainly in Australia and New Zealand, and that they can prey on indigenous animals that may or may not be threatened. They may, of course, also prey on other invasive species, like rats. And their destructiveness is nothing compared to the destruction caused by the species that helped them migrate to new continents: humans.

We are the most destructive invasive species of all. However, if I suggested wide-spread "euthanasia" to manage human populations, I would be considered a monster, and rightly so. Progressive humans can look back at history and recognize that efforts at eugenics, at keeping "undesirable" people from reproducing, were and are horrific. I would like to think that nobody read Lois Lowery's The Giver and thought it was a blueprint for an ideal society.

I lead with all this not to say that there is no distinction between human and non-human animals, though I find the importance/meaning of those distinctions so minimal that some find it offensive. I lead with all this to say that large sections of humanity must let go of their arrogant assumption that it is right and proper that humans curate the planet.

It is dangerous thinking that both environmentalists and non-environmentalists adopt. The position of Ingrid Newkirk is a perfect example of this. The president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals believes it is unethical to return feral cats to outdoor lifestyle. PETA often seems to be of the view that animals are better off dead than in less-than-perfect circumstances of any kind. It's ironic, I think, that the world spends considerable resources on psychiatric treatment to prevent people from adopting the same philosophy in their own lives. 

A representative of the American Bird Conservancy thinks its morally justified to kill cats because this saves birds. Of course, organizations also justify killing invasive bird species to preserve indigenous birds. But whoever is being killed and who is being saved, we humans have reserved the right to make that decision. And our reasons often fail tests of practicality and morality.  It makes no sense to euthanize healthy homeless dogs while people continue to purposefully breed English bull dogs, animals of notoriously poor health. We also devote significant amounts of money and labor resources to trying to breed pandas in captivity, despite ample evidence that this is a losing battle. But hey, they have those cute black circles around their eyes, so by all means, lets focus on them.

The world is in many ways a big mess right now, and it's all thanks to human behavior. In a misguided effort to preserve the native species that we have endangered, many organizations institute eradication policies of species considered invasive, which frequently means killing any that can be found. This is as if animals have no emotional lives, no sentience worth considering. Moreover, it is an attempt to solve problems with the same defective thinking that caused the problems in the first place. We change the landscape and the ecosystems we inhabit to accommodate our needs. If we find that in accommodating our physical needs we have left a wake of destruction, we satisfy our psychological need to make reparation by creating making a new path of destruction. Yet destruction is the result no matter what. It is only that we have convince ourselves that the latest form of annihilation is a moral good. This is also what European colonialists thought about their policies of forced sterilization and transplantation of indigenous human populations.

We know now that they were wrong to think that because they had the power, they had the right, or even the obligation, to tell others humans how or whether or they could live. We now redirect that energy to animals, animals that are in the wrong environments because of our interventions.

Trap-neuter-return is humane and sensible. It may be slower than mass extermination (and the evidence doesn't necessarily prove it is), but you would think by this point we would have learned that the quickest solution is not the best or the most sustainable. When we stop thinking about the planet and its non-human denizens as though it was our living room and decor, to be arranged in the most pleasing and efficient manner, maybe we will finally start to find real solutions to our problems.

Shorter Showers

Decreasing the length of showers is important, since that much heated water takes a lot of energy. This is probably much harder for women than men, and I've been trying to think up a few ways that my showers could go faster. For one, switching to leave-in conditioner. This way I don't have to take the time to put it in and rinse it out with the water running. One could probably help by getting tangles out of long hair before a shower, so wetting and washing goes more quickly. Also, I've always been one to shave in the shower, but I figure it can probably be done afterward. Also, sugaring might be a reasonably good alternative if one has the patience and the deftness for it (Ideal Bite had a tip on sugaring not too long ago). And of course, the obvious action of using a timer to keep from losing track of time.

Plus, since it's winter and we are all generally less sweaty and smelly, we could probably do with fewer showers anyway.

Anyone else have suggestions for saving water?

Co-op America's 12 Steps for Reducing Carbon Emissions

The following is courtesy of Co-op America:

Each of these steps would reduce carbon emissions by at least 1 billion tons per year by 2054. Implementing at least seven of them brings us to the scale necessary to meet the climate challenge, but we have to start now, and move quickly. We have a ten-year window in which we need to be well on the way to achieving these steps.

The good news is that we have the technology and know-how to accomplish all of these steps right now. The best news is that we don't just save the climate with these steps. They bring us real energy security, more jobs, a cleaner environment, real progress on the war against poverty, and a safer world. Let's get started today.

1. Increase fuel economy for the world's 2 billion cars from an average of 30 mpg to 60 mpg. (Current US averages are a woeful 22 mpg.)

2. Cut back on driving. Decrease car travel for 2 billion 30-mpg cars from 10,000 to 5,000 miles per year, through increased use of mass transit, telecommuting, and walking and biking.

