<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><feed
	xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0"
	xml:lang="en-US"
	>
	<title type="text">Heather Smith | Vox</title>
	<subtitle type="text">Our world has too much noise and too little context. Vox helps you understand what matters.</subtitle>

	<updated>2019-03-06T03:44:28+00:00</updated>

	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.vox.com/author/heather-smith" />
	<id>https://www.vox.com/authors/heather-smith/rss</id>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.vox.com/authors/heather-smith/rss" />

	<icon>https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/08/vox_logo_rss_light_mode.png?w=150&amp;h=100&amp;crop=1</icon>
		<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Heather Smith</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Down with guilt! There are much better ways to get people to care about climate change.]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.vox.com/2016/5/28/11775348/climate-change-guilt" />
			<id>https://www.vox.com/2016/5/28/11775348/climate-change-guilt</id>
			<updated>2016-05-25T16:22:11-04:00</updated>
			<published>2016-05-28T10:00:02-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Climate" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Originally published on Grist. How do you get people to do something about climate change? For years, the answer has been to prod people into thinking about their role in causing it, to guilt trip them into action. Because any human who happens to live in North America has taken advantage of central heating, combustion [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/15822542/megaphone.0.1547423163.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>Originally published on </em><a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/down-with-guilt-there-are-much-better-ways-to-get-people-to-act-on-climate-change/"><em>Grist</em></a><em>.</em></p>

<p>How do you get people to do something about climate change? For years, the answer has been to prod people into thinking about their role in causing it, to guilt trip them into action. Because any human who happens to live in North America has taken advantage of central heating, combustion engines, and the occasional monster truck rally.</p>

<p>A<a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-016-1670-9"> recent study in the scientific journal <em>Climatic Change</em></a> has a surprising take on this longstanding practice. It finds that asking people to think about their individual guilt in causing climate change is about as effective as asking them to think about brushing their teeth.</p>

<p>In other words, this research suggests that the common way organizations try to mobilize people around climate change is misguided. Better to frame it as our problem, an issue threatening all of us, than as a story of personal responsibility.</p>

<p>Nick Obradovich and Scott M. Guenther, two political science PhD candidates at the University of California San Diego, persuaded the Audubon Society to let them embed an experiment in a survey sent to an Audubon email list. In the survey, people were randomly assigned to spend four minutes writing about either how they personally contributed to climate change, or about the less personal emissions driving climate change. A third group was asked to describe their daily routine. How often do you brush your teeth? What about exercise?</p>

<p>The survey told them they were in the running to win $100 and asked them how much of their winnings they wanted to donate to help the Audubon Society&rsquo;s climate change programs. That&rsquo;s a common device used by social scientists to attach a numerical value to an ideal. Although giving money isn&rsquo;t exactly the same as taking action, money is a hell of a lot easier to quantify and put on a graph.</p>

<p>Obradovich told me that he and Guenther expected that people who wrote about climate change would choose to donate more to the Audubon Society than those who wrote about their daily routine, but they weren&rsquo;t sure which of the two writing prompts would lead to more donations.</p>

<p>When the results came in, they were shocked. There was virtually no difference in donations between those who wrote about their personal role in climate change and the toothbrush-pondering control group. Meanwhile, the people who wrote about the general causes of climate change donated significantly more than everyone else.</p>

<p>Well, Obradovich and Guenther reasoned, the Audubon Society is hardly a representative sample of America. More than 80 percent of Audubon Society members think that people are driving climate change. Many signed over the full $100 donation regardless of what they were assigned to write about.</p>

<p>So the duo hired 304 people off Mechanical Turk, a platform often used for social science research. Compared with the general population, people on Mechanical Turk are younger, more educated, and more likely to accept climate science &mdash; though a lot less likely than an Audubon member.</p>

<p>The conclusion was even more pronounced. Obradovich and Guenther sent another follow-up survey to the Mechanical Turk group two days later, and the results persisted. Even days after writing about the collective causes of climate change, those Mechanical Turks donated more than anyone else.</p>

<p>So why the difference? Obradovich&rsquo;s theory is that when people grasp the reality of climate change they simply don&rsquo;t want to think about their role in it. That&rsquo;s true even after they cut their carbon emissions by eating less meat, commuting by bicycle, and thinking approvingly of Al Gore.</p>

<p>Mulling over your personal contribution is likely to result in cognitive dissonance &mdash; the discomfort felt when people realize their behavior conflicts with their values. That can go in two directions. You either change your behavior to be more in line with your ideals or you tweak your ideals to ease the discomfort. To Obradovich, choosing not to donate money could be evidence of the latter response.</p>

<p>I was surprised at this study, but people researching climate change communication were not. &#8220;This resonates with earlier research,&#8221; John Cook, a physicist <a href="https://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml">who studies climate change denial</a>, wrote to me after I sent him a copy of the study.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n8/full/nclimate1532.html">A study published in <em>Nature Climate Change</em></a> four years ago found that even climate change deniers were more likely to agree with a pro-climate agenda if they thought it would improve society as a whole. There&rsquo;s also the<a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/"> cultural cognition research</a> of Dan Kahan, which found that people who think of themselves as part of society are more likely to get the reality of climate change than people who consider themselves rugged individualists.</p>

<p>I also sent the study to <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-do-you-make-conservatives-care-about-climate-change-an-expert-shares-tips/">Ed Maibach</a>, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. &#8220;Like all good research, the findings in this paper raise more important questions than they answer,&#8221; Maibach wrote in reply. The problem with thinking about your role in climate change as an individual, Maibach said, is that no one likes to feel guilty. &#8220;It makes sense that asking people to reflect on their contributions to climate change is not a good way to heighten their engagement in the problem.&#8221;</p>

<p>That said, even Obradovich said his research is a pathway to more research, not a definitive answer. The social science around climate change isn&rsquo;t as developed as the hard science, though interest is growing. Obradovich is involved with a nonprofit called the Climate Advocacy Lab, which connects climate groups involved in advocacy with social scientists involved in climate research.</p>

<p>As public health issues go, Obradovich says, climate change is emotionally complicated. It&rsquo;s more tied to political ideology than other public health problems. Unraveling that will take a lot more research.</p>

<p>Here&rsquo;s what I wonder. What would collective-minded climate messaging look like? Would it look like communist agitprop? Or maybe old World War II posters would be a better guide.</p>
<div data-chorus-asset-id="6547465"><img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6547465/dr-seuss-conservation-car-propaganda.jpg"></div>
<p>I&rsquo;d argue that the climate change activism of the past few years has already shifted from messages of personal responsibility toward collective action.</p>

<p>The fight <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/with-one-more-nail-in-its-coffin-is-keystone-xl-history/">against the Keystone XL pipeline</a> was one example. The struggle<a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/economic-resistance-aka-divestment-is-as-american-as-apple-pie/"> to get universities and pension funds to divest from fossil fuels</a> is another. <a href="http://grist.org/politics/we-want-democracy-but-we-dont-have-the-theory-or-skill-to-do-it/">Occupy Wall Street</a> and <a href="http://grist.org/politics/stopping-a-bart-train-in-michael-browns-name/">Black Lives Matter</a> used similar framing: Success will come when we change society, not just ourselves. A while back, <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-debt-collectors-occupy-wants-the-one-percent-to-pay-up/">I interviewed Andrew Ross, a New York University professor, about world debt and climate change</a>. I was surprised when he gently reprimanded me for feeling bad about flying on airplanes.</p>

<p>&#8220;One of the favorite things of really guilty people,&#8221; Ross said, referring to every company whose bottom line depended on putting more carbon into the atmosphere, &#8220;is to make people feel ashamed individually.&#8221;</p>

<p>At the time, it felt to me like a radical statement. These days, it doesn&rsquo;t feel so radical anymore.</p>

<p><em>Grist is a nonprofit news site that uses humor to shine a light on big green issues. Get their email newsletter </em><a href="http://grist.org/subscribe/"><em>here</em></a><em>, and follow them on </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/grist.org"><em>Facebook</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://twitter.com/grist"><em>Twitter</em></a><em>.</em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Heather Smith</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[The bizarre, complicated world of “organic” weed]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.vox.com/2016/4/23/11487118/organic-marijuana" />
			<id>https://www.vox.com/2016/4/23/11487118/organic-marijuana</id>
			<updated>2016-04-22T11:05:17-04:00</updated>
			<published>2016-04-23T10:00:03-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Climate" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Originally published on Grist. Now that the weed business is getting respectable, Chris Van Hook gets a certain kind of phone call. It&#8217;s usually a weed seller on the line, or someone who takes weed and turns it into one of the approximately million billion weed-based products that have sprung up in the last few [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="Chris Van Hook | Sophia Rogers/Grist" data-portal-copyright="Sophia Rogers/Grist" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6375415/grist-weed.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
	Chris Van Hook | Sophia Rogers/Grist	</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>Originally published on </em><a href="http://grist.org/living/the-crazy-complicated-world-of-organic-weed/"><em>Grist</em></a><em>.</em></p>

<p>Now that the weed business is getting respectable, Chris Van Hook gets a certain kind of phone call.</p>

