California's Cap-and-Trade Program: A Potential Model for the Country

By: Maegan Pirtle, Staff Member

California has a history of being at the forefront of state initiatives dealing with urgent environmental problems,[1] and its cap and trade program designed to limit the amount of greenhouse gases produced by industrial polluters is no exception. Under this program, California has set a cap on the amount of carbon that individual industrial entities are permitted to emit and allows those entities that do not use their full allocation to sell excess allowances to other businesses.[2] The hope is that this flexible, market-based approach will incentivize businesses to cut emissions by allowing them to make a profit on unused emission permits.[3]

While the program has been lauded by some as a model for the rest of the country,[4] it is not without its critics. Some argue that the initiative will be too much of a burden on California companies and will ultimately cause businesses to leave the state in droves.[5] On the other side, some environmental groups have also expressed frustration with the program, arguing that it accomplishes too little.[6]

Fears about the impact of this program are to be expected. In addressing serious concerns about industrial pollution, California has adopted a program that is unprecedented outside of the European Union.[7] There is necessarily uncertainty about the effects, both positive and negative, of such a plan. However, there is good reason to believe that effects on business will not be as dire as some are predicting. California, acknowledging these concerns, has taken steps intended to ease the transition, including giving away 90 percent of the initial permits for free with the intent of slowly phasing in the number available for purchase.[8]

Concerns that California's program will not make enough of an impact are also validly considering that one state can only do so much to fix a truly global problem. However, if successful, it has the potential to have wide reaching effects. California's program could serve as a model for the rest of the country, which, as a whole, is responsible for 18 percent of the world's carbon emissions.[9] While there is no guarantee that California's experiment with cap and trade will be as successful as its supporters hope, the potential benefits certainly outweigh the speculative costs.

________________________

[1] Daniel Stone,

California Tackles Climate Change, But Will Others Follow?

, 

Nat'l Geographic 

(Nov. 16, 2012), http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/11/121116-california-cap-and-trade.

[2] Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Verified Pet. for Writ of Mandate and Compl. for Declaratory Relief at 1, Cal. Chamber of Commerce v. Cal. Air Res. Bd. (2012), http://www.calchamber.com/GovernentRelations/Documents/SIGNED_MPA_11-13-12.pdf.

[3] Stone,

supra

 note 1.

[4] Barbara Grady,

Experts Debate Economic Side Effects of California's Cap and Trade Program

, 

Earth Island J. 

(Nov. 16, 2012), http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/experts_debate_side_effects_of_CA_cap_and_trade.

[5]

California Debuts Landmark Cap-and-Trade System Aimed at Reducing Carbon Emissions

, 

Wash. Post 

(Nov. 14, 2012), http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/california-to-debut-landmark-cap-and-trade-system-with-pollution-auction/2012/11/14/5da6e20c-2e32-11e2-b631-2aad9dc73ac_story.html.

[6] Grady,

supra

 note 4.

[7]

California Debuts Landmark Cap-and-Trade System Aimed at Reducing Carbon Emissions

,

supra

 note 5.

[8] Stone,

supra

 note 1.

[9] Stone,

supra

note 1. 

Solar Farm Jobs: The Case for Updating Kentucky's Net-Metering Laws

By: Will Emmons, Staff Member

It's no secret that Kentucky's once central crop of tobacco has become less and less a part of our agricultural economy. The 2007 USDA Census of Agriculture reported that Kentucky had shed just shy of 40,000 jobs in tobacco farming in the decade between 1997 and 2007, amounting to just south of 83% of all tobacco jobs in the Commonwealth.[1] While we all reap public health benefits from being part of a society that smokes less, the impact of this decline on our farming communities has been devastating.

In a recent paper, University of Kentucky Professor of Agricultural Economics David Derbetin states that although the shift to producing different commodities cannot produce equivalent income to tobacco, this shift does provide an opportunity for farmers.[2] In this blog post, I argue that Kentucky's energy laws are preventing farmers from producing a lucrative commodity: solar power.

