Tag Archives: government

America thinks we need to fix the climate — after we deal with the deficit

America thinks we need to fix the climate — after we deal with the deficit

“Americans’ Priorities,” the graph is labelled. Underneath, four issues, and the extent to which Americans feel they require urgent action, as suggested to Pew Research. And so:

The most important issue for Congress to address this year, supported by 70 percent of Americans? The long-term deficit. Least urgent of the four? Climate change. Incorrect, America.

From USA Today:

There is bipartisan agreement on this: Dealing with the budget deficit is urgent.

That’s a change. When Obama took office in 2009, during a cascading financial crisis, Americans put deficit reduction in the middle of a list of policy goals in a Pew poll. Now it has risen near the top. Seven of 10 Americans (including not only 81% of Republicans but also 65% of Democrats) say it is essential for the president and Congress to enact major deficit legislation this year. …

When asked which of four issues was most pressing — the deficit, guns, immigration or climate change — 51% chose the deficit, three times that of any other issue. However, there were some significant differences by race and ethnicity. Hispanics were inclined to choose immigration as the most critical issue; African Americans chose guns.

Here’s the breakdown on the urgency question by political party (compared to “everyone”, which represents the entire pool of respondents).

Even most Democrats don’t see an urgent need for action on climate change — fewer than half say it’s a priority for this year. That’s astonishing.

When Pew asked about specific climate policies, the results were a bit more heartening. (You can read Pew’s summary of the data here.)

For example, people were asked which energy policy is more important: developing alternative energy sources or expanding fossil fuel production. Fifty-four percent of respondents said alternative source development was more important; 34 percent (including a majority of Republicans) said fossil fuel exploration was.

Pew also notes that this is a shift in the recent trend. Support for alternative energy had declined from 2011 to 2012. Now, it’s shot back up.

Pew

In part, it’s a function of strong support among young people — which, of course, also correlates to political party.

Pew’s final climate-related question was whether or not respondents support stricter limits on carbon dioxide pollution from power plants, one of the few things Obama can do unilaterally (even if he’s shown no inclination to do so).

Surprisingly, over 60 percent of respondents favor such action — and Republicans were nearly split, 42 percent in favor compared to 48 percent against.

What does all of this mean? Not a lot. Obama has support to act on developing alternative energy and regulating carbon dioxide emissions — at least until the full weight of opposition and Fox News punditry bears down. If there’s one thing this data suggests, it’s that the views of Americans, typically disinterested in the fine mechanics of government, are shaped by pundits and media focus. There’s absolutely no reason for Americans to consider the deficit more important than gun control or immigration, and especially no reason for them to consider the deficit more urgent than climate change, a problem that grows worse by the minute. But that’s not what is discussed on the news and on news websites. And so that’s not what’s reflected in this poll.

We all know the next step. This poll, blurred by insider priorities, will be held aloft by insiders as proof they were right. And some time, hopefully in the next few years, Obama and Congress will actually take steps to fight climate change.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Link: 

America thinks we need to fix the climate — after we deal with the deficit

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on America thinks we need to fix the climate — after we deal with the deficit

In a blow to Republican rhetoric, China announces plan for a carbon tax

In a blow to Republican rhetoric, China announces plan for a carbon tax

When Marco Rubio says that America “is a country, not a planet,” he’s saying that we don’t need to bother cutting pollution because we’re not the worst offenders. If China, which burns nearly as much coal as the rest of the world combined, isn’t trying to limit its pollution, why should we? Rubio’s wording may be unique, but his rhetoric isn’t — it’s a key argument for the Republican Party. As long as China’s emitting unchecked carbon pollution, why can’t we?

Premier Hu Jintao meets with President Obama.

Well, so much for that argument. From Xinhua, the official press agency of the Chinese government:

China will proactively introduce a set of new taxation policies designed to preserve the environment, including a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, according to a senior official with the Ministry of Finance (MOF).