<p>It&rsquo;s usually a weed seller on the line, or someone who takes weed and turns it into one of the approximately million billion weed-based products that have sprung up in the last few years: weedy lip balm, weedy coffee pods, weedy snacks (often with the word &#8220;baked&#8221; in the title), weedy personal lubricant.</p>

<p>The callers have a problem and they want Van Hook&rsquo;s help. They buy their cannabis from farmers who grow super organic weed, like the most amazing stuff. But these growers are really shy, and don&rsquo;t want anybody coming to their farm to check out their operation. So, any chance Van Hook could test their weed without paying a visit?</p>

<p>&#8220;No,&#8221; Van Hook replies. He won&rsquo;t certify a weed farm until he can see the plants with his own eyes.</p>

<p>The callers react with disbelief. Surely, Van Hook is joking, right? &#8220;&lsquo;We&rsquo;re just trying to put money into your account,&rsquo;&#8221; he says, reenacting one conversation.</p>

<p>Van Hook&rsquo;s services are in demand because he and a few other self-made certifiers offer something that no one else can at the moment &mdash; not the government, not the states where recreational or medical marijuana is now legal, and not an industry association. In the absence of any true standard for organic weed, they&rsquo;re making one up as they go along.</p>

<p>And based on how many growers and sellers want certification from Van Hook&rsquo;s <a href="http://cleangreencert.com/home/">Clean Green Certified Program</a>, it&rsquo;s working.</p>

<p>Every single grower and distributor that I interviewed insists that for the vast majority of their customers, the primary question is still &#8220;How high will this get me?&#8221; But in the same way that some people will go out of their way to buy kale at the farmers market, others will do the same to buy organically farmed cannabis.</p>

<p>Some are convinced that organic pot makes them less susceptible to migraines (because no pesticides). Others want to be sure that their weed habit isn&rsquo;t destroying salmon habitat or <a href="http://grist.org/living/everything-you-need-to-know-about-pots-environmental-impact/">poisoning local wildlife</a>. &#8220;There&rsquo;s no one stereotype,&#8221; says Bill Eddie, who sources cannabis for Ruckus dispensary in Seattle. &#8220;I&rsquo;ve been asked for organic by everyone from old ladies to hippie kids.&#8221;</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Fake organic weed is everywhere</h2><img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2455078/shutterstock_226135945.0.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" alt="A marijuana plant." title="A marijuana plant." data-has-syndication-rights="1" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=226135945&amp;src=id&quot;&gt;Shutterstock&lt;/a&gt;" />
<p>There&rsquo;s just one problem. Fake organic weed is everywhere. This is partly because when you call it organic it sells better than the regular stuff, and partly because it&rsquo;s a crop often grown by people with a hazy understanding of what farming is, let alone the organic kind.</p>

<p>Bill Eddie visits every farm that supplies Ruckus with weed. His off-the-cuff estimate is that about 80 percent of the weed that growers claim is organic isn&#8217;t, upon closer examination. &#8220;They&rsquo;ll buy fertilizer with a picture of a flower on the bag and think that&#8217;s organic,&#8221; he says. &#8220;If there was an agency that I could report them to, I would.&#8221; Ruckus no longer uses the word &#8220;organic&#8221; to describe anything, period. The change came when some representatives of the Washington State Liquor Board showed up like they were dressed for a raid in flack jackets and bulletproof vests, and made them take down every sign that said &#8220;organic.&#8221;</p>

<p>&#8220;A lot of producers are making claims about how their products were grown that are outlandish and just not true,&#8221; says John Kagia, the director of industry analytics for <a href="https://frontierfinancials.com/about-us/">New Frontier</a>, a data analysis firm that caters to the professionalizing pot industry.</p>

<p>Just last month, for instance, Colorado issued a massive pot recall after a state investigation found high levels of insecticide in weed grown by an outfit called Kindman.</p>

<p>The little data that exist suggest this kind of thing may be rampant. Last year a marijuana-testing lab in Oregon found that <a href="http://cannabissafetyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CSI-Pesticides-White-Paper.pdf">12 percent of the cannabis flowers and concentrates it tested</a> showed pesticide levels way above the federal guidelines. That same year, <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28917964/colorado-yields-marijuana-industry-pressure-pesticides">an investigation by the Denver Post revealed</a> that Colorado&rsquo;s efforts to regulate pesticides on pot had failed in part because of pressure from already-powerful weed growers. Washington State&#8217;s King County even warned residents to &#8220;avoid smoking or ingesting marijuana&#8221; if they &#8220;are concerned about pesticide exposure.&#8221;</p>

<p>Kagia, the analyst, says the industry and government officials are working toward organic standards, but it will take a while. &#8220;We expect a contentious process,&#8221; he says. &#8220;But it will happen.&#8221;</p>

<p>In the meantime, organic weed fans have to rely on guys like Van Hook, whose Clean Green Certified Program functions something like a US Department of Agriculture for hire. Clean Green&rsquo;s inspectors visit several dozen pot farms across six states. They walk the rows, looking for signs of pesticide use with a magnifying glass (if a plant looks too good, it&rsquo;s probably been treated). They take soil samples and send them to a USDA-licensed lab. Testing the flowers and leaves would be better, but they can&rsquo;t send weed across state lines, and there aren&rsquo;t any local, in-state labs that can perform complicated pesticide residue tests.</p>

<p>Clean Green has certified pot since 2004, and is based in Crescent City, California. Its seven employees are careful never to describe weed as &#8220;organic&#8221; &mdash; that&rsquo;s a very specific, legal term whose definition is set by the federal government. But Van Hook has inspected farms as a federal contractor for 14 years now, and there&rsquo;s a lot of overlap between what the USDA considers an organic fruit or vegetable and what Van Hook&rsquo;s &#8220;Clean Green Certified&#8221; program is willing to give its seal of approval.</p>

<p>Van Hook wouldn&#8217;t meet me on a farm &mdash; local growers were just too skittish to have a reporter around, he says &mdash; so I visit his office instead. That office is a white van parked in front of a Safeway in Pacifica, a coastal town 12 miles south of San Francisco. Paneled with mahogany-colored wood, the van serves as his sleeping quarters when he&rsquo;s traveling from farm to farm, as well as his law office and storage spot for his surfboard.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">How Van Hook got into the organic weed certification business</h2><img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4314219/459780027.0.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" alt="A marijuana business manager prepares for the first day of recreational sales in Denver, Colorado." title="A marijuana business manager prepares for the first day of recreational sales in Denver, Colorado." data-has-syndication-rights="1" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="R.J. Sangosti/Denver Post via Getty Images" /><p class="caption">A marijuana business manager prepares for the first day of recreational sales.</p>
<p>Van Hook has been farming in some fashion for his entire life. He grew up on a dairy farm in Pennsylvania, picked up a degree in environmental studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and proceeded to spend the next 30 years running an abalone farm in Crescent City, California. &#8220;Neat way to raise two kids,&#8221; he says.</p>

<p>Then, in 2000, the abalone started dying. To Van Hook, the cause was clear: The Crescent City Harbor District had stopped dredging the harbor a few years earlier, and it was filling up with mud, leaving his abalone without oxygen. District officials had a different perspective, which was that Van Hook was just unlucky. He went to law school in order to fight the harbor, passed the bar, and <a href="http://www.triplicate.com/News/Local-News/Abalone-wars-Harbor-dispute-settled">won his suit on all counts</a> in 2005.</p>

<p>It did not, however, bring the abalone back.</p>

<p>A friend suggested that with his background in agriculture, Van Hook could get accredited as an inspector by the then-new USDA organic program. Two reams of paperwork later, and he was certified. One day soon after, Van Hook was inspecting the farm of an actual little old lady from Pasadena. She mentioned that she grew medical marijuana. So did a couple of her friends. Would he certify their pot, too?</p>

<p>Sure, Van Hook figured. Why not? Like many in his generation, he had more than a passing familiarity with marijuana. &#8220;I&#8217;m not sure if I ever dreamed I could have raised abalone if I wasn&#8217;t getting high,&#8221; he tells me. &#8220;I certainly couldn&#8217;t have worked those 16-hour days on the water without getting high.&#8221;</p>

<p>So Van Hook emailed the head of California&#8217;s organic certification program asking how to certify medical marijuana, since it was legal with a prescription. &#8220;Treat it like any other crop,&#8221; the guy wrote back. But then the feds stepped in and overruled, and that&#8217;s when Van Hook began developing his own standards.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">What does organic really mean?</h2><div data-chorus-asset-id="4232855"><img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4232855/GettyImages-566354341.jpg"></div>
<p>When it comes to food, deciding what&rsquo;s organic is tricky. There are plenty of fertilizers and pesticides that fit the technical definition of organic (naturally occurring, not made in a lab) but are hard on the environment, like copper sulfate. For the most part, Van Hook follows USDA organic standards when certifying pot. And when he encounters a new question, he improvises.</p>

<p>Take indoor growers. Can they really be &#8220;clean&#8221; or &#8220;green&#8221; if they burn through electricity by raising plants under grow lights? Sure, Van Hook decided, as long as they use solar panels. What about organic growers who send their used soil to the landfill after harvesting each crop, out of worry that reusing soil is a risk to the next generation of plants? No good, said Van Hook. Either amend the soil and reuse it, or donate it to someone who will, like a community garden.</p>

