Today’s Headlines

  • Q Poll Headlines Practically Write Themselves (Post, Daily News, Crain’s, Sun)
  • Coverage of TA’s Poll Rebuttal (Metro, NY1)
  • McCaffrey Critiques Congestion Panel (Queens Chronicle)
  • Responding to Riders, MTA Plans Improvements to No. 7 Line (City Room)
  • Mateo Wants No Livery Cab Hails During Strike He Says Won’t Happen (AMNY)
  • Electrified Sidewalks Still a Problem (Daily News)
  • DOT Paints Crossings Four Years After School Closes (SI Advance)
  • Weeks After Tornado, NYers Left Waiting on Federal Aid (Daily News)
  • Oil Prices Rise in Anticipation of Hurricanes (NYT)
  • Virgin to Drop 4-Engine Jets (NYT)
  • Eating Meat Worse Than Driving (NYT)
  • Congressman Warns of $9-Gal Gas – Oh, and Genocide – if US Leaves Iraq (LVRJ)
  • Service Station Hits a Nerve With Market-Based Pricing (WKMG)
  • Coral Gables Law Aims to Keep Pick-Ups Out of Sight (NYT)
  • JF

    Romski, who lives in Mount Kisco, is also concerned about mass transportation. He works for the development company Benjamin Beechwood and is the executive project director for Arverne By the Sea, a large development of oceanfront homes being built in the Rockaways.

    He’d better be concerned with mass transportation, because I doubt he commutes by train.

  • “Realistically, flying is something people need to do and will do,” he said. “I don’t think people will change their habits if it affects their lifestyle.”-Richard Branson

    I admire a lot of what Richard Branson has done recently for the environment, but I beg to differ with this statement.

    Somehow we got along just fine for thousands of years without a single person flying. And even for most of the 20th Century flying was not common or available to the average middle class person on a regular basis and somehow, they managed to get by.

    Make no mistake, that flying will have to decrease in order to reign in carbon emissions or whenever we start facing oil shortages. There are no real good substitutes for oil fueling planes. We have perhaps lived through a golden age of flight. We can make that choice now and save lots of money on building an infrastructure without a future or wait for nature’s constraints to pull us back to earth, like Icarus.

  • Larry Littlefield

    Re: meat and global warming.

    Most of the arguments against meat — health, animal treatment, environmental, food security (growing crops for livestock feeds fewer than growing crops for food) are better arguments against eating meat a lot than against eating meat at all.

    There is land that is unsuited for crops but is suited for livestock. Absent domestic livestock, this land would be used by similar animals. Some meat is healthy protein, meat every day is an unhealthy amount of fat. Range grazed animals have a more humane life than those raised in factory farms, etc.

    I actually believe in being semi-vegetarian. I haven’t had meat all week, aside from some sausage on my pizza, but I’d be happy to eat a Buffalo burger this weekend if I can find one.

    Kind of like driving. Sometimes a car is the best form of transportation. But in the U.S. it is overused.

  • Yes LL. The best environmental impact would be if a lot of us ate 50-80% less meat (or drove 50-80% less) rather than a hard core group going totally veggie (which I admire, but can’t do myself).

    It would make us all a lot healthier too!

  • I agree that consuming factory farmed animal products is one of the more destructive environmental acts we take part in.

    I also understand though that eating pasture raised, locally produced animal products can be one of the most positive environmental actions we can take. As I understand it, such livestock practices actually can be contribute positively to energy, top soils and stream ecosystems. Small scale livestock farming is also a much more viable form of small scale farming economically (it is less labor intensive, more profitable and more appealing to young farmers) than production for a vegetarian diet.

    By this logic, dollars spent towards supporting this kind of animal husbandry can perhaps make a larger positive environmental impact than spending on a vegetarian diet, while directly challenging the very destructive practice of factory farming.

    Though some may still have issues with animal husbandry all together, it also seems that in these practices that the livestock lead quite fulfilling lives.

    You know you can raise your own chickens in back yards in NYC, here’s how:

  • steve

    I’m sure many a sociologist has observed that the evengelical, all-or-nothing approach to any lifestyle or outlook generally holds tremendous, transformative power for 5% of the population, and completely alienates 75% of the rest. That’s the story of American oppositional politics. If PETA and similar organizations can get the “Live Earth” environmentalists to eat less meat, that’s great. And if the hard core vegetarians and vegans become more aware of their overall emissions and change their transpo habits, that would be great too. To criticize this kind of “cross-marketing” as “opportunistic” is basically to endorse a splintered, dogmatic and ineffectual environmental movement. The links are obvious and logical.

  • It is misleading to claim that eating meat is worse than driving.

    World-wide, greenhouse gas emissions from meat production exceed ghg emissions from cars, because 80% of the people in the world don’t have cars.

    Among Americans, who burn almost as much gasoline as the rest of the world combined, driving is a much greater source of ghg emissions than meat consumption.

    You can’t leap from the premise that meat causes more emissions than driving world wide to the conclusion that it is more important for Americans to eat less meat than to drive less.

  • A vegetarian

    Fascinating assortment of rationalizations here.

  • cmu

    The extremist positions against airplanes, against meat and against anything that did not exist a thousand years ago are just plain counterproductive. Anyone with any common sense cannot believe we are going to regress to a Medieval economy, even to save the planet.

    Besides, it’s absolutely unnecessary to do so. Being moderate is a lot easier than being absolutist and a lot easier to proselytize. Reduction in driving, more public transit and biking, and easting less meat, along with renewable energy generation, if done on a global scale, will easily result in sustainable levels of ghg’s.

    I’m personally sick of all the absolutists who alienate most of us who want to enjoy normal comforts, without being subject to unreasonable demands. And I consider myself a lot more green than the average person, be they vegan or PETA activists.