3. Increase energy efficiency by one-quarter in existing buildings and appliances. Move to zero-emissions plans for new buildings.

4. Decrease tropical deforestation to zero, and double the rate of new tree plantings.

5. Stop soil erosion. Apply "conservation tillage" techniques to cropland at 10 times the current usage. Encourage local, organic agriculture.

6. Increase wind power. Add 3 million 1-megawatt windmills, 75 times the current capacity.

7. Push hard for solar power. Add 3,000 gigawatt-peak solar photovoltaic units, 1,000 times current capacity.

8. Increase efficiency of coal plants from an average of 32 percent efficiency to 60 percent, and shut down plants that don't meet the standard. No net new coal plants; for new plants built, an equal number should close.

9. Replace 1,400 gigawatts of coal with natural gas, a four-fold increase in natural gas usage over current levels — a short-term step until zero-emissions renewable technologies can replace natural gas.

10. Sequester carbon dioxide at existing coal plants. Sequestration involves storing carbon dioxide underground, an unproven technology that may, nonetheless, be better than nothing.

11. Develop zero-emissions vehicles, including plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles powered by renewable energy.

12. Develop biomass as a short-term replacement for fossil fuel until better carbon-free technologies are developed — but only biofuels made from waste, and made without displacing farmland and rainforests.

Hey Mikey!

In my numerous recent failures to avoid eggs, dairy, and crappily-sourced chocolate, I have become increasinlgy frustrated. Not only with myself, but with everyone I know. Because I have realized that going vegetarian is so ridiculously easy compared to trying to go organic, sustainable, or sweat-shop free. Most foods are pretty obvious about being meat-based. And even when they aren't, they're all required to have ingredients listed on the side. Same with clothes. Labels say what they're made of: leather, fur, silk, wool. And most malls and grocery stores carry some form of vegetarian merchandise; not always so for organic, fair trade, etc. And electronic books are becoming more readily available (the glue used for binding books isn't animal friendly). Vegetarianism is practically a cake walk.

So, here's my challenge: go one week, no meat. It's good for the animals, good for the planet, good for humanity, and good for you. C'mon, just try it. You may even like it.

Fair warning: hostess uses animal fat in their products.

Also, here's a small thing we can all do to help the planet. When you leave a room, shut off the lights. It's that simple. ;-)

Resolutions

I did my grocery shopping at Marks and Spencer today. It's not exactly MOM (My Organic Market, a mini-chain in Maryland), but they do seem to try hard to be responsible. For starters, they only use cage-free eggs, for sale or for producing their packaged goods. There's a lot of excess packaging issues over here though.

I've also been good about line drying all of my clothes, rather than using a dryer. And I'm pretty sure I'm washing all of my stuff in cold water. The washing machine here is a little tricky though. :-) I'm used to home where you just press the cold button.

So, it is that time for (cue big TV announcer voice) New Year's Resolutions. So here are some of mine, perhaps to inspire some of yours:

1. Continue to try and reduce environmental footprint
2. Buy only fair trade, organic chocolate
3. Switch investments to all socially responsible funds

Anybody out there have any good resolutions born of their dedication to environmentalism and/or social responsibility? Feel free to share.

For the Love of Wolves

I find wolves to be compelling animals. They are beautiful, intelligent, and devoted to family. So it's enough to make me want to cry when I find out that Idaho would like to eliminate their wolf population. Please sign this petition to urge the Fish and Wildlife Service to say no to Idaho's outrageous slaughter request.

The Color Green: Representing Environmentalism or Nausea?

Aine Bina has finally gotten around to reading an article from the June 4, 2006 issue of the New York Times that has been sitting on her night stand. The article, which perhaps should be described as editorial journalism, was featured in the "The Way We Live Now" column of the NY Times' Weekend magazine and is called "Mass Natural; With Wal-Mart going organic, where will organic go?" and was written by Michael Pollan. I am giving you all this info rather than a link to the article because a) I *gasp* have the article in hard copy, so I would have to actually *bigger gasp* work to find such a link and b) NYT is quite stingy about letting just anyone access its articles in full on the web.

The title is a pretty good indicator of what the article is about. On the surface, the news of Wal-Mart, or Evil Incorporated as I affectionatley refer to it, deciding to go organic is a major coup for environmentalism. As The Grist wrote in a recent editorial on green crusaders failing to applaud progressive actions taken by the traditional enemies of the environment: "But that self-same Wal-Mart is embarking on a comprehensive sustainability program that includes emission reductions and organics -- the whole shebang." But as Pollan will reveal to us, dig a little deeper and suddenly Wal-Mart's decision to go organic is deeply troubling. Wal-Mart's decision to go organic should not be interpreted as a company's sudden impulse to be a more caring type of corporation. The fact is that recently green has become cool. Vanity Fair did its green issue this summer, and the Washington Post devoted a Sunday Source to it this past month. I was flipping through a recent issue of "Glamour" and they had some suggestions on small steps to becoming greener. So if Wal-Mart wants to keep up with trends in consumer culture, they have to start satisfying demands for Green veggies.