During last year's legislative session, an organization representing small farmers called the Community Farm Alliance sought to update Kentucky's net-metering laws for small scale renewable energy production.[3] Net metering laws, a product of the 1980s, control what benefit utilities companies must give small scale producers of renewable energy for pumping energy into the grid.[4] These laws exist at the state level in 43 states, including Kentucky, and vary widely from state to state.[5] States where the utility companies have a stronger lobby limit the percentage of energy subscribers who may participate. The limitations on the number of kilowatt hours a subscriber may be compensated for and what kind of compensation subscribers receive are also areas of broad variance.[6]

Currently, Kentucky allows small scale energy producers to be compensated for up to 30k into the grid per annum and receive compensation at retail rate from utility companies for this electricity.[7] This is a relatively low limit geared toward domestic producers. However, if we followed North Carolina and upped our limit to 1000kw and required our utility companies to sell more renewable energy, we could provide a real economic opportunity for our small farmers.

In the past five years following a new raft of clean energy legislation, 100 new solar farms have popped up across the Tarheel state.[8] According to one estimate, the boom has created 15,000 new jobs in the renewable energy sector.[9] The winners are North Carolina's formerly tobacco-dependent rural communities. We should follow suit.

____________________

[1]

The Shrinking Role of Tobacco Farming and Tobacco Product in Kentucky's Economy

, 

Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids 

(Feb. 19, 2009), http://www.kyvoicesforhealth.org/news/images/files/Kentucky%20Tobacco%20Farming%20Trends%202-19-09.doc.

[2] David L. Debertin,

Emerging Trends in Kentucky Agriculture and the Future of Rural Kentucky in the 21st Century

, 

University of Kentucky College of Agriculture, 

http://www.uky.edu/~deberti/exten.htm (last visited Nov. 24, 2012). 

[3] Phil N. Ferrill,

Community Farm Alliance criticizes General Assembly's failure to act on net-metering

, 

Barefoot & Progressive 

(April 9, 2011), http://www.barefootandprogressive.com/2012/04/community-farm-alliance-criticizes-general-assemblys-failure-to-act-on-net-metering.html.

[4] Stephanie Watson,

How Net Metering Works

, 

Howstuffworks, 

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/net-metering.htm (last visited Nov. 24, 2012).

[5]

Net Metering

, 

Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency 

(Nov., 2012), http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/summarymaps/Net_Metering_map.pdf.

[6]

Id.

[7] Ferrill,

supra

 note 3.

[8] Sammy Fretwell,

Farmers Grow Profit with a New Crop: Solar Panels

, 

News Observer 

(Nov. 12, 2012), http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/11/11/2478266/farmers-grow-profits-with-a-new.html.

[9]

Id.

Protecting Traditions: The Rehabilitation of Kentucky's Horses and Children

By: Yvette DeLaGuardia

In a state in which the horse industry provides over $2.3 billion in goods and services,[1] it makes sense that Kentucky has a significant number of training and rehabilitation centers for one of the state's most valuable commodities,[2] its horses. At these centers, trained staff members utilize the highest quality equine therapy equipment to ensure the horses brought to the facilities are quickly returned to "mental and physical wellness."[3] When considering the significant role the horse industry has played in the history and traditions of Kentucky and the impact the industry has on Kentucky's economy,[4] the fact that many Kentuckians are concerned with the wellbeing of horses should come as no surprise. What may, however, be surprising, is the use of horse rehabilitation centers as a means for a second chance not only for horses, but also for Kentucky juveniles who have found themselves entangled in Kentucky's juvenile justice system.[5]

The Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice and the Department of Community Based Services have certified the Bluegrass Aquatic Rehabilitation and Training Center in Louisville, Kentucky to provide vocational training to Kentucky's youth. More specifically, the center is able to offer vocational training to juveniles between the ages of 14 to 18 years old[6] who have been committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice or to the Cabinet of Health and Family Services after adjudication and disposition of one or more public criminal offenses.

Kentucky's certification of the rehabilitation center demonstrates the state's attempt to effectuate the current trend in juvenile justice reform, the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative.[7] By offering Kentucky's juveniles the opportunity to leave their own "rehabilitation" centers[8] for a few hours a day to gain vocational training, the aggregate effect of the collaborative effort between the Department of Juvenile Justice and the cooperative equine center is to help prevent the institutionalization of juveniles. If more equine rehabilitation centers were to follow the lead of the Bluegrass Aquatic Rehabilitation and Training Center, the rehabilitation of Kentucky's horses and Kentucky's children could be enhanced through decreased institutionalization.

______________________

[1] American Horse Council, Economic Impact of the Horse Industry State Break Out Report (2005),

available at

 http://www.horsecouncil.org/state-breakout-studies-following-states.