<p>What about water? Investigating water sources isn&#8217;t a part of standard organic food certification. When California went through a multi-year drought, however, Clean Green began looking closely at water sources and asking weed growers about their water conservation plans.</p>

<p>What about workers? One farmer told Van Hook that she was thinking of hiring a crew of trimmers who worked on a pot farm down the road. These migrant workers from a poor Central American country worked 15-hour days, slept on the floor of the trimming shed, and lived off frozen burritos from Costco. You didn&#8217;t pay them directly &mdash; just the person who had brought them to your farm. That person charged $100 for each pound trimmed. The average wage for the crusty punks and college kids who showed up at harvest time was around $250 a pound. The farmer figured she could save hundreds of thousands of dollars by hiring the crew of migrants. Could she use them and still be certified?</p>

<p>Van Hook decided she could as long as she followed a set of rules he drew up. Growers needed to provide separate sleeping quarters for men and women and keep invoices to show that they were feeding their trimming crews well. And they needed to have some verification that workers were getting paid &mdash; individually &mdash; at least $15 an hour.</p>

<p>These rules were, Van Hook admits, hard to verify, and easy enough to fake. But he believes that just setting them had an effect. Several farms dropped out of the Clean Green program after he added the clause about feeding workers well and paying them directly.</p>

<p>As weed gradually loses its black-market baggage, Van Hook has no doubt that he&#8217;ll be certifying organic pot for the USDA some day.</p>

<p>And then weed growers could very well find that the epic paperwork awaiting a traditional farmer makes Clean Green&#8217;s certification program look easy in comparison.</p>

<p>&#8220;Here&#8217;s the truth,&#8221; he says. &#8220;They have no idea how complicated it is to grow tomatoes.&#8221;</p>

<p><em>Grist is a nonprofit news site that uses humor to shine a light on big green issues. Get their email newsletter </em><a href="http://grist.org/subscribe/"><em>here</em></a><em>, and follow them on </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/grist.org"><em>Facebook</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://twitter.com/grist"><em>Twitter</em></a><em>.</em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Heather Smith</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Could climate change warnings on gasoline pumps actually work?]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.vox.com/2016/3/19/11257178/climate-change-warnings-gas-pumps" />
			<id>https://www.vox.com/2016/3/19/11257178/climate-change-warnings-gas-pumps</id>
			<updated>2016-03-17T17:14:59-04:00</updated>
			<published>2016-03-19T09:00:03-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Climate" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Later this year, someone stopping to fuel up in North Vancouver will be the first customer to see the controversial warning labels. They&#8217;ll be wrapped around the gas pump handles. The exact wording isn&#8217;t settled yet, but here&#8217;s the gist of it: Every time you pump gas, you&#8217;re contributing to air pollution and climate change. [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shutterstock.com&quot;&gt;Shutterstock&lt;/a&gt;" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6207811/shutterstock_99178946.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Later this year, someone stopping to fuel up in North Vancouver will be the first customer to see the controversial warning labels. They&rsquo;ll be wrapped around the gas pump handles. The exact wording isn&rsquo;t settled yet, but here&rsquo;s the gist of it: Every time you pump gas, you&rsquo;re contributing to air pollution and climate change.</p>

<p>What will they look like? We don&rsquo;t know that either, but here&rsquo;s one candidate considered by the city council that voted in the new warning-label law:</p>
<div data-chorus-asset-id="6207437"><img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6207437/grist-1-gas-warning-label-caribou.jpg"></div>
<p>This label was developed by Robert Shirkey, a Toronto-based lawyer who has been obsessed with climate change for, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA4e7y-4Pak">as he put it</a>, &#8220;as long as I can remember.&#8221; A few years ago his grandfather told him to &#8220;do what you love,&#8221; then promptly died and left him with a small inheritance. Shirkey used the money to found <a href="http://ourhorizon.org/">Our Horizon</a>, a nonprofit that functions as <a href="http://ourhorizon.org/advocacy-action-kit/">a one-stop shop for anyone curious about getting their local municipality to put climate change warning labels on gasoline pumps</a>.</p>

<p>It might seem unfair to post labels at gas stations implying that individual drivers are guilty of nudging caribou closer to extinction. After all, lots of others are out there warming the troposphere: power plants, trucking, the military, you name it. Shirkey decided to focus on gas pump warning labels precisely because the responsibility for climate change is so diffuse. Unless you&rsquo;re living some kind of Little House on the Prairie lifestyle, the energy that goes into heating your home and keeping you fed is invisible.</p>

<p>But the experience of fueling up is a real, gassy, in-your-face moment of personal responsibility. You can smell it. You have to pull levers to make it work. &#8220;There is nothing else,&#8221; <a href="http://ourhorizon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MunicipalWorld-March2015-Shirkey.pdf">Shirkey wrote</a>, in an article for the amazingly named Municipal World magazine, &#8220;that currently connects us to the problems of climate change in such a direct way.&#8221;</p>

<p>Meanwhile, in West Vancouver, a teenager named Emily Kelsall heard Shirkey being interviewed on the radio on her way to school. In the same way that some 16-year-olds would travel from town to town for soccer matches or to see punk shows at VFW halls, Kelsall <a href="http://www.nsnews.com/news/city-of-north-vancouver-first-for-climate-change-warnings-on-gas-pumps-1.2116081">began going from local city council to city council</a>, proposing new legislation requiring gasoline warning labels.</p>
<div><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vzzGYH5kD_U?wmode=transparent&amp;rel=0&amp;autohide=1&amp;showinfo=0&amp;enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true"></iframe></div>
<p><br>The push to label gasoline pumps is also a reminder of just how much the movement to educate people about climate change has come to parallel the one to educate people about the dangers of tobacco. Tobacco campaigns started with a scientific argument (Doctors say smoking is bad for you) before broadening <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-do-you-make-conservatives-care-about-climate-change-an-expert-shares-tips/">into more advertising-inspired messages</a>.</p>

<p>When <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/is-big-oil-about-to-have-its-big-tobacco-moment/">New York&rsquo;s attorney general</a> decided to investigate whether Exxon lied to the public or its investors about the risks of climate change, it recalled the <a href="http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/tobacco-litigation-history-and-development-32202.html">decades of lawsuits</a> brought against the four largest tobacco companies by the attorneys general of 46 states. When those cases were settled in 1996, tobacco companies had to pay the states money that went directly into funding anti-smoking advertising campaigns &mdash; particularly ones designed to stop teenagers from smoking in the first place.</p>

<p>Suing energy companies <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/could-you-sue-chevron-for-screwing-up-the-climate/">is going to be even harder than suing tobacco companies</a>. That doesn&rsquo;t make it any less entertaining to imagine what would happen if state attorneys general sued and won. There would be cheesy public service billboards in high schools about how uncool driving is compared with taking the bus. There would be television ads like this:</p>
<div><div><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/75F3CSZcCFs?wmode=transparent&amp;rel=0&amp;autohide=1&amp;showinfo=0&amp;enablejsapi=1" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true"></iframe></div></div>
<p><br>Instead of ads like this:</p>
<div><iframe src="http://www.ispot.tv/share/AOy_" frameborder="0"></iframe></div>
<p>Right now, ads for energy companies are just part of the background noise of advertising that we all live with. They&rsquo;re so familiar that we almost don&rsquo;t see them anymore. But a few decades down the road, an advertisement glorifying wanton gasoline use could look as retro as these ads do today:</p>
<div data-chorus-asset-id="6207443"><img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6207443/grist-2-cigarette-babies.jpg"></div>
<p>America used to be the world leader of warning labels. In 1966, it became the first country to force cigarette companies to print <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1333">a warning from the surgeon general on every pack of smokes</a>. They ran the gamut from, &#8220;WARNING: Cigarettes are addictive,&#8221; to, &#8220;WARNING: Tobacco smoke can harm your children.&#8221;</p>

<p>In 1966, 43 percent of Americans smoked. Fifty years later, that percentage has fallen to 18. Labels can&rsquo;t claim all the credit, but the research is clear: <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/15/suppl_3/iii19.short">Warning labels work</a>. Research also shows that warning labels are especially effective when they&rsquo;re very large and combine pictures with words, especially if those pictures are disgusting. That explains why <a href="http://biomed20.ucsf.edu/2011/06/23/cigarette-warning-labels-around-the-world/">it&rsquo;s hard to buy a cigarette in many other countries</a> without seeing a revolting picture of advanced mouth cancer. Beginning in 2012, cigarette packs sold in the United States were supposed to carry those picture warnings, too, but their rollout was <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/19/cigarette-warning-labels/2000549/">blocked by a lawsuit</a> from several cigarette companies.</p>

<p>The threat of lawsuits is part of the reason why gasoline warning labels have been slow to catch on. Countries that mandate large and graphic cigarette labels have been sued not only for violating intellectual property laws but also for violating international trade agreements. Both Berkeley and San Francisco <a href="http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/04/inside-the-push-to-put-climate-change-warnings-on-gas-pumps/389132/">have openly considered gasoline warning labels</a>, only to find out they would be sued by the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). Berkeley&rsquo;s proposal inspired a stern <a href="https://www.wspa.org/blog/post/wrong-headed-idea-gas-pump-labels-about-global-warning">editorial</a> in the San Francisco Chronicle<em> </em>by WSPA president Catherine Reheis-Boyd.</p>