Wal-Mart still wants to deliver it's products at "great" low prices. So they're promising that organic products will only cost 10% more than their non-organic counterparts. The fact is that the Green movement has never promised you cheap goods, just responsibly priced goods. So if Wal-Mart insists that it can deliver organic products cheaply, then one has to ask what the cash register price fails to reflect. For starters, if Wal-Mart is going to deliver on promises for cheap organics, it is going to have to get the products from where it's cheap to grow them. Check the labels on some items around your house: a tv, a souvenir from your recent trip, the tag in your shirt. Found anything made in Asia yet? (Actually, my shirt was made in the USA. Kudos to Wet Seal) So lets ignore for a moment the worker abuses that may be/probably are going on in the countries where we produce our fabulously cheap goods. If you've looked at any websites like myfootprint.org or climatecrisis.net, you know that transporting goods (or people) over great distances causes a significant amount of environmental damage. Why do we love organic again?

As Pollan says "To [get organic food prices to a level just 10% above non-organics] would virtually guarantee that Wal-Mart's version of cheap organic food is not sustainable, at least not in any meaningful sense of that word." This isn't just a theorhetical projection; the evidence for non-sustainable, cheap "organics" is already there. Pollan points out the existence of so-called organic feed-lots. To produce cheap organic milk, agribusiness sets up huge factory dairies, often in the desert. Rather than being fed on grass, these organic cows are fed a diet purely of organic grain, which not only negatively affects the cows, but actually affects the nutritional value of the milk that you drink. Organic milk produced by these cows is lacking in beta-carotene and "good" fats. Is that really what we think of when we choose organic? And sure, guidelines for growing organic meat requires that animals have access to the outside, but agribusiness often meets these requirements by cramming animals into too-small, grassless, shadeless feedlots or, in the case of some poultry producers, screened-in porches which really only provide access to a view of the outside.

This is why, to quote Kermit the Frog, it isn't easy being green. The more converts we get, the more big corporations want to cash in by providing goods labeled "organic" and "locally grown" without in any way affecting their bottom line. And if obeying only the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit of the law isn't enough to keep it cheap for companies, they'll lobby to change the letter. In the past year the Organic Trade Association lobbied on behalf of Kraft Foods (a part of Phillip-Morris, which I affectionately refer to as "The Devil's Henchment"), to make it easier to include synthetic ingredients in products labeled organic. Pollan tells the story of a chicken producer, Fieldale Farms, which persuaded their Georgian congressman to add a provision into an appropriations bill which would allow the substitution of conventional chicken feed if the price of organic feed exceeded a certain level. The rule was eventually repealed, thank goodness. Because if so-called organic producers can continue to label their goods "organic" without actually producing them in an organic way, what good does that do any of us?

The Grist has some hope for the future of a better, kinder, greener, Wal-Mart. So the point here isn't really that Wal-Mart is intrinsically evil and will ultimately fail to in any way help the environment, but rather that one can't become complacent, and you should always do your homework.

Movie Review: An Inconvenient Truth

Do you know how many polar bears drowned due to global warming last year? Al Gore does, and the statistic is part of his presentation on global warming that, intercut by interviews and images of Al Gore on his environment crusade, is presented in "An Inconvenient Truth." Al Gore is funny, engaging, and heartfelt in this movie which presents global warming in a way that is easy to absorb for the average viewer, even if you aren't a scientist or a hard-core environmentalist. Well, at least I think. I am a pretty hard-core environmentalist (or at least a poseur of one) and have a reasonably good understanding of science. The graphics are wonderful and scenes from Al Gore's political past of trying to fight this in America will touch and infuriate you. Gore comes across not so much as preachy, but coaxing and supportive.

This movie was particularly helpful for me because, though I've never been skeptical about global warming, I have been unclear as to how scientists were distinguishing this from normal warming trends in the Earth's history. And now I know. Though we are currently at about the same level as previous peak temperatures of long ago Earth, as determined by ice sample analyses, the carbon levels in the atmosphere are at all time highs and are continuing to grow, and we know that heat and carbon go together. Which means that current heat is not abnormal, in the scheme of the great geological past, but it will get hotter. Every scientific article published in a peer reviewed journal agrees with this evaluation. It is only in the lay-world that there is doubt about global warming. And we must not doubt any longer. I cannot convince you to care about the extinction of species, or the houses that are collapsing in greenland as a result of melting permafrost, or future generations of refugees who will be forced to leave coastal areas, but you should know that you are responsible for this.

To learn more about global warming and what you can do to reduce your carbon emissions visit

climatecrisis.net

Go see the movie. It's worth it.