[2] Gregory A. Hall,

Kentucky Agricultural Receipts Set Record of Almost $5 Billion, 

Courier Journal.com 

(Sept. 4, 2012 5:48 pm) http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120904/BUSINESS/309040064/Kentucky-agricultural-receipts-set-record-almost-5-billion?nclick_check=1.

[3] The Kentucky Equine Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation Center Approach, http://www.kesmarc.com/approach.html.

[4] Governor Steve Beshear,

A Step Forward

, The Official Blog of Governor Steve Beshear (July 23, 2010 1:48PM) (describing the horse industry as "vital to the Commonwealth's overall economic health").

[5]

See generally

 http://www.bluegrasstrainingcenter.com/ (providing general information about the available equine services).

[6] 

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 

§ 635.060 (4)-(5).

[7]

See

Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative, http://www.aecf.org/MajorInitiatives/JuvenileDetentionAlternativesInitiative.aspx.

[8]

See 

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 

§ 610.010 (describing the purpose of Kentucky's juvenile code as treatment based). 

California's Proposition 37: What Does Its Failure Signify for America's Food Industry?

By: Meredith Schuh, Staff Member

The rise of agricultural biotechnology sparked controversial debate regarding the propriety of requiring labeling on food products denoting the presence of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. Proponents of mandatory labeling maintain consumers have a "right to know" what they are ingesting, especially if the food is "unnatural," or bioengineered.[1] Conversely, anti-labeling groups argue that it is unnecessary to provide labels primarily because of the immaterial difference, even nutritionally, between traditionally grown and genetically modified food.[2] Furthermore, opponents suggest if labeling were a requirement, the cost exacted on producers and consumers would be significant.[3]

Unlike the trend overseas, not a single jurisdiction in the United States has yet to pass a law requiring labeling on bioengineered food products. This is largely due to the position endorsed by the FDA. In 1992, the agency promulgated a policy statement, which did not require special labeling for genetically modified food.[4] Instead, the FDA determined that the general label requirements that apply to conventionally produced food also apply to foods made using biotechnology.[5] The FDA based its decision not to require mandatory labeling on the lack of evidence that bioengineered foods already abundantly sold on the market presented any adverse health risks to the consuming public.[6] However, labeling proponents are predominantly apprehensive about the "unknown" health effects of biotechnology in the food industry.[7]

Notwithstanding the FDA's opinion on the matter, the "Right to Know" food movement garnered strength, culminating recently in Proposition 37, a Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative. Proposition 37 was voted on in California's November 6, 2012 ballot as an initiated state statute; it was ultimately defeated.[8] If the statute had been approved, it would have required labeling for food made from plants or animals with genetically altered material and prohibited labeling such food as "natural," but there were a number of exceptions.[9] According to the polls from last week, about 4.3 million Californians voted in favor of Proposition 37, and although the initiative failed, labeling proponents pledged to continue the fight for increased governmental regulation of the food industry.[10]

However optimistic labeling enthusiasts appear, I believe this most recent setback will have a major impact on the success of the "Right to Know" movement. Opposition to mandatory labeling is strong and apparently, very convincing. Prior to the vote on Proposition 37, news sources reported the initiative was "riding high," but that prediction underestimated the effect of a $46 million advertising campaign funded by opponents of the initiative.[11]

Spurring on the labeling crusade is an irrational fear of the negative effects of consuming genetically modified food sources, but scientific facts should subdue this anxiety.[12] Two decades ago, the FDA released its policy statement declaring there was no material difference between genetically engineered and conventionally produced food,[13] and unless this finding changes, it is likely the U.S. will continue to shy away from mandatory labeling of genetically modified products because of the associated considerable cost. The solution to the problem lies in facilitating public access to pertinent information about the substantiated factual findings concerning GMOs and the food industry.

_____________________

[1] Valery Federici,

Genetically Modified Food and Informed Consumer Consent: Comparing U.S. and E.U. Labeling Laws

, 35 Brook. J. Int'l L. 515, 517 (2010).

[2] Jon Entine,

Food labeling: Should environmentalists be pro-GM?

, Genetic Literacy Project, Sept. 7, 2012, http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2012/09/07/food-labeling-should-environmentalists-be-pro-gm/.

[3]

Id.

[4] Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties, 57 Fed. Reg. 22984 (May 29, 1992).

[5] FDA: Guidance, Compliance & Regulatory Information,

Guidance for Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering

, (Nov. 8, 2012), http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/ucm059098.htm.

[6]

Id.