<p>&#8220;It is, of course, ironic,&#8221; Reheis-Boyd wrote, &#8220;that the city of Berkeley &mdash; birthplace of the Free Speech Movement 50 years ago &mdash; would even consider an ordinance that so clearly treads upon the free speech rights of the men and women who own and operate service stations within its borders.&#8221;</p>

<p>The last time I was pumping gas, I looked up and saw that some enterprising person had clipped these ads to the fuel hoses:</p>
<div data-chorus-asset-id="6207447"><img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6207447/grist-3.jpg"></div>
<p>It made me think of something I had learned a long time ago. People don&rsquo;t actually like pumping gas. Gas companies know this and <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/lisa_margonelli_the_political_chemistry_of_oil/transcript?language=en">have designed their pumps to look like ATMs</a> on the grounds that people like getting money from ATMs more than they like paying for gas. People don&rsquo;t like schlepping kids everywhere in cars either, any more than the kids like to be schlepped. In my experience as an actual child who spent long hours in the backseat of a Ford Taurus, a realistic photo would involve a lot more sulking.</p>

<p>So, in the same way that beer distributors drop off sexy bikini lady posters to make sure that everyone at the bar remembers how much fun beer is, energy companies feel compelled to push the joys of gasoline at gas pumps and on billboards around the world. It&rsquo;s clear why they would push back against a warning label with everything they&rsquo;ve got. The cognitive dissonance of a picture of happy kids hanging from the fuel line and a picture of a kid with an inhaler glued to the gas pump would be a bit much &mdash; in the same way that a baby congratulating mom and dad for their taste in cigarettes is impossible once you have a label right there on the cigarette pack telling you that smoke destroys their tiny lungs.</p>

<p>There is a precedent in the US for using art to discourage people from using quite so much gas. During World War II, the government rationed gasoline, set the country&rsquo;s speed limit at 35 mph, and banned automobile racing. <a href="https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&amp;dat=19430527&amp;id=PVkbAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=ikwEAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=1466,5848303&amp;hl=en">Special courts were set up</a> to deal with people who drove &#8220;for pleasure.&#8221; If they were found guilty, their gasoline rations were taken away. The Office of Price Administration, which was in charge of gas rationing, embarked on an advertising campaign to make conservation seem patriotic.</p>
<div data-chorus-asset-id="6207449"><img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6207449/grist-4-car-travel.jpg"></div>
<p>Out of all the conservation propaganda released during this period, &#8220;When you ride alone, you ride with Hitler&#8221; has had the most staying power. It&rsquo;s been reworked so often that it&rsquo;s acquired <a href="http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/when-you-ride-alone-you-ride-with-hitler">meme status</a>.</p>

<p>To someone who has spent an awful lot of time looking at warning labels, the surprising thing is just how joyful <a href="http://www.ridebuzz.org/wartime_conservation">old-fashioned conservation posters</a> can be.</p>
<div data-chorus-asset-id="6207451"><img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6207451/grist-5-car-travel-2.jpg"></div>
<p>When you scare people, you get their attention. But that&rsquo;s not the only way. A meta-analysis of <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3678850/">research into fear and behavior change</a> found that, even more than feeling scared, what motivated people to change was the feeling that they could do something, that their actions had some power in the world.</p>

<p>Putting labels on gasoline pumps isn&rsquo;t going to fix climate change by itself, any more than cigarette labels fixed smoking. Another study found that simply raising the cost of cigarettes had a major effect, as did changing social norms that restricted people&rsquo;s ability to light up in bars, restaurants, and other places that used to be clouded with smoke.</p>

<p>In other words, attempts to change behavior should also be accompanied by alternatives that make that change seem appealing and tangible. Can&rsquo;t stop driving because most of this country&rsquo;s infrastructure makes driving a necessity? Carpool, <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/want-to-fight-climate-change-here-are-the-7-critical-life-changes-you-should-make/">drive efficiently</a>, and make sure to show up and vote for that light rail or bus rapid transit project. When gasoline labels arrive &mdash; and they will &mdash; it&rsquo;s important that they offer hope along with a dose of fear.</p>

<p><em>Grist is a nonprofit news site that uses humor to shine a light on big green issues. Get their email newsletter </em><a href="http://grist.org/subscribe/"><em>here</em></a><em>, and follow them on </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/grist.org"><em>Facebook</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://twitter.com/grist"><em>Twitter</em></a><em>.</em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Heather Smith</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[What determines whether people accept climate science? Politics, politics, politics.]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.vox.com/2016/2/27/11115718/global-warming-psychology" />
			<id>https://www.vox.com/2016/2/27/11115718/global-warming-psychology</id>
			<updated>2019-03-05T22:44:28-05:00</updated>
			<published>2016-02-27T09:00:03-05:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Climate" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Originally published on Grist. What kind of person doesn&#8217;t believe climate change is a problem? What kind of person does? Behold, a new set of answers to this thorny social science question, released earlier this week in the journal Nature Climate Change. Or rather, a whole lot of old answers, derived from data assembled over [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shutterstock.com&quot;&gt;Shutterstock&lt;/a&gt;" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/15706356/shutterstock_125880605.0.1547423162.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,98.1765134938,90.322580645161" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>Originally published on </em><a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/what-determines-whether-people-accept-climate-science-politics-politics-politics"><em>Grist</em></a><em>.</em></p>

<p>What kind of person doesn&rsquo;t believe climate change is a problem? What kind of person does?</p>

<p>Behold, a new set of answers to this thorny social science question, released earlier this week <a href="http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2943.epdf?referrer_access_token=AIqjBJ6TDkAHxo1V98wzKtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MoGl0EPnCozcUXrYzcpeuUmHBjnheyI-2s_SGvjbTKHAd58R4IC_VDZy8b-nELt6cpkiuAWTw2VSBaIc6rLBtuf_gIfy32wJCJ53u8JWisRBK7tqEvbEM38jpNuVEZN48a9UYR4uGD00_tFXcTrQiU1eQcDjXvvFVW6sUnzn9jNtxjgHC-x8Vcw7ApBDQjIKHWX_hlXHGCF_S5o6AflrDMXK5D3ZP50ndAN3ZSauQewi4mEAnjRqJicwVu1xV3x4k%3D&amp;tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com">in the journal <em>Nature Climate Change</em></a>. Or rather, a whole lot of old answers, derived from data assembled over the past eight years: 12 Pew surveys, three British polls collected by the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, an International Social Survey conducted across 32 countries, eight Australian polls, and the Eurobarometer (the thoughts of 30 European nations, gathered by the European Commission). The paper&rsquo;s authors describe their work as &#8220;the first meta-analytic examination of the demographic and psychological correlates of belief in climate change.&#8221;</p>

<p>So what did they find out?</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Politics matters more than anything else</h2>
<p>And it matters more than anyone harboring idealistic notions of working across the aisle might think.</p>

<p>It breaks down this way: People who vote for liberal political parties are more likely to believe that climate change is a real thing that we should do something about. People who vote for conservative political parties tend to think that climate change is total hooey. Political affiliation correlated with belief in climate change twice as strongly as any other demographic variable the study examined.</p>

<p>There are a whole lot of other ways of thinking of climate change beyond the binary &#8220;it is/isn&rsquo;t happening&#8221; (like: climate change is real, but actually good for us). But in this meta-analysis, the study&rsquo;s authors didn&rsquo;t find much of a middle ground when they looked at all the studies in aggregate. This led them to hypothesize that, on average, belief (or lack of belief) in climate change correlates with political affiliation rather than with some other complex intellectual process that might only have a little bit to do with politics.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Age, ethnicity, income, education, and gender matter a little, but not as much as politics</h2>
<p>This meta-analysis looked at data collected from all over the world and found that, planet-wise, people who believed that climate change is happening tended to be younger, more educated, higher-income, female, and less white &mdash; but that, again, none of these factors correlated with belief in the reality of climate change as strongly as political affiliation.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">People who actually understand science, rather than think they understand science, are more likely to believe in climate change</h2>
<p>Early studies showed that people who believed in climate change and people who didn&rsquo;t had roughly equivalent levels of scientific understanding. Those studies have been called into question, because they basically let people self-report their awesomeness at understanding science. Later studies have tried to control for that with a few actual science questions, and the meta-analysis did find that people who answered science questions correctly were more likely to believe in climate change.</p>