The government will collect the environmental protection tax instead of pollutant discharge fees, as well as levy a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, Jia Chen, head of the ministry’s tax policy division, wrote in an article published on the MOF’s website. …

China is among the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gas and has set goals for cutting emissions. The government has vowed to reduce carbon intensity, or the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of economic output, by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 in comparison to 2005 levels.

China’s Ministry of Finance has considered a carbon tax before, with the aim of having it in place by 2012. Some suggested that the timing of that proposal, on the heels of the disastrous Copenhagen climate conference, was meant to blunt criticism over China’s role in scuttling those talks. It’s hard to see what similar politics might be at play in this case, although at least one climate-change-denial site suggests that the move is a feint to encourage America to act on a carbon tax first.

Fat chance of that. Republicans may be using China’s pollution as an excuse to resist increasing the cost of carbon emissions, but if China implements a carbon tax, pollution apologists will just point instead to India. If India acted on carbon, they’d point to the economy. The goal isn’t to offer sincere critique; it’s to delay internalizing the cost of carbon pollution for their allies in the fossil fuel industry.

If Marco Rubio is lucky, that delay will last until after the 2016 primaries. If he’s got any goal in mind, it’s that.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

More: 

In a blow to Republican rhetoric, China announces plan for a carbon tax

Posted in GE, Hagen, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In a blow to Republican rhetoric, China announces plan for a carbon tax

2013 will be a banner year for farm profits, according to analysis that ignores the drought

2013 will be a banner year for farm profits, according to analysis that ignores the drought

2012 was a brutal year for American farmers. The massive drought meant that the Department of Agriculture paid out $15 billion in crop insurance; prices of staple crops skyrocketed as yields plummeted.

It appears, however, that this was the darkness before the dawn. A new estimate from the USDA suggests that 2013 will be the most profitable year for farmers in four decades. From The Wall Street Journal:

The Department of Agriculture projected in a report Monday that net farm income in the U.S. will reach $128.2 billion in 2013—the highest since 1973 when adjusted for inflation and the highest on record on a non-adjusted basis.

The rosier outlook is driven by expectations farmers will grow more corn and soybeans after last year’s drought. Analysts predict increases in production will more than offset any price declines and rising costs, with the agency seeing corn stockpiles rising by more than 2 billion bushels.

The forecast also reflects a continued boom in the farm belt initially fueled by rising global demand for grains and increased mandates for corn-based ethanol.

And the first thing those farmers will do is repay the USDA for its crop insurance outlays in 2012, I assume. After all, it was God who made a farmer, not the USDA.

Shutterstock

There is, however, a great big caveat in the government’s predictions.

The USDA’s forecast for 2013 is based on historical yield averages and doesn’t take into account current weather conditions. Parts of the Midwest, such as Indiana and Illinois, have seen a return in moisture, but much of the Great Plains, including Nebraska and Kansas, remain in drought.

“If we don’t get some above-normal rainfall through the next few months, we are going to enter the [growing] season very, very dry,” said Steve Nelson, president of the Nebraska Farm Bureau, who grows corn and soybeans in the south central part of the state.

An estimate in January suggested that the 2012 drought has already turned into the 2013 drought, and is likely to last until April.

So how much crop insurance should we put you all down for?

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Food

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Excerpt from: 

2013 will be a banner year for farm profits, according to analysis that ignores the drought

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 2013 will be a banner year for farm profits, according to analysis that ignores the drought

Republicans are very satisfied with the quality of the environment

Republicans are very satisfied with the quality of the environment

Stock image for “polling.” This is not how Gallup does it, I don’t think.

The Gallup Organization — purveyors of fine polling products such as its Nov. 5 prediction that Romney would win; employers of possible future Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel (join the club); defendants in a lawsuit filed by the federal government alleging that the company inflated its prices — released a poll yesterday. Let’s look at it!

The top headline was that Republicans and Democrats differ more in their opinions on gun laws than on any other topic: 28 percent of Democrats are satisfied to some extent with existing laws on guns, compared with 59 percent of Republicans. Fine. Not surprising.