[7] Federici,

supra

 note 1, 521-22.

[8] Marc Lifsher,

Prop. 37 backers vow to continue food regulation efforts

, 

L.A. Times, 

Nov. 7, 2012, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-prop37-genetic-food-labeling-20121108,0,7519439.story.

[9] BallotPedia, California 37, Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food (2012), http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_37,_Mandatory_Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food_(2012).

[10] Lifsher,

supra

 note 8.

[11] Marc Lifsher,

Prop. 37 is in the dead heat amid ad blitz, 

L.A. Times, 

Oct. 25, 2012, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/25/business/la-fi-prop37-food-poll-20121024.

[12] Federici,

supra

 note 1, 521-22.

[13]

Id.

 at 517. 

One Man's Trash May Be Everyone's Treasure

By: Rachel Shelton, Staff Member

Garbage is something that everybody has but nobody wants - right? Apparently the opposite is true in Sweden. Sweden has been so successful at using almost all of its own trash to produce energy that Norway is now paying Sweden to dispose of its garbage as well.[1] According to Swedish Waste Management, the incineration of household trash provides enough energy to power 250,000 homes and to meet one-fifth of the country's heat production needs.[2] Only four percent of the nation's trash ends up in landfills.[3] Strangely, waste incineration does not seem to be a hot topic in the current American alternative energy debate. The United States has made some progress toward using incineration as a way both to create energy and to reduce the amount of trash that ends up in landfills, but the practice is underutilized on this side of the Atlantic.

There are currently 86 waste-to-energy trash incinerators in the United States.[4] The Environmental Protection Agency reports that in 2010, about 29 million tons of the nation's municipal solid waste (about 12% of total waste) was combusted to create energy.[5] Capturing the methane from buried trash decomposing in landfills is another way to utilize trash as an energy source; however, EPA researchers found that incinerating trash can generate up to 10 times the amount of electricity from the same amont of waste.[6]

Regulations of waste-to-energy technology do not appear to be hindering development. Recent adaptations to relevant EPA regulations seem to encourage the use of processes that derive energy from waste. Amendments include the clarification of which materials used in the combustion process are considered "solid wastes" for purposes of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).[7] The definition under the Act determines whether a "combustion unit" qualifies as a waste incineration unit and must meet emissions standards under the Clean Air Act.[8]

Another example concerns regulation of a waste-to-energy process. "Gasification" is a process which "converts any material containing carbon - such as coal, petroleum coke... or biomass - into synthesis gas (syngas)," which can then "be burned to produce electricity or further processed to manufacture chemicals, fertilizers, liquid fuels, substitute natural gas (SNG), or hydrogen."[9] In 2008 the EPA excluded "oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials" from the definition of "solid waste," so that the materials that are used for "gasification" have the same regulatory status as those same types of materials when they are placed back into the petroleum refining process.[10] The purpose of the exclusion was to classify gasification as a petroleum production activity rather than a waste management activity, despite the fact that the production involves reusing waste materials.[11] The emphasis of regulation shifted from the need for disposal of certain materials to their potential to create energy.

The challenges of pursuing energy reform are much greater for a country as large as the United States than for a small country like Sweden. Difficulties of scale aside, the United States would do well to make better use of its trash. Despite the viability of the waste-to-energy process, no new incinerators have been built in the United States since 1995.[12] Fear that the concept may undercut recycling efforts, as well as opposition to incineration, may account in part for American hesitancy.[13] Recycling and reduction of waste would be ideal. Yet currently 54% of the trash in the United States still goes into a landfill.[14] Form a "lesser evils" perspective, the waste-to-energy concept looks promising.

_________________________

[1] Sophia Jones,

Sweden Wants Your Trash

, 

The Two-Way, Breaking News From NPR 

(Oct. 28, 2012), http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/10/28/163823839/sweden-wants-your-trash.

[2]

Towards a Greener Future with Swedish Waste-to-Energy The World's Best Example

, 

Avfall Sverige Swedish Waste Management, 

http://www.avfallsverige.se/fileadmin/uploads/forbranning_eng.pdf (last visited Nov. 3, 2012). 

[3]

Towards a Greener Future with Swedish Waste-to-Energy The World's Best Example

,

supra

 note 2.

[4]

Energy Recovery from Waste

, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/wte/index.htm (last updated July 24, 2012). 

[5]

Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2010

, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

2 (2010) http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw_2010_rev_factsheet.pdf.

