by Pamela Rice

[NEW YORK CITY | JULY 20, 2005] It was out of some morbid curiosity that I googled the words:

I didn't want to know the answer. But there it was: Over 60,000 links—worse than I'd thought. Now, I wonder, should this make me happy or sad? It's good that people are concerned enough to construct Web pages; bad that so many pages fit the criteria. In any case, I'm not sure anyone would need anything more on the subject than what is offered by one of the very first links. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has an entire Web site dedicated to chronicling what it considers to be our current president's horrendous environmental record. And on that subject, NRDC doesn't mince words. The home page opens with the following statement:

"This administration [of President George W. Bush], in catering to industries that put America's health and natural heritage at risk, threatens to do more damage to our environmental protections than any other in U.S. history."

We hear about this president having his head in the sand about global warming. We hear about him rescinding upgrade requirements for coal-fired power plants. We hear about the Bush drive to begin oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The list goes on.

But how many of us are as aware that Bush has been consistently easy on the industries that produce animal-based foods? These industries also are enjoying a general ethic of lax regulatory oversight (either presently or planned in the future), thanks to Bush.

Case in point: In January of this year, the EPA offered corporate livestock farms immunity from the Clean Air Act and certain toxic-discharge standards in exchange for their participation in a data-collection program designed to monitor air emissions from their facilities. In other words, before any regulation of so called confined animal feeding operations (or CAFOs) is implemented, the government feels it needs to thoroughly study the situation. (Now, there's a stalling tactic.) Meanwhile, according the NRDC, "the fees required [by the CAFOs] to participate in the program are a pittance compared to penalties that can be levied under the Clean Air Act."

Another recent break to the meat industry has been Bush's coddling of his rancher friends, specifically, the people who enjoy the bounty of our country's public lands. According to the Los Angeles Times about a month ago, the Bush administration greatly relaxed grazing limits on these lands—and this after doctoring portions of a scientific analysis of the environmental impact of cattle grazing.

Incidentally, only two percent of our country's beef is derived from our public lands. So, for essentially nothing of value in return, our government is willing to allow great environmental destruction at the hands of people living on land that belongs to the rest of us. Did I mention that ranchers on public lands are generously subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer? So, taxpayers, via our tax system, created by our elected officials, reward people for ruining the land that belongs to us, the taxpayers.

Anyway, back to that scientific analysis of the environmental impact of cattle grazing. According to the Los Angeles Times story, the scientists who wrote it were aghast at how their report was so utterly altered by Bush Administration insiders. One scientist was quoted as saying "Everything I wrote was totally rewritten....Everything...that was purported to be negative was watered down. Instead of saying, in the long term, this will create problems, it now says, in the long term, grazing is the best thing since sliced bread."

Another scientist said, "This is a whitewash; they took all of our science and reversed it 180 degrees."

The new rules not only give ranchers expanded access to public lands, they essentially stymie Bureau of Land Management (BML) experts in their efforts to protect the lands when a rancher's livestock are obviously inflicting environmental harm. The new regulations, according to the Los Angeles Times, "also eliminate the BML's obligation to seek public input on some grazing decisions. Public comment will be allowed but not required."

In the end, protracted studies will have to be conducted by the BML before it may rule that a rancher be limited in the number of cattle he or she may graze in a specific spot and for how long in order to preserve the area's natural resources. Previously, the BML could rule on such things immediately.

Finally, what has the Bush administration done for fish farmers lately? Plenty. Never mind that aquaculture—increasingly of carnivorous species—is becoming an even more dismal waste of life as more and more fish meal is needed for feed. Never mind that aquaculture is blamed for horrendous amounts of nutrient (manure) pollution and the spread of disease, parasites, and sea lice to surrounding fish. And never mind that the growth of aquaculture has meant the proliferation of escapees to surrounding waters, which can compromise the genetic integrity of wild populations. The Bush administration is pushing to open up 3.4 million square miles of ocean (roughly the area of the lower 48 U.S. states) to the fish farmers through a proposed permitting. Years from now, after these vast expanses of our natural world are fully colonized by the fish farmers, it will surely take a sweeping act of Congress, or God, to remove them.

Altering the regulatory environment for fish farming, which is what the Bush Administration is doing, encourages fish farmers in this case to move away from the coasts. Such a policy can only encourage negative environmental trends, if for no other reason than to make fish farming less controversial. Coastal fish farming tends to stimulate vocal opposition from local communities, on account of the immediate environmental disruption that it causes. Whereas fish farming away from the coasts only delays much broader environmental problems down the road.

Some environmental organizations have objected to the Bush proposals, offering alternative solutions—other types of fish farming—they contend are sustainable. But what would vegetarians have to say about these? Not much, I suspect. I know I'm against all forms of fish farming, and I suspect most vegetarians would agree with me. You cannot make fish farming into a good thing. Yet we vegetarians are not at the policy-making table to express this point of view. And there's something very wrong with this.

Okay, vegetarians, what are we waiting for?

###