Here’s what’s interesting: The numbers related to “quality of the environment” — a poor replacement for environmental laws, mind you — broke down as 51 percent satisfaction among Democrats and 61 percent among Republicans. On “energy policies,” 44 percent of Democrats are satisfied compared to 31 percent of Republicans.

Gallup

Click to embiggen.

Before we get into analysis, an additional note. Not only are Republicans significantly more satisfied with “quality of the environment” than Democrats — it is the issue area in which they feel the second-most satisfaction. The only thing Republicans are happier with than the current state of our environment is how strong and big and tough our military is. Sixty-eight percent of Republicans are satisfied with the military … compared to 81 percent of Democrats.

Which offers some insight into what’s happening here. People interpret the question being posed not as “do you like the environment” but rather as “do you think the government should spend more time and money on the environment.” A higher “satisfaction” is really a higher level of “do not touch.” Democrats are more satisfied with the military because they don’t feel that the military needs more time and attention and investment. Republicans are more satisfied with the environment because they don’t think it needs more time and attention and investment. And, on the flip side, Republicans are less satisfied with energy policies — the issue on which they show the fifth-least satisfaction — because they favor opening up more land to drilling.

Gallup notes:

Democrats are evidently more inclined to see things positively, given that the nation is being governed by a Democratic president. In 2005, at the beginning of Republican George W. Bush’s second term in office, Republicans were generally more satisfied with the state of the nation in most areas than Democrats were. Back then, the only issue on which Democrats were more satisfied than Republicans was immigration levels.

The poll is a reflection of political attitudes more than a barometer of voter opinion on how the government addresses issues. Which means that it’s less informative than it might appear at first glance.

And we’ll have to see how it evolves as President Romney’s term continues. He won, right?

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Source:

Republicans are very satisfied with the quality of the environment

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans are very satisfied with the quality of the environment

Marco Rubio: ‘Changing the weather’ isn’t something government can do

Marco Rubio: ‘Changing the weather’ isn’t something government can do

We got so caught up in our excitement over John Kerry’s comments on climate and clean energy last week that we completely missed Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-Fla.) take on the topic.

gageskidmore

According to Politico, here’s how Rubio responded after Kerry argued at his confirmation hearing that clean energy is a $6 trillion market.

That’s too much effort to put on climate change, according to Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a leading early contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

“I don’t think it’s the most pressing foreign policy issue facing America,” Rubio told POLITICO outside Kerry’s confirmation hearing on Thursday. “There’s a lot of things government can do but changing the weather isn’t one of them.”

Rubio is a guy who took a quarter of a million dollars from fossil fuel interests for his campaign. A guy who called for more offshore drilling as he lamented the Gulf oil spill. A guy who shortly after Election Day declared that the age of the Earth is “a dispute amongst theologians” and said he couldn’t weigh in because “I’m not a scientist, man.”

Rubio wants to run for president. He is savvy enough to spearhead immigration reform after looking at 2012 demographics, but still toes a hard-right line on energy and climate, as he has since at least 2010.

To that end, his statement last week on climate change is cleverly crafted. He rolls two conservative tropes — anti-climate and anti-government — into one sweeping pronouncement. Government can’t fix things, including the weather. Two kisses on the cheeks of Republican primary voters in Iowa.

His statement is also deeply ironic. Government isn’t trying to change the weather. Government is hoping to intervene, to make the already-changing climate — and its ancillary weather manifestations — as non-damaging as possible. Rubio and his fossil fuel backers are the advocates for changing the weather, through passivity.