[6] Environmental Protection Agency,

Energy from Waste: Burn or Bury?

, 

Science Matters Newsletter 

(Sept. 21, 2011), http://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/april2010/scinews_energy-from-waste.htm.

[7] Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Waste, 76 Fed. Reg. 15456 (Mar. 21, 2011) (codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 241).

[8]

Id.

[9]

What is Gasification?

, 

Gasification Technologies Council, 

http://www.gasification.org/page_2.asp?a=1&b=85 (last visited Nov. 2, 2012).

[10] Regulation of Oil-Bearing Hazardous Secondary Materials from the Petroleum Refining Industry Processed in a Gasification System to Produce Synthesis Gas, 73 Fed. Reg. 57 (Jan. 2, 2008) (codified at 40 C.F.R. pts. 260-61).

[11]

Id.

 at 58.

[12]

Energy Recovery from Waste

,

supra

 note 4.

[13] Elisabeth Rosenthal,

Europe Finds Clean Energy in Trash, but U.S. Lags

, 

N.Y. Times 

(Apr. 12, 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

[14]

Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2010

,

supra

 note 5. 

Post Hurricane Sandy Relief for Farmers and Producers

By: Megan Crenshaw, Staff Member

Despite the high estimate of economic damage that has been predicted as a result of recent Hurricane Sandy, overall farm and crop damage appears to be minimal.[1] However, there has been an impact in some areas of the United States and damages are still being assessed. Some severe localized crop damage has occurred in some urban farms in New York.[2] Farmers and ranchers in New Jersey have reported damage.[3] Other crop damage has also been reported in parts of Virginia.[4]

In the event of natural disasters when relief aid is necessary, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides assistance to farmers through programs administered via the Farm Service Agency (FSA).[5] The FSA "provides assistance for natural disaster losses, resulting from drought, flood, fire, freeze, tornadoes, pest infection, and other calamities."[6]

The USDA's authority to operate FSA programs authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill expired on September 30, 2011.[7] Production losses due to natural disasters occurring after September 30, 2011 are no longer eligible for diaster program coverage under programs that have expired.[8] In light of this eliminated relief, there are still some sources of recovery available for farmers. Those sources include: Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance, the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP), and the Emergency Loans Programs (ELP).[9]

The FSA has advised farmers and ranchers affected by Hurricane Sandy to keep thorough, detailed records of all losses.[10] These records could be very beneficial when seeking post-Hurricane Sandy relief from the FSA. Records should include livestock death, as well as expenses for feed purchases, costs due to lost supplies, increased transportation of livestock, and damaged farm land and crops.[11] These suggestions that have been given to farmers and producers after Hurricane Sandy are precautions that every farmer and producer facing similar circumstances should take after any natural distaster in order to receive all forms of reimbursement and relief in the future.

_____________________

[1] Brad Plumer,

Is Sandy the second-most destructive U.S. hurricane ever? Or not even top 10?

, 

WashingtonPost.com, 

(Nov. 5, 2012), http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/05/is-sandy-the-second-most-destructive-u-s-hurricane-ever-or-not-even-top-10/; Politics/Nation,

Hurricane Sandy slows final crop harvest in eastern U.S. states

, 

EconomicTimes.com, 

(Oct. 30, 2012), http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-10-30/news/34817312_1_corn-harvest-soybean-harvest-crop-progress-report.

[2] Russell McLendon,

Hurricane Sandy wreaks agricultural havoc

, 

MotherNatureNetwork.com, 

(Oct. 31, 2012), http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/blogs/hurricane-sandy-wreaks-agricultural-havoc.

[3] Tracy Grondine,

Agricultural damage from Hurricane Sandy still being assessed

, 

SoutheastFarmPress.com, 

(Nov. 5, 2012), http://southeastfarmpress.com/livestock/agricultural-damage-hurricane-sandy-still-being-assessed.

[4]

Id.

[5] Farm Service Agency,

Disaster Assistance Programs

, 

USDA.gov, 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=diap&topic=landing (last visited Nov. 5, 2012).

[6]

Id.

[7] News Release,

Farmers and Ranchers Urged to Record Losses from Hurricane Sandy

, 

USDA 

(Oct. 31, 2012), http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdamediafb?contentid=2012/10/0337.xml&printable=true&contentidonly=true.

[8]

Id.

[9]

Id.

[10]

Id.

[11]

Id. 