<p>Also: Just liking scientists and thinking that they&rsquo;re trustworthy was correlated with belief in climate change, whether or not scientific understanding was high.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">People who think that the environment is something fragile and needs to be protected are more likely to believe in climate change</h2>
<p>A test called the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) is the tool social scientists commonly use to attempt to quantify concern for the environment. (Test takers agree or disagree <a href="http://www.conpsychmeasures.com/scales/NEP_revised.html">with statements like</a>, &#8220;Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.&#8221;) Unsurprisingly, people who score high for environmental concern on the NEP also tend to believe in climate change.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">People who live in countries that are already doing something about lowering their emissions are more likely to believe in climate change</h2>
<p>There&rsquo;s no way of knowing yet if this is a trickle-down effect from the government action or a trickle-up effect from the people in those countries demanding that the government do something.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">People who are surrounded by dead trees and who are uncomfortably hot are more likely to say they believe in climate change</h2>
<p>As the study puts it:</p>
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote has-text-align-none is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p>A set of experimental studies have drawn on the social psychological literature on subliminal priming to examine whether priming people with environmental cues of climate change (for example, turning up the heat in the laboratory; placing dead trees around participants) has an effect on their belief in climate change. The observed link between these inductions and climate change belief are significant, perhaps surprisingly so given their impact is unconscious.</p>
</blockquote><h2 class="wp-block-heading">People are less likely to believe in climate change if they believe in hierarchy and individualism</h2>
<p>So Ayn Rand probably wouldn&rsquo;t have been a big climate activist. People who are fans of free markets also tended to not believe in climate change.</p>

<p>So what is someone interested in talking with people about climate change to do with all this information? I mean, aside from locking the entire world in a hot room with a bunch of dead trees?</p>

<p>The study&rsquo;s authors recommend this: Remember that climate change, whether you like it or not, is a political issue. As they put it, &#8220;The data suggest that evidence around climate change is searched, remembered, and assimilated in a way that dovetails with people&rsquo;s own political loyalties and worldviews.&#8221; They also found that even people who believed in climate change grew skittish when talk turned to specific policies to mitigate it.</p>

<p>In other words, it might be time for the social sciences as they relate to climate change to move beyond the question of who thinks climate change is real and more in the direction of why people feel the way they do. Actually getting things done could focus less on winning hearts and minds and more on working with people&rsquo;s existing ideologies, rather than against them. As the study puts it, &#8220;Pro-environmental action could be sold as patriotism, ending oil dependence, or investing in &lsquo;green&rsquo; technologies.&#8221; Science is what helped people understand that climate change was happening in the first place &mdash; but actually persuading people to do something about it will be politics all the way.</p>

<p><em>Grist is a nonprofit news site that uses humor to shine a light on big green issues. Get their email newsletter </em><a href="http://grist.org/subscribe/"><em>here</em></a><em>, and follow them on </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/grist.org"><em>Facebook</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://twitter.com/grist"><em>Twitter</em></a><em>.</em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Heather Smith</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[People are still living in FEMA’s toxic Katrina trailers — and they likely have no idea]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.vox.com/2015/8/28/9217971/fema-trailers" />
			<id>https://www.vox.com/2015/8/28/9217971/fema-trailers</id>
			<updated>2019-03-05T04:58:39-05:00</updated>
			<published>2015-08-28T10:01:01-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Criminal Justice" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Policy" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Science" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Originally published on Grist. As soon as Nick Shapiro turned into the parking lot of the Tumbleweed Inn in Alexander, North Dakota, he recognized the trailers. They were off-white, boxy, almost cartoonish, and unadorned with any of the frills &#8212; racing stripes, awnings, window treatments &#8212; that a manufacturer would typically add to set a [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						<p><em>Originally published on </em><em><a href="http://grist.org/politics/people-are-still-living-in-femas-toxic-katrina-trailers-and-they-likely-have-no-idea/">Grist</a></em><em>.</em></p>
<p>As soon as Nick Shapiro turned into the parking lot of the Tumbleweed Inn in Alexander, North Dakota, he recognized the trailers. They were off-white, boxy, almost cartoonish, and unadorned with any of the frills &mdash; racing stripes, awnings, window treatments &mdash; that a manufacturer would typically add to set a trailer apart on a display lot.</p>
<p><!-- ######## BEGIN SNIPPET ######## --></p><div class="chorus-snippet s-related" data-analytics-action="link:related" data-analytics-category="article"> <span class="s-related__title">Related</span> <!-- Add links here --><a target="_blank" href="http://www.vox.com/2015/8/23/9191907/hurricane-katrina" rel="noopener">Hurricane Katrina, in 7 essential facts</a><br> </div>
<p>But these trailers had never seen a display lot. Shapiro had first seen them when he was living in New Orleans in 2010, doing fieldwork for his Oxford University PhD. In New Orleans, everyone knew what they were, and the city was desperate to get rid of them. They had been built fast, and not to last. The fact that some people were still living in them because they had never gotten enough money to rebuild their homes, or had run afoul of unethical contractors, was an unwanted reminder of just how far the city still had to go to recover from Hurricane Katrina.</p>

<p>But in the oil fields of Alexander, where Shapiro found them, people had, at best, only a dim memory of hearing something bad about the trailers on the late-night news.</p>
<p><q aria-hidden="true" class="right">The link between mobile homes and formaldehyde was well documented</q></p>
<p>Only one person in the improvised trailer park near the Tumbleweed Inn knew where the trailers were from. Now 19, he&rsquo;d lived in one as a child, after his family&rsquo;s home was destroyed when the levees around New Orleans broke in 2005. &#8220;It feels like home,&#8221; he said, looking around the park. &#8220;Not the landscape. The trailers. I&rsquo;m used to it.&#8221;</p>

<p>Most of the people living in the trailer park were like him: men, young, drawn to North Dakota from all over the US by the prospect of making $16 an hour minimum in an oil boomtown. So what if they had to pay $1,200 a month to live in a trailer out on the prairie? They made it work. They slept in bunk beds, seven to a trailer, so that they could save as much as they could and then get the hell out of there.</p>
<h3> <span>Get me 120,000 trailer homes, pronto!<br></span><img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4006432/Grist1.shapiro_020.jpg"> </h3>
<p>The story of the trailers &mdash; which Grist has assembled from Freedom of Information Act requests, interviews, and the public record &mdash; goes like this: Less than 24 hours after the New Orleans levees broke, trailer companies were in touch with local officials for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), setting up contracts to provide housing for people whose homes were destroyed in the flood. Since 80 percent of New Orleans, plus a whole lot of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama coastline, had been flooded, the need for housing was overwhelming. At the time, there were about 14,000 trailers in lots around the country, waiting to be sold; FEMA needed 120,000. It ordered nearly $2.7 billion worth of travel trailers and <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/mobile_homes_and_trailers/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">mobile homes</a> from 60 different companies, and the production lines cranked into overdrive.</p>

<p><em>(For a map of the initial deployments of FEMA trailers in Louisiana between September 2005 and October 2009, please see the original </em><a href="http://grist.org/politics/people-are-still-living-in-femas-toxic-katrina-trailers-and-they-likely-have-no-idea/"><em>Grist post</em></a><em>.)</em></p>

<p>Still, a month after Katrina and Rita hit landfall, Louisiana <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/us/nationalspecial/housing-for-storms-evacuees-lagging-far-behind-us-goals.html">had only managed to get 109 families into trailers</a>. The alternatives were overcrowded shelters, or <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/17/us/nationalspecial/fema-slow-to-the-rescue-now-stumbles-in-aid-effort.html">squatting in the wreckage of the flood</a>.</p>
<p><q aria-hidden="true" class="right">30 of the 32 tested positive for high formaldehyde levels</q></p>
<p>As new trailers arrived, they brought hope: They were shiny and new and, most importantly, had never been buried under 12 feet of water. But when the people who were supposed to live in them opened the doors, many noted a strong chemical smell inside. Some thought it was okay: It smelled <a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116952/new-car-smell-formaldehyde-could-have-killed-fema-trailers">kind of like a new car</a> in there! Others did not think it was okay, especially after they started to get nosebleeds and headaches, and began to have trouble breathing. Local pediatricians began to notice an epidemic of respiratory infections in children in the area &mdash; and all of them seemed to be living in FEMA trailers.</p>

<p>&#8220;After the storm, about half of the people I knew were in FEMA trailers,&#8221; said Sierra Club organizer Becky Gillette. &#8220;Some of them were fine. The smokers didn&rsquo;t complain much. But I had a friend who would wake up in the middle of the night, gasping for air.&#8221; Gillette knew a fair amount about air pollution &mdash; she&rsquo;d worked on social justice campaigns around the local oil refinery. The link between mobile homes and formaldehyde <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/trailerstudy/pdfs/08_118152_Compendium%20for%20States.pdf">was well documented</a>; the low ceilings and small size concentrated any fumes emanating from the particleboard they were built with.</p>

<p>Even after the National Institutes of Health declared <a href="http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/formaldehyde/formaldehyde-fact-sheet#r1">formaldehyde to be a carcinogen</a>, the Department of Housing and Urban Development didn&rsquo;t bother to regulate levels of formaldehyde for travel trailers or motor homes, under the theory that they were only temporary lodging. Formaldehyde test kits were about $35 apiece, and they added up fast. Gillette ordered 32 of them &mdash; over $1,200 worth. When 30 of the 32 tested positive for high formaldehyde levels, she shared the information with FEMA &mdash; which, she said, did nothing. So Gillette got a grant from the Sierra Club to buy even more kits.</p>