Rubio is betting that four years from now voters will be as dispassionate about addressing climate change as they are today. The odds that bet pays off will probably only decline. And Rubio’s embrace of immigration reform should be instructive: Even as recently as the 2012 GOP primaries, candidates were betting that an anti-immigration platform would be a winner. It wasn’t. Things changed. And if attitudes on the climate shift as rapidly, Rubio will lose his bet big.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Link:

Marco Rubio: ‘Changing the weather’ isn’t something government can do

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Marco Rubio: ‘Changing the weather’ isn’t something government can do

Good news for Kabul’s Tourism Bureau: The city’s air is unhealthy, but not full of feces

Good news for Kabul’s Tourism Bureau: The city’s air is unhealthy, but not full of feces

Particulate matter is a particularly (pun intended and embraced) dangerous form of air pollution. Particulates are usually in the air as soot, small bits of burned fossil fuels which may cause millions of premature deaths annually. It was largely soot pollution that caused Beijing’s Bladerunner-esque pollution last week.

jdennesDust over KabulAs I said, particulate pollution is usually soot. It doesn’t have to be. Sometimes, the polluting particles are something … much less pleasant. Take Kabul. From the Times:

It has long been a given that the air pollution in this city gets horrific: on average even worse than Beijing’s infamous haze, by one measure.

For nearly as long, there has been the widespread belief by foreign troops and officials here that — let’s be blunt here — feces are a part of the problem.

Canadian soldiers were even warned about it in predeployment briefings, which cited reports that one test had found that as many as 30 percent of air samples contained fecal particles. The Canadians were worried enough that the government ordered a formal investigation, officials say.

There’s reason to think that this apocryphal pollution assessment could be accurate. Kabul is bursting at the seams. The Times indicates that only five percent of homes are connected to sewage systems, in a city that now holds ten times what it was designed for. And a common heating source is dried dung.

But not to worry. Science, history’s greatest killjoy, suggests that Kabul’s air is nearly feces-free. Not that this means it’s great to breathe.

When the United Nations Environment Program did a study that included air sampling, in 2008, it found plenty to worry about, but mostly what would be expected of a traffic-congested city: a lot of sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides. Plus a very high concentration of particulates, known in the trade as PM 10 — which means particles smaller than 10 microns, small enough to penetrate deeply into the lungs, and an important indicator of air pollution — but no specific fecal bits. …

In fact, when the Canadians investigated the matter in response to their worried soldiers, the investigators said that some fecal matter in the air was normal — even in Canada. Some of it could just be bird and flying-insect droppings.

Kabul’s bigger problems are dust and geography — it lies on a plateau surrounded by mountains, limiting airflow. Breathing the air in the city is a health hazard regardless of what it is you’re inhaling, making this little consolation to residents or visitors.

But on the long list of reasons tourists might choose not to visit Kabul, at least the city can cross off “you will be inhaling feces.” Small victories.

Source

Despite a Whiff of Unpleasant Exaggeration, a City’s Pollution Is Real, New York Times

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Cities

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

This article is from: 

Good news for Kabul’s Tourism Bureau: The city’s air is unhealthy, but not full of feces

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Good news for Kabul’s Tourism Bureau: The city’s air is unhealthy, but not full of feces

Oil company foils government inspectors with high-tech gadgets (coffee filters)

Oil company foils government inspectors with high-tech gadgets (coffee filters)

For those of you who sleep well at night knowing that the government is competently and robustly working to protect the health of our environment, you may want to stop reading now. Here’s a story that flew under the radar last week from WWLTV in New Orleans:

An oil company admitted Thursday that coffee filters were used to doctor water samples and cover up the fact that it was dumping oil and grease into the Gulf of Mexico on its platform 175 miles south of New Orleans. …

[W&T Offshore] contractors used coffee filters to clean the water samples before submitting them to regulators.

Also, the company admitted that when they spilled some oil in November 2009, they not only failed to report it to the Coast Guard, but sprayed the oil into the Gulf and then hired a company that worked for three days to clean the platform to make it look like there never was a spill.

The company was fined $700,000 and will pay “$300,000 in community service,” whatever that means.

jlodder

The criminal mastermind’s tool for evading government oversight

Just to be clear, the reporting process goes like this.

  1. Company takes water sample.
  2. Company sends water sample to government.
  3. Government looks at submitted water sample and says OK.

And in order to get that OK, the company need only add step 1a: Pass them through a semiporous piece of paper. Got it.