American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act and Its Impact on the Horse Capital of the World

By: Jordan Stanton, Staff Member

The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act is Congress's latest attempt at banning horse slaughter domestically.  This proposed legislation also prohibits the exportation of horses to other countries for slaughter.[1] Although meritorious, legislation of this nature has been proposed before, to no avail.[2] Consequently, regulation of this practice will be left with the states. As the horse capital of the world, us Kentuckians need to consider if this ban is really beneficial to the welfare of the horses that Congress is so keen on protecting. 

From Fiscal Year 2006 to 2011, Congress included language in its annual appropriations bill that prohibited the USDA's use of federal funds to inspect horses being transported for slaughter and horses that were intended for human consumption.[3] During that period, the horse slaughter industry was essentially banned in the United States; however, not outright. Circumventing this prohibition, horses were sent to Canada and Mexico for slaughter.[4] Ironically, the well-being of these animals was hurt by this prohibition. The journey these horses took to our bordering countries was long and hard, and the actual slaughter was far less humane than what was done domestically.[5] Recognizing this result, the Government Accountability Office issued a report that condemned the banning of horse slaughter domestically.[6] Heeding their warning, federal funding was restored to the USDA, which allows horse slaughter to once again commence in the United States.[7] 

Kentucky is home to roughly 320,000 horses, putting it fifth in horse population in the nation.[8] As host to the most prolific horse racing event in the world, The Kentucky Derby, Kentucky has vested interest in maintaining its pro-horse persona. The question then presents itself, should the State of Kentucky enact legislation that prohibits any involvement in the horse slaughter industry? The answer is difficult. Morally, the execution of animals that are staples of American culture is hard to stomach. However, due to the dismal state of our national economy, many horse owners are unable to care for their animals.[9] In Kentucky alone there are 60,000 to 90,000 unwanted horses.[10] The problem has led to unregulated breeding, which has further inflated the crisis.[11] Numerous non-profit organizations have responded to the situation, but their level of funding leaves only a minimal remedial effect.[12]

My solution to the problem may enrage some pro-horse individuals and groups, but it is endorsed by the GAO. Since Kentucky has so many horses, and the number of unwanted horses is growing, why not construct a horse slaughter facility in the Commonwealth? The fate of these horses is much more catastrophic when they are shipped to unregulated slaughter facilities in Mexico and Canada. Why not keep these animals at home, and allow for their slaughter in regulated facilities? This industry could provide a stimulus to Kentucky's economy since horse meat is heavily sought after worldwide.[13] At the end of the day, this position is in the horse's best interest, and those who think otherwise are not acclimated with the facts.

_______________________

[1]

H.R. 2966: American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act

, 

Govtrack.us, 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2966 (last visited Oct. 25, 2012).

[2]

American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act

, 

Animal Welfare Institute, 

http://awionline.org/content/american-horse-slaughter-prevention-act (last visited Oct. 25, 2012). 

[3]

Action Needed to Address Unintended Consequences from Cessation of Domestic Slaughter

, 

United States Government Accountability Office, 

8-9 (June 22, 2011), http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11228.pdf.

[4]

Id.

 at 10.

[5]

Id.

 at 2.

[6]

See generally id.

[7] Stephen Dinan,

Obama, Congress Restore Horse-Slaughter Industry

, 

The Washington Times 

(Nov. 30, 2011), http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/30/obama-congress-restore-us-horse-slaughter-industry/?page=all.

[8] Dennis Johnston,

Why?

,

Horse Capital of the World 

(Jan. 21, 2010, 4:25 PM), http://horsecapitaloftheworld.blogspot.com/2010/01/why.html.

[9] Wendy Mitchell,

Bill Could Re-Open Horse Slaughterhouses

, 

The Ledger Independent 

(Feb. 3, 2010, 10:00 PM), http://www.maysville-online.com/news/local/bill-could-re-open-horse-slaughterhouses/article_2ebf741c-9c43-5814-bd5e-5fafa1d9dbbe.html.

[10]

Id.

[11]

Id.

[12]

Horse Slaughterhouses Gain Unlikely Ally. PETA?

, 

WHAS11.com, 

http://www.whas11.com/news/Horse-slaughter-re-legalized-in-United-States-134854-18.html (last updated Dec. 2, 2011). 

[13] Julie Harker,

Americans Eat Horse Meat

, 

Brownsfield Ag News for America 

(June 8, 2012), http://brownfieldagnews.com/2012/06/08/americans-eat-horse-meat-study-published/.