<p>FEMA &mdash; or at least some parts of FEMA &mdash; did know that the trailers were dangerous, though that would not emerge until the <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg47995/pdf/CHRG-110hhrg47995.pdf">congressional hearings on the issue in 2008</a>. FEMA appears to have stopped testing trailers in early 2006, after a field agent discovered that one trailer, which was occupied by a couple expecting their second child, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071901039.html">had formaldehyde levels at 75 times the recommended threshold for workplace safety</a>. The couple was relocated, and management pushed back against further testing, even after a man was found dead in his trailer a few months later. &#8220;Do not initiate any testing until we give the OK,&#8221; a FEMA lawyer named Patrick Preston advised on June 15, 2006. &#8220;Once you get results and should they indicate some problem, the clock is running on our duty to respond to them.&#8221;</p>
<p><q aria-hidden="true" class="center">FEMA &mdash; or at least some parts of FEMA &mdash; did know that the trailers were dangerous</q></p>
<p>That same month, the Sierra Club announced that out of 44 trailers tested with kits purchased from Gillette&rsquo;s grant, 40 had dangerously high formaldehyde levels. Mary DeVany, an <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pub/mary-devany%E2%80%8E/10/249/b46">occupational safety consultant</a> who worked with the Sierra Club on interpreting the results, theorized that the plywood that was used to build some of the trailers <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14011193/ns/us_news-katrina_the_long_road_back/t/are-fema-trailers-toxic-tin-cans/#.VddegEV8mjw">wasn&rsquo;t heat-treated properly</a>. Trailers built by three companies in particular &mdash; Pilgrim International, Coachman Industries, and Gulf Stream Coach &mdash; had the highest levels. Kevin Broom, a spokesperson for the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association, told reporters that trailer residents <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14011193/ns/us_news-katrina_the_long_road_back/t/are-fema-trailers-toxic-tin-cans/#.VdvxyM58mjw">needed to open their windows</a>.</p>
<h3> <span>Used trailers, warning stickers, and the free market<br></span><img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4006438/Grist2.trailers.dsc_0229.jpg"> </h3>
<p>FEMA ultimately succeeded in deploying 140,000 trailers up and down the ravaged Gulf Coast. Then it had to start figuring out what to do with them as people began to rebuild their lives and leave them behind. The agency had planned on getting rid of the trailers by selling them, possibly even to the people who were living in them, but that was no longer an option. In July 2007, FEMA <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29510684/ns/us_news-life/t/scrap-fema-mobile-homes-return-housing/#.Vdv9BM58mjw">suspended sales of the trailers to the public</a>, and in November, it announced plans to move as many residents as possible out of the trailers &mdash; partly, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/us/29trailer.html">a FEMA spokesperson said</a>, because of formaldehyde levels.</p>

<p>Around the same time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began running its own tests. It announced the results in early 2008: On average, the 519 trailers the CDC tested had five times the formaldehyde levels found in most modern homes, but a few were dramatically higher &mdash; about 40 times the recommended levels. The CDC&rsquo;s then-director urged FEMA to relocate anyone still living in trailers, particularly children and the elderly, before summer, when heat would make the fumes even worse.</p>
<p><q aria-hidden="true" class="center">The GSA made buyers sign an agreement promising not to sell them as housing</q></p>
<p>Even unoccupied, the trailers were costing nearly $130 million a year to store, according to federal records, but what to do with them had become a loaded question. Congressional hearings held in spring 2008 established that the trailers were unsafe. In February 2009, the CDC started a $3.4 million pilot program designed to find people &mdash; especially children &mdash; who had lived in FEMA trailers and track their health over time. And a massive class-action lawsuit filed by trailer residents against FEMA and the trailer manufacturers continued to work its way through the court system.</p>

<p>But on January 1, 2010, a court injunction banning the sale of the trailers expired, and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202213_2.html?sid=ST2010031700841">FEMA handed them off to the General Services Administration (GSA) to auction them off</a>, for about 7 percent what FEMA had originally paid for them. The GSA made buyers sign an agreement promising not to sell them as housing, and it slapped stickers on them saying that they were not to be used for human habitation &mdash; just storage or recreation.</p>

<p><em>This map shows the locations of FEMA trailer auction buyers. (For an interactive version, please see the original </em><a href="http://grist.org/politics/people-are-still-living-in-femas-toxic-katrina-trailers-and-they-likely-have-no-idea/"><em>Grist post</em></a><em>.) Note that data are circa 2011&ndash;&#8217;12, and many trailers have been resold (and relocated) since then:</em></p>
<div data-chorus-asset-id="4006516"><img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4006516/grist.fema_trailers_1024.jpg"></div>
<p>Observers were aghast. &#8220;What if Toyota ordered a recall, then simply put a sticker on its vehicles saying they were unfit to drive before reselling them?&#8221; said Becky Gillette. In late 2008, FEMA had quietly sold about a thousand Katrina trailers and mobile homes as scrap; six months later, <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29510684/ns/us_news-life/t/scrap-fema-mobile-homes-return-housing/#.Vdv9BM58mjw">they were spotted in mobile home parks in Missouri and Georgia</a>. What was to stop the same thing from happening over and over again &mdash; stickers or no stickers?</p>
<div data-chorus-asset-id="4006444"><img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4006444/Grist3.%20trailers.dsc_01713.jpg"></div>
<p>As it turned out, nothing. FEMA trailers began to turn up everywhere, particularly in places where people needed a lot of housing fast, no questions asked. The stickers that read &#8220;NOT TO BE USED FOR HOUSING&#8221; were gone from the trailers almost as soon as they left the auction lot, though none of the buyers would admit to removing them.</p>
<div data-chorus-asset-id="4006452"><img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4006452/Grist3.missing-fema-trailer-sticker.jpg"></div>
<p>The trailers showed up later, in 2010 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/us/01trailers.html">at the Deepwater Horizon spill</a>. They showed up in 2011 in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Tennessee, <a href="http://thelensnola.org/2011/05/19/fema-trailers-formaldehyde-katrina-rita-tuscaloosa-tornadoe/">in neighborhoods that had been flattened by tornadoes</a>.</p>

<p>That was when Shapiro decided to follow up and started testing the trailers himself. He&rsquo;d become preoccupied with them &mdash; how ubiquitous they remained despite their known risks. He defrayed his expenses by calling in favors; there was the analytical chemistry lab that agreed to run the tests for free, and a colleague who applied part of a grant from the National Science Foundation toward shipping.</p>
<p><q aria-hidden="true" class="right">Most of them told Shapiro they couldn&rsquo;t afford to move</q></p>
<p>Word got out that he was testing trailers, and people from Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, and Illinois began to seek him out. Every test he did came in above the 16 ppm (parts per million) threshold that had been established as the new FEMA standard after the congressional hearings. None of the people who contacted Shapiro had been told, before they bought the trailers, that they were dangerous to live in. Most of them told Shapiro they couldn&rsquo;t afford to move; they just appreciated knowing the risk.</p>

<p>Those who did try to get rid of the trailers, though, found that it wasn&rsquo;t easy. Marty Horine of Clinton, Missouri, bought a 32-foot ex-FEMA Gulfstream Cavalier for her son in 2007, two weeks before the trailers were <a href="http://gsaauctions.gov/html/fema.htm">officially declared unfit to live in</a>.</p>

<p>Horine tried to return the trailer. The seller refused, and promptly declared bankruptcy. Horine contacted the GSA, the government agency that had handled the trailer auctions. (&#8220;I&rsquo;m a retired schoolteacher,&#8221; she says, dryly. &#8220;We&rsquo;re a little bit of a bulldog, schoolteachers.&#8221;) But the GSA told Horine that it would only take back the trailer if she brought it to Hope, Arkansas, the site of the original auction, and would only buy it back for what the GSA had sold it for. Horine had bought hers from a reseller, for $6,000, while that reseller had bought it at auction for around $1,000.</p>
<div data-chorus-asset-id="4006448"><img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4006448/Grist4.dsc_0144.jpg"></div>
<p>Horine still sees FEMA trailers for sale in Clinton from time to time. Three years ago, more than a hundred of them appeared for sale on a nearby lot, with the stickers scraped off. &#8220;I went over there, just acting dumb, because that&rsquo;s not hard to do,&#8221; Horine drawled. &#8220;Then I said to the girl who was in charge of selling them, &lsquo;You know this is illegal.'&#8221; The woman said that she didn&rsquo;t know what Horine was talking about, but Horine noticed that the trailers were gone the next day.</p>

<p>Horine&rsquo;s trailer remains unoccupied. She feels that selling it would be unethical. Even if she sold it on the cheap to someone who was aware of the risks, who&rsquo;s to say <em>that</em> person wouldn&rsquo;t turn around and sell it as a home to someone else? &#8220;It&rsquo;s still sitting down there,&#8221; she said when I called her, as though she were describing a visitor that had overstayed its welcome.</p>

<p>Shapiro began to file public records requests to find out as much as he could about the trailers and where they went. Now, when people contacted him, he had a collection of spreadsheets that he could search through to verify whether their trailer was one of the 120,000.</p>
<p>.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }</p><div class="embed-container"><iframe frameborder="0" src="http://assets.grist.org/article/what-do-i-do-if-i-am-living-in-a-fema-trailer/index.html"></iframe></div><h2 class="wp-block-heading"><br>When a boomtown looks like a refugee camp</h2>
<p>When Shapiro arrived in North Dakota, he was following a rumor: that the oil boom in the Bakken shale had attracted the Katrina trailers from across the country like filings to a magnet. What he didn&rsquo;t expect was to find the trailers surrounding the towns of the Bakken boom at Katrina-level densities. These boomtowns were hard to distinguish from refugee camps.</p>