How was W&T caught?

Inspectors from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement still found oil staining on the platform deck and visible sheen in the water, all of which W&T failed to report as required.

Thank God for irredeemable idiocy.

Source

Oil company admits using coffee filters to doctor water samples, WWL TV

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Visit site:

Oil company foils government inspectors with high-tech gadgets (coffee filters)

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Oil company foils government inspectors with high-tech gadgets (coffee filters)

Shell squeezes one last Arctic screwup into 2012

Shell squeezes one last Arctic screwup into 2012

Shell ended 2012 the way it carried itself the entire year: with utter incompetence. From The New York Times:

One of Shell Oil’s two Arctic drilling rigs is beached on an island in the Gulf of Alaska, threatening environmental damage from a fuel spill and calling into question Shell’s plans to resume drilling in the treacherous waters north of Alaska in the summer.

The rig, the Kulluk, broke free from a tow ship in stormy seas and ran aground Monday night. The Coast Guard was leading an effort to keep its more than 150,000 gallons of diesel fuel and lubricants from spilling onto the rocky shoreline.

Coast GuardThe

Kulluk

, pictured here trying to evolve into a land animal

Happily, the vessel isn’t leaking any of its fuel. And, happily, Shell’s complete inability to do things right over the last 12 months means that it wasn’t actively drilling anything anyway.

Here’s a list of things that have gone wrong so far in the company’s hyperactive push to suck oil from the Arctic ocean floor. (I have added a totally believable fake one; can you spot it?)

A vessel broke free from its moorings. (Not the Kulluk. Another one.)
Fuel leaked from Shell’s containment vessel before the company actually even started drilling.
The company decided it wouldn’t be able to meet the government’s air pollution mandate.
It begged for an extension on its drilling permit because it couldn’t get things ready in time.
A test of its containment dome resulted in the dome being “crushed like a beer can.”
The company admitted that a spill was going to happen in the Arctic.
Shell accidentally awakened a long-dormant undersea lizard that wreaked havoc on Tokyo.

Which raises the question: What, exactly, does Shell have to do before the government pulls its permit to drill? At what point does the Department of the Interior say, You know what, Shell? You’re just too shitty at this.

Imagine, if you will, a gravedigger employed at a cemetery. Once hired, he loses his shovel. He spills a chemical that kills a bunch of grass. He creates air pollution (interpret this as you will). He doesn’t get his work done in time. Then he loses another shovel. How long do you think it would be before the cemetery suggested he seek employment elsewhere?

Here’s the difference between that hypothetical and the case of Shell: Imagine that the gravedigger gave massive financial contributions to the cemetery’s board and spent $10.8 million persuading them to let him keep his job. Think that might do the trick?

The BBC offers a bit of analysis on the grounding:

This is more a story about reputational risk than environmental risk. … Shell says its record in the Arctic is good. It says it will investigate the incident and learn from it.

The gravedigger will take “how not to lose your shovel” lessons.

There’s really only one major fuckup that Shell hasn’t yet committed: a ceaseless spill in one of the most remote parts of the world. If only there were some way the government could prevent that from happening.

Update: Gary Braasch shares images of the area around the Kulluk — a huge, empty, stunning expanse of ocean.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Read article here: 

Shell squeezes one last Arctic screwup into 2012

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Shell squeezes one last Arctic screwup into 2012

It’s high-speed rail vs. farmers in California

It’s high-speed rail vs. farmers in California

California High Speed Rail Authority

A planned high-speed rail line in California is looking forward to a bumpy 2013 (and 2014, and 2015 …). It may be attorneys rather than travelers who really win from the largest public works project in the state’s history, at least in the immediate future. The Fresno Bee reports that many farmers and other property owners along the intended route in the Central Valley have vowed to fight the project, potentially forcing the state to exercise eminent domain to seize needed properties.

Up and down the Valley, the rail authority anticipates spending tens of millions of dollars to buy the land it needs in Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and Kern counties. The agency hopes to begin construction next year on a stretch of about 30 miles from northeast of Madera to the south end of Fresno — the first portion of what is ultimately planned as a 520-mile system linking San Francisco and Los Angeles.