How Does Lasix Enhance Performance in Horses?

By: Wes Bright, Staff Member

If you are reading this blog post, it is likely you are already aware of the controversy the horse racing industry faces over the use of Furosemide (better known as Lasix). Most agree Lasix does enhance performance in horses to some degree.[1] However, much of the problem lies in

how

it enhances performance.

Those in favor of Lasix as a race day medication have an opinion much like Thomas Tobin's, a professor at the University of Kentucky Gluck Equine Research Center.[2] Tobin was quick to point out that some studies do not factor in that "EIPH (Exercise Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage) causes horses to run slower and Lasix acts to prevent and lessens EIPH."[3] Instead of enhancing a horse's performance, Lasix simply allows a horse to be healthy. Yes, it is likely a healthy horse will run faster than one with blood-filled lungs.

We allow athletes in other sports to take measures to assure that they are healthy enough to play, such as a basketball player draining the fluid from his knees.[4] Who is going to tell Dirk Nowitzki that he has to let his knee heal and if it doesn't, well, tough luck, your career is over? Yet, there have been proposals to do that very thing to horses.[5]

It is common knowledge that the lighter something is, the faster it will go. It stands to reason a horse that has lost 2% of its body weight due to Lasix will be faster than one that has not.[6] Many say this is the reason for the enhancement in performance and point to studies like the one done by the University of Pennsylvania.[7] They found bleeders as well as non-bleeders to be faster when Lasix is administered. Assuming this study is without fault, should it matter that horses are faster because they lose weight? I again turn to the treatment of other professional athletes. We allow jockeys in the same industry to cut weight, even though they sometimes go to extreme measures to do it.[8] Athletes involved in wrestling or boxing cut weight in order to fight in a lower class.[9] These measures have the same effects on humans as Lasix has on horses, yet I do not hear an uproar over it.

In other sports we ban performance enhancers due to their negative long-term effect on the body. The opposite is true for Lasix. It reduces the negative effects of EIPH. Many who oppose its use hear the word "Lasix" and "performance enhancer" and immediately think it must have negative effects, while the opposite is true.

If there wasn't an advantage gained by Lasix, using it would not be a normal occurrence.[10] What causes the advantage will remain up for debate. My answer: If it helps the horse and doesn't give an advantage, then who cares?

_______________________

[1]

FAQ About the Study and Project, 

University of Pretoria Equine Research Center

, http://web.up.ac.za/ default.asp?ipkCategoryID=5218.

[2] Erica Larson,

EIPH and Furosemide Use In Racehorses Explained

,

TheHorse.com 

(Oct. 4, 2012), http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=20732.

[3]

Id.

[4] Tim MacMahon,

Dirk Nowitzki has knee drained again

, 

ESPNDallas 

(Oct. 12, 2012), http://espn.go.com/dallas /nba/story/_/id/8495123/dirk-nowitzki-dallas-mavericks-knee-drained-second-time-month.

[5] Bruce Schreiner,

Proposed race-day drug ban resurfaces in Kentucky

, 

Yahoo Sports 

(May 16, 2012), http://sports.yahoo.com/news/proposed-race-day-drug-ban-162139010--rah.html.

[6]

See FAQ, supra

note 1.

[7] Associated Press,

Lasix Found to Aid Horses' Performance

, 

LATimes.com 

(May 7, 1990), http://articles.latimes.com/ 1990-05-07/sports/sp-311_1_racing-performance.

[8] Matthew Percia,

What Sports Use a Rapid Weight Loss Method?

, 

LiveStrong.com 

(Feb. 21, 2011), http://www.livestrong.com/article/387282-what-sports-use-a-rapid-weight-loss-method/.

[9]

Id.

[10] Ed Springston,

Governor Beshear Purposely Putting Horse Racing at Risk in KY?

, 

LouisvillePolitics.com 

(Jun. 18, 2012), http://www.louisvillepolitics.com/governor-beshear-purposly-putting-horse-racing-at-risk-in-ky/.

The Worst Anti-Environmental Bill in History?

By: Max Bridges, Staff Member

Before leaving for a two-month recess this September, House Republicans passed the dirty coal package, H.R. 3409, by a vote of 233-175.[1] Also titled the "Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012," the bill would undermine landmark environmental laws and adversely affect public health, the economy, and the environment.[2] The bill is not expected to be taken up in the Senate and is also facing a presidential veto,[3] but it raises enormous concerns about the interests of our Representatives. Congressmen are elected to protect the interests of the American people, but House Republicans are more concerned with protecting King Coal.