<p>How the trailers had made their way to North Dakota from Louisiana was a riddle. Back in 2010, FEMA donated several hundred trailers<a href="http://www.rvbusiness.com/2010/06/fema-trailers-headed-for-indian-reservation/"> to the local Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa</a>; it would not have been hard for the trailers to migrate again out of Turtle Mountain and into the oil fields. Shapiro was expecting to find oil and gas workers living in them. But instead the trailers were occupied by young men seeking their fortunes in the service economy that had sprung up <em>around</em> the oil and gas workers.</p>

<p>The oil and gas workers lived in nicer trailers, a few feet away. But the ones the service workers occupied were falling apart: Mold was blooming out of vents and improperly sealed crevices. In a sense, the trailers had been embalmed; now they were beginning to decompose.</p>
<p><q aria-hidden="true" class="right">[N]o one has systematically studied how the toxic trailers might have actually harmed their residents</q></p>
<p>The good news was, after four years of air-quality readings in FEMA trailers, the levels of formaldehyde were dropping. This spring, Shapiro returned to retest a trailer owned by a retired Mississippi couple <a href="http://thelensnola.org/2011/11/30/fema-trailers-test-toxic/">that he had tested when they contacted him back in 2011</a>. Back then the air had measured 105.6 ppb of formaldehyde &ndash; dangerously high.</p>

<p>In 2015, the level was down to 20 ppb &mdash; a fifth as high, but still over the 16 ppb safety threshold. What exactly did this mean? It&rsquo;s hard to say, because no one has systematically studied how the toxic trailers might have actually harmed their residents. The CDC had a plan, known as KARE (a.k.a. <a href="http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/publications_health_registries.html">Katrina and Rita Exposures</a>), to register and track the health of FEMA trailer residents, but it never moved past the pilot stage. Shapiro says he asked CDC why and received a letter saying that the decision to not proceed rested solely with FEMA.</p>

<p>Shapiro gave the couple a prototype &#8220;air remediation device&#8221; &ndash; <a href="http://publiclab.org/wiki/diy-indoor-air-quality-remediation-kit">a houseplant hooked up to an aquarium pump with the diaphragm reversed</a>. In the past year, he&rsquo;d been working with a research group called Public Lab on low-cost ways that people could monitor and clean the air in their own homes. For Shapiro, the project was a morale booster in the face of the relentlessly dispiriting trailer research. But he also worried that the plant was a kind of cop-out &mdash; a form of potted surrender to the fact that not all environmental justice campaigns result in actual environmental justice.</p>

<p><a href="http://publiclab.org/notes/nshapiro/05-06-2015/field-test-of-diy-testing-and-remediation-kit">He tested the couple&rsquo;s trailer again, anyway</a>. A month after the installation of the &#8220;remediation device,&#8221; the formaldehyde levels had fallen 40 percent, to 12 ppm. A decade after Katrina had summoned the trailers into existence, the ill-fated homes might almost be safe to live in.</p>

<p><a href="http://grist.org/article/what-do-i-do-if-i-am-living-in-a-fema-trailer"><em>Live in one of FEMA&rsquo;s Katrina trailers? Here&rsquo;s what you can do.</em></a><em> </em></p>

<p><em>Video by Mariel Carr.</em> <em>Special thanks to reporter Nick Shapiro. Maps by Clayton Aldern. VIN look-up tool by Cory Simmons. Video produced by The Chemical Heritage Foundation, a library, museum, and center for scholars in Philadelphia that fosters dialogue on the role of science and technology in society. Find out more about their multimedia magazine at </em><a href="http://distillations.org/"><em>distillations.org</em></a><em>.</em></p>

<p><em>Grist is a nonprofit news site that uses humor to shine a light on big green issues. Get their email newsletter </em><a href="http://grist.org/subscribe/"><em>here</em></a><em>, and follow them on </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/grist.org"><em>Facebook</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://twitter.com/grist"><em>Twitter</em></a><em>.</em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Heather Smith</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[If you really want to save energy at home, forget about your light switches]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.vox.com/2015/6/6/8735793/home-energy-use" />
			<id>https://www.vox.com/2015/6/6/8735793/home-energy-use</id>
			<updated>2019-03-04T22:19:48-05:00</updated>
			<published>2015-06-06T10:00:01-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Climate" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Originally published on Grist. Keeping an eye on your own energy use is the &#8220;duh&#8221; approach to a smorgasbord of environmental problems, up to and including climate change. As a reporter, I can obsess over research funding for renewable technology, or streamlined permitting for solar installations, or more public transit, or better roads for cyclists [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="You&#039;re doing it wrong. | &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shutterstock.com&quot;&gt;Shutterstock&lt;/a&gt;" data-portal-copyright="&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shutterstock.com&quot;&gt;Shutterstock&lt;/a&gt;" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/15390637/shutterstock_133439141.0.0.1433520687.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
	You're doing it wrong. | <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com">Shutterstock</a>	</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>Originally published on </em><a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/youre-obsessing-about-the-wrong-home-energy-uses/?utm_source=syndication&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=feed"><em>Grist</em></a><em>.</em></p>

<p>Keeping an eye on your own energy use is the &#8220;duh&#8221; approach to a smorgasbord of environmental problems, up to and including climate change. As a reporter, I can obsess over research funding for renewable technology, or streamlined permitting for solar installations, or more public transit, or better roads for cyclists and pedestrians, or how much fuel is burned in schlepping and refrigerating my food before it gets to me. But if I actually want to feel like I have control over one small corner of the world, I turn off the lights when I leave the room.</p>

<p>When the downstairs neighbors in my apartment building turn on all the lights in the basement, because they are little weenies who are afraid of the dark, I go downstairs, turn them off myself, and generally think uncharitable thoughts about them and their various lifestyle choices.</p>
<p><!-- ######## BEGIN SNIPPET ######## --></p><div class="chorus-snippet s-related" data-analytics-action="link:related" data-analytics-category="article"> <span class="s-related__title">Related</span> <!-- Add links here --><a target="_blank" href="http://www.vox.com/2015/2/18/8062387/smart-thermostat-good-investment" rel="noopener">Why a smart thermostat is a good investment</a><br><a target="_blank" href="http://www.vox.com/2014/6/12/5803998/the-us-energy-system-in-11-maps" rel="noopener">11 maps that explain the US energy system</a><br> </div>
<p>In all this light-switch obsessing, I am a textbook illustration of a phenomenon explored recently by <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494415300049">the<em> Journal of Environmental Psychology</em></a>. Chris Mooney over at <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/06/02/how-your-brain-tricks-you-into-misunderstanding-your-energy-use/">the <em>Washington Post</em></a> does a good job of summarizing the study:</p>
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote has-text-align-none is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p>People generally weren&rsquo;t very good at estimating how much total energy use the different categories consumed. For one, they didn&rsquo;t realize that the biggest energy users &mdash; home heating and driving &#8220;private motor vehicles&#8221; &mdash; were dramatically more energy intensive than many other smaller energy users, such as computers or dishwashers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You know what this means: I have been judging my neighbors for <em>all the wrong reasons</em>. This is pure tragedy.</p>

<p>The lead author of the study, Ohio State University psychology doctoral student Dan Schley, hypothesizes that people tend to focus on switches because they&rsquo;re always touching the damn things. As he told the <em>Post</em>:</p>
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote has-text-align-none is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p>Because they use the lights a lot, they tend to infer that lights consume a lot of energy. On the other hand, consumers tend not to think about their water heating (other than when they run out of hot water) or interact with their water heater very often.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As a consequence, we tend to relatively underestimate just how much energy it takes to keep the air and water in our homes at a temperature we like.</p>

<p>In general, people estimate that the appliances they interact with the most (computers, light switches, televisions, stoves) use the most energy, and that the ones that they just leave running in the background (like the furnace and the hot water heater) use less. In fact, home heating is one of the biggest energy sucks out there &mdash; about 20 percent of home energy use, on average, instead of the 7 percent that the participants in one study estimated, on average.</p>
<p><!-- ######## BEGIN SNIPPET ######## --></p><div class="chorus-snippet s-share-quote right"><span class="s-share-quote__text">Home heating is one of the biggest energy sucks out there</span></div>
<p>The only highly interactive household appliance for which the study&rsquo;s participants tended to underestimate energy consumption was the car. (On average, Americans use even more energy driving around than they do heating their homes.) But then, most people don&rsquo;t think of driving as household energy consumption &mdash; possibly because most cars live outside houses and don&rsquo;t show up on the monthly utility bill (unless they&rsquo;re plug-in electrical cars).</p>

<p>What is the smartest use of this information about our own psychology? Can we make appliances of the future nag us more? Will energy-sucking appliances flamboyantly display their habits instead of being tucked away in utility closets? (Schley suggests having a light somewhere visible in the house that switches on every time the water heater does.)</p>

<p>Most importantly, if blinking lights are such an attention-getter, can I program my household appliances to throw me a disco party if I meet energy conservation goals? Because that&rsquo;s the kind of future I can totally get behind.</p>