But some vocal property owners, including farmers, are loathe to part with their property and have vowed to force the state to use its power of eminent domain — a potentially costly and time-consuming ordeal.

The line will eventually connect L.A. to San Francisco, but the first portion to be built will go through the through the Central Valley bread basket, pitting awesome California Cuties against awesome California regional transit. The total cost of the project is currently projected at $68 billion, but that likely doesn’t include enough money to settle cases with all property owners, especially farmers whose livelihoods are directly tied to their property.

Because trains traveling at 220 mph cannot make tight turns, some of the line will slice in an arc through farms rather than skim the squared-off edges of properties or hug existing freight railroad lines.

For farmland, “just compensation” may encompass much more than the per-acre value of the land. Other factors may include the production value of permanent crops on the acreage, the effect that the rail line would have on the remainder of the parcel, whether any structures or irrigation systems have to be moved, and access to acreage that sits on the other side of the tracks and whether those leftover pieces can be farmed economically.

California projects that this first, contentious portion of rail line will be complete by the end of 2017, though that date keeps being delayed.

Federal funding for the project, which is supposed to make up half of its budget, is also in question, as the U.S. Government Accountability Office warned in a recent report. But High-Speed Rail Authority Chair Dan Richard is still optimistic, telling The San Francisco Examiner, “This is truly a statewide rail modernization plan which includes improvements that will greatly enhance the efficiency and reliability of regional transit.”

Yeah, let’s hope the farmers see it that way.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Cities

,

Food

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Original post:

It’s high-speed rail vs. farmers in California

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It’s high-speed rail vs. farmers in California

Meat company sues USDA to speed up horse meat sales

Meat company sues USDA to speed up horse meat sales

A lot of people are pretty upset about the fact that we are still without a new farm bill. But no one is upset in quite the same way as this New Mexico man who is suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Humane Society of the United States, and other people who are standing in the way of him slaughtering and selling horses.

A provision passed last year might’ve effectively made horse slaughter legal for the first time in five years, but it turns out the feds are not exactly chomping at the bit to get back to inspecting those slaughterhouses. There’s no telling whether a new farm bill would restore a ban on the practice by defunding the USDA inspections. (The House has recommended that, but the Senate hasn’t.)

Rick de los Santos and his Valley Meat Company want to force the USDA to allow the country’s first horse meat operation since 2007. But it’s hard out there for a guy who wants to profit off of horse meat. The Los Angeles Times reports:

After waiting a year for permits, De los Santos, 52, says he’s using the courts to force the U.S. Department of Agriculture to resume inspections necessary to open what would be the nation’s first new horse slaughterhouse since 2007.

“I’ve submitted all the paperwork and have been told all along ‘Oh, it won’t be long now,’” said De los Santos, who owns Valley Meat Co. “I followed all their guidelines. I put more than $100,000 in upgrades and additions on my facilities to handle equine slaughter. And then the government comes back and tells me, ‘We can’t give you the permits. This horse issue has turned into a political game.’

“So what else do you do? I figured it was time to go to court.”

Another idea for something to do: not open a horse slaughterhouse?

The U.S. has been without them since the feds defunded USDA inspection of horse meat facilities in 2006. The last three slaughterhouses paid their own million-dollar inspection bills until closing.

Horses aren’t any more or less sustainable than the other hoofed animals we raise for meat, though we inexplicably love them more. De los Santos makes solid arguments for humane slaughter stateside as opposed to the current system of shipping animals to dirtier deaths in other countries, where horse meat is socially acceptable. (This argument being a slippery slope toward dog burgers, cat stews, and A Modest Proposal.)

The USDA has until January to respond to the suit, and we have until any day now to stop eating so dang many hoofed animals of any kind.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Food

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

More – 

Meat company sues USDA to speed up horse meat sales

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Meat company sues USDA to speed up horse meat sales