Quantcast
Home / Opinion / Letters to the Editor / EPA should go beyond crackdown on coal industry

EPA should go beyond crackdown on coal industry

This Sept. 4, 2011 file photo shows the main plant facility at the Navajo Generating Station, as seen from Lake Powell in Page, Ariz. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File)

This Sept. 4, 2011 file photo shows the main plant facility at the Navajo Generating Station, as seen from Lake Powell in Page, Ariz. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File)

I am delighted that the EPA has finally moved to abate the disastrous impacts of climate change by regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. But, given the adverse reaction from the coal industry, the agency should have issued parallel regulations on emissions from meat industry operations. Each state could then determine its own optimal strategy for curbing greenhouse gases.

A 2006 U.N. report estimated that meat production accounts for 18 percent of man-made greenhouse gases. A 2009 article in the respected World Watch magazine suggested that the contribution may be closer to 50 percent.

The meat industry generates carbon dioxide by burning forests to create animal pastures and by combustion of fossil fuels to confine, feed, transport, and slaughter animals. The much more damaging methane and nitrous oxide are discharged from digestive tracts of cattle and from animal waste cesspools, respectively.

In the meantime, each of us can reduce the devastating effects of climate change every time we eat. Our local supermarket offers a rich variety of plant-based lunch meats, hotdogs, veggie burgers and dairy-product alternatives, as well as ample selection of vegetables, fruits, grains, and nuts. Product lists, easy recipes, and transition tips are readily available online.

— Armando Reed lives in Phoenix.

One comment

  1. Is this article meant to be satire!! The EPA is not improving climate. It is reducing the quality of our lives. All these regulations will not make a dent in the so call hazardous emissions. But it will cost a fortune and reduce reliability of greatly needed electricity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

 

x

Check Also

(Deposit Photos/Khorzhevska)

Money for dental care for pregnant women missing from budget

Unfortunately, the funding to support SB1088 is missing from initial budget proposals. Officials estimate we need $359,700 from the general fund plus $818,000 in federal Medicaid dollars to fund the program. While not an insignificant amount, the public health implications of failing to provide expectant mothers with dental coverage have a far greater cost. This is why I encourage the legislature to include funding for SB1088 in the final budget.