<p><em>Grist is a nonprofit news site that uses humor to shine a light on big green issues. Get their email newsletter </em><a href="http://grist.org/subscribe/"><em>here</em></a><em>, and follow them on </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/grist.org"><em>Facebook</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://twitter.com/grist"><em>Twitter</em></a><em>.</em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Heather Smith</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[How the Bay Area’s last slaughterhouse dodged the ax]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.vox.com/2015/5/9/8568521/last-slaughterhouse" />
			<id>https://www.vox.com/2015/5/9/8568521/last-slaughterhouse</id>
			<updated>2019-03-04T20:00:52-05:00</updated>
			<published>2015-05-09T09:00:02-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Science" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Originally published on Grist. An hour north of San Francisco is where you&#8217;ll find the last slaughterhouse in the Bay Area. I drove right by it at first &#8212; it&#8217;s just a low-slung collection of one-story rectangular buildings and prefab trailers behind a high fence. It was sandwiched between a Bikram yoga franchise, a block [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="A butcher prepares cuts of Aberdeen Angus beef in his London shop in 2003. | (Getty Images)" data-portal-copyright="(Getty Images)" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/15361906/72498046.0.0.1431026468.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
	A butcher prepares cuts of Aberdeen Angus beef in his London shop in 2003. | (Getty Images)	</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>Originally published on </em><a href="http://grist.org/food/how-the-bay-areas-last-slaughterhouse-dodged-the-axe/"><em>Grist</em></a><em>.</em></p>

<p>An hour north of San Francisco is where you&rsquo;ll find the last slaughterhouse in the Bay Area. I drove right by it at first &mdash; it&rsquo;s just a low-slung collection of one-story rectangular buildings and prefab trailers behind a high fence. It was sandwiched between a Bikram yoga franchise, a block of condos, and an outlet mall. The Bikram franchise seemed to have taken the lack of signage outside the slaughterhouse as an open invitation, because someone had hung a large banner across the slaughterhouse fence that read &#8220;Certified Organic Yoga.&#8221;</p>
<img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3678528/Grist.slaughterhouse1.0.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" alt="Organic yoga sign on slaughterhouse fence" title="Organic yoga sign on slaughterhouse fence" data-has-syndication-rights="1" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" /><p class="caption">(Grist)</p>
<p>The place once known as Rancho Veal and now called Marin Sun Farms Petaluma is the only slaughterhouse that lies between the Sonoma and West Marin grasslands and the socially conscious eaters of San Francisco. Without it, the history of the local food movement in the Bay Area would have been very different. There were plenty of idealistic pastoralists willing to fight to protect the grasslands for agriculture instead of letting them turn into suburbs. There was an equally idealistic cabal of chefs <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Niman-Ranch-founder-challenges-new-owners-3249982.php">willing to pay a premium to buy their meat from locally and ethically raised animals</a>. But there was only one Rancho. And all it took to keep it open was the collapse of the entire American real estate market &mdash; that, and 8.7 million pounds of recalled beef.</p>

<p>For all its importance, Rancho has kept a low profile. When I wrote an article about it back in 2008, my requests to visit were flatly denied. &#8220;You will never get inside here&#8221; is the phrase I remember the receptionist using.</p>

<p>But a lot can change in seven years. On a bright spring morning recently, I just walk through the front gate, past the office that the slaughterhouse is obligated to provide for its local USDA inspector, and into another boxy, prefab office trailer that looks like it and its wood paneling have sat here, completely unchanged, since the early &rsquo;70s.</p>

<p>Inside, David Evans, the facility&rsquo;s current owner, is discussing complicated meat orders. A dot-com startup that delivers cook-your-own-meal kits has just called out of the blue begging for a rush order of several thousand tiny packages of organic ground beef, individually bagged. Is it possible to do an order like that so quickly? There&rsquo;s a brief debate. Later, they figure out how to make it happen.</p>
<hr class="wp-block-separator" />
<p>San Franciscans of the olden days, like most other urban Americans, ate animals that were killed within city limits. In the early 1900s, cattle were herded up Third Street and met their fate in working-class industrial neighborhoods like the Bayview (a.k.a. Butchertown, a.k.a. Putrid Row) and Dogpatch (named for the packs of feral dogs that roamed the neighborhood looking for slaughterhouse scraps). Islais Creek, which was unfortunate enough to pass through the Bayview, often <a href="http://www.sewsf.org/reports/Islais%20Creek_FINAL_low.pdf">ran red with blood</a>, and had a nickname of its own: Shit Creek.</p>

<p>The railroad and the refrigerator made city slaughterhouses obsolete, for the most part. Years ago, I interviewed Roger Horowitz, <a href="http://www.rogerhorowitz.com/food-history.html">a historian</a> who has written a lot about Chicago&rsquo;s stockyards, <a href="http://meatpaper.com/wordpress/2009/09/holiday-at-the-abbatoir/">for <em>Meatpaper</em> magazine</a>. What surprised me in Horowitz&rsquo;s stories was how proud the stockyards, slaughterhouses, and meat-packing plants of Chicago were of what they did. There was nothing like them anywhere else in the world &mdash; they were the high-tech firms of their day.</p>

<p>When Upton Sinclair researched the slaughterhouse scenes in <em>The Jungle</em>, he didn&rsquo;t need to go undercover &mdash; he just had to join a group of visiting tourists, who made sure to check out the Chicago stockyards the way modern Chicago tourists check out the Cloud Gate or the Institute of Art. Horowitz sent me a copy of a tour booklet the Armour Plant produced as a souvenir for visitors. &#8220;Hog-killing and the subsequent treatment of pork products offer to the average visitor a most interesting and unique field of observation,&#8221; the pamphlet read, next to a line drawing of squealing pigs suspended from chains being killed by a man in an apron. &#8220;It would seem as if this department had been brought to a state of absolute perfection.&#8221; Henry Ford was a guest on one of those tour groups and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/17/AR2005071700996.html">claimed the slaughterhouse line was his inspiration for the automobile assembly line</a>. He just took the stockyard&rsquo;s innovation in systematically and repetitively breaking animals down into cuts of meat and reversed it into building cars up.</p>

<p>In Northern California, as in the rest of the country, cattle ranchers became a part of this system. Ranchers raised their calves on pasture and then, once the calves had reached about 800 pounds, they would sell them to whoever offered the best price &mdash; usually a buyer for one of the major meat companies. Whoever purchased the calves would ship them out to the vast feedlot and slaughterhouse complexes of the Great Plains. With each decade, the cattle industry in particular seemed to consolidate a little more, and the number of buyers dwindled.</p>
<p><q class="center" aria-hidden="true"> four companies buy 85 percent of the cattle on the market</q></p>
<p>This was great if you liked to eat a lot of steer; <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/industrial/consolidation.html">the price of beef fell by half between the 1970s and the 1990s</a>. But it was not great if you liked to raise them. While a drought-exacerbated cattle shortage has kept prices high recently, today four companies <a href="http://www.wnyc.org/story/stranglehold-industrial-farming/">buy 85 percent of the cattle on the market</a>.</p>

<p>&#8220;When you get consolidation like that, it can actually be great,&#8221; says Evans, whose company, Marin Sun Farms, took over Rancho last year. &#8220;Because people start to look for alternatives.&#8221;</p>

<p>Evans was one of those people. He started Marin Sun Farms in 1999, as a fourth-generation member of a ranching family and a freshly minted graduate in agricultural science from CalPoly. Evans had decided his niche would be selling cattle that had grazed on local pasture for their entire lives, instead of being fattened in a feedlot. He would raise maybe 10 cattle a year &mdash; about the minimum he needed to turn any kind of a profit, period &mdash; and sell them as whole, halves, and quarters to locals in West Marin, who had the kind of local purchasing ideology and freezer space necessary to buy at that scale.</p>

<p>Evans had big dreams, but what he was doing wasn&rsquo;t especially radical. <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Niman-Ranch-founder-challenges-new-owners-3249982.php">The experience of Bill Niman</a>, a West Marin schoolteacher turned rancher, had proved that there were a lot of people out there who were willing to pay a premium for meat from animals that had been treated well and raised locally. And a determined group of local activists had seen to it that, despite being just an hour&rsquo;s drive from San Francisco, Marin and Sonoma Counties were a place where small-scale agriculture could still happen.</p>

<p>Beginning in the &rsquo;60s, the orchards south of San Francisco were steadily replaced by residential developments and office parks. (A small plum grove that was reportedly the last working orchard in the area was reportedly <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/08/14/butchers-corner-sunnyvales-last.html?page=all">sold to a real estate developer two years ago</a>.) The dairies and ranches to the north of the city fought back &mdash; hard &mdash; against residential development.</p>

<p>The same thing was set to happen north of the city &mdash; and, in some places, it did. But a detailed plan to turn West Marin into a suburban bedroom community of 241,000 people <a href="http://www.marinij.com/events/20110323/pioneering-conservation-movement-dramatically-shaped-marin">was foiled</a> in the late &rsquo;60s and early &rsquo;70s by an unlikely alliance between ranchers and environmentalists. The alliance&rsquo;s poster child was the Marin Agricultural Land Trust (MALT), founded in 1980 by dairy farmer <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/04/us/ellen-straus-