Topic 1 - Public Health

    Despite the numerous benefits of farming livestock, many facilities have created serious public health risks. The use of antibiotics in animals began in the 1940s in the poultry industry. These chemicals encourage growth and production in the animals. The use of antibiotics, however, also has produced a large number of antimicrobial bacteria. These bacteria, added with those from human antibiotic use, has resulted in cases of drug-resistant infections in humans, which are being more common at an alarming rate. This is also due to the increase in the use of antibiotics and growth hormones in livestock. Agricultural workers are believed to be the bridge for bacteria between the livestock and the general human population. Toxic gases and dusts in these facilities have also caused respiratory diseases for agricultural workers and those living nearby. In addition, many animal farming facilities are located in places unfit to handle large amounts of nutrients and pathogens resulting from the practice. Animal waste, when untreated, is harmful to the surrounding ecosystem. Runoff from these facilities also contains many dangerous chemicals, hormones, and heavy metals that leak into ecosystems, especially those in lakes and streams. The large amounts of energy used to maintain these facilities also produces a large strain on the environment.

    As time has passed and new technologies have been developed, the yield from animal farming has increased drastically. Rich countries demand more and more meat, requiring an even higher yield from these facilities. However, this rapid increase in the number of animal farming facilities has had a large negative impact on the environment, despite what economic benefits have been reaped. Only with strict guidelines and legislation can these facilities be managed and balanced, so that meat and animal product prices do not become too high for the consumer, while the environment is not harmed further.

    One solution is to encourage consumers to press for alternative factory practices. Factories rely on consumers to for their profits, and campaigns to pressure these companies into helping to protect the environment would greatly reduce the risk of having to shut down animal farming facilities due to environmental concerns. This has already happened with the public’s concern for animal welfare, however, this is only part of the problem; while assisting animals may be important, not changing the practices of these facilities will have an even greater effect on humans.

Citation:

• "Pollution from Giant Livestock Farms Threatens Public Health." NRDC. Natural Resources Defense Council, 21 Feb. 2013. Web. 13 Jan. 2016.
• "Environmental Destruction." Vegan Outreach. Vegan Outreach, n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2016. (Picture)

EROEI

1. The tar sands should be used before the oil shale because it has a higher EROEI. This means that we'll get a better energy return on the investment of mining, and possibly give more time for technology to develop that will allow for easier extraction of oil shale.

2. Both tar sands and oil shale must be heated at some point in order to extract the oil.

3. When oil shale is heated, it turns directly into crude oil and natural gas. Tar sands, on the other hand, create bitumen when heated, which must be refined into usable oil.

4. It will take a long time for renewable energy sources to fully replace fossil fuels as the nation's main energy source. Energy must be produced during this time. If off shore drilling were to be banned, energy companies would be forced to buy oil from outside sources in other countries. This oil could be less carbon efficient than that which could be mined from off shore drilling.

5. Say that I wanted to eat lunch one day. I have, in general, two options; I could make something for myself, or go out and buy something. Making pasta or a grilled cheese for myself isn't very difficult. I would also no longer be hungry, though I may not be terribly satisfied, as when I make food for myself, it's generally one of about four meals. Going out for lunch, on the other hand, would be somewhat difficult. I would either have to get somebody to drive me or have to drive myself. This would use up gas, and the lunch I buy will likely be more expensive than my food at home. However, I would be more satisfied with this meal, because it was made by someone else and probably tastes better than what I make, along with the general factor of variety. Staying at home costs very little energy, but only has a moderate return in terms of happiness. Going out costs a lot of energy, but also has a large happiness return. I usually end up staying home (mostly because I don't have a license anyways.)