The "Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012" is comprised of five bills each designed to assault America's cornerstone environmental protections. The bill is so detrimental to public health that some have called it the "single worst anti-environmental bill to be considered in the House."[4]

Title I of H.R. 3409 blocks the Department of Interior (DOI) from issuing any new standard for coal mining or mine reclamation until 2014 and would eliminate DOI's ability to designate an area unsuitable for mining.[5]

Title II repeals EPA's scientific finding that greenhouse gasses endanger public health and the environment, thereby codifying the House's denial of climate science.[6]

Title III would overturn 40 years of clean air policy by requiring the EPA to consider industry costs when determining what level of air pollution is "safe."[7] It would also block landmark Clean Air Act public health regulations, such as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, which the EPA estimates "will prevent as many as 11,000 avoidable premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks annually. The annual value of the health benefits from these rules alone is estimated to be as much as $90 billion."[8]

Title IV would eliminate EPA's authority to set minimum federal standards to ensure the safe disposal of coal ash by allowing the States to create their own programs without having to meet

any

 standard for protecting public health.[9] Perhaps Congress needs to be reminded of the Martin County Coal Spill. In October 2000, a coal slurry impoundment broke through an underground mine shaft and spilled more than 300 million gallons of black, toxic sludge into the waters of Kentucky.[10] The spill was 30 times the size of the

Exxon Valdez

 disaster. But we shouldn't need to remind Congress; they represent us, right?

Finally, Title V would roll back key provisions underpinning the Clean Water Act including EPA's authority to veto a "valley fill" permit based on environmental concerns. House Republicans believe this bill would prevent EPA over-regulation, but others disagree. As Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) said, "Let's not fool ourselves, the bill before us today isn't just about the role of federal government, the bill isn't just a push for state sovereignty; rather, this bill would satisfy two very niche special interests at the cost of the American public. This bill is designed to benefit mountaintop coal mining companies and large factory farms."[11]

By passing H.R. 3409, House Republicans showed their willingness to undercut key environmental protections that protect our safety and public welfare. These Congressmen clearly do not represent the interests of the American people. Instead, they represent Big Coal. This absurdity is further evidenced by recent political contributions. In 2012 alone, Republicans received 89 percent of the coal industry's campaign contributions (amounting to $5,765,078).[12] The chair of the Energy and Commerce committee has received $60,000 from major utilities and the coal industry. Bill co-sponsor Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) is the top recipient of coal cash for 2012, receiving more than $200,000.[13]

We elect Congress to protect the will of the people, but they are more concerned with protecting the coal industry. Let's hope our representatives begin to follow the words of John Adams, "Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men."[14]

_________________________

[1] The Library of Congress,

Bill Summary & Status, 112th Congress

(2011-2012), H.R. 3409

, 

Thomas, 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.03409: (last visited Oct. 21, 2012).

[2]

Statement of Administration Policy

, E

xecutive Office of the President, 

(Sept. 19, 2012) http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr3409r_20120919.pdf.

[3]

Id.

[4]

An Assault On America's Cornerstone Environmental Protections

, 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, Democratic Staff 

(Sept. 2012), http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Short%20HR%203409%20Fact%20Sheet_1.pdf.

[5]

Id.

[6]

Id.

[7]

Id.

[8] 

Executive Office of the President, 

supra

 note 2.

[9] 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, Democratic Staff, 

supra

 note 4.

[10] 

Erik Reece, Lost Mountain

 124 (2006).

[11] Robin Bravender,

House Votes to Block EPA on Water Pollution

, 

Politico 

(Aug. 13, 2011), http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58939.html#ixzz29rptxZvv.

[12]

Coal Mining: Long-Term Contribution Trends

, 

OpenSecrets.org, 

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2012&ind=E1210 (last visited Oct. 21, 2012).

[13] Rebecca Leber,

The GOP's 'War on Coal' Myth, Brought to You by Millions in Coal Cash

,

ThinkProgress 

(Sep. 20, 2012), http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/20/873851/the-gops-war-on-coal-myth-brought-to-you-by-millions-in-coal-cash/?mobile=nc.

[14] 

John Adams, The Works of John Adams, 

225 (1851)

available at

http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2012/Adams_1431-04_Bk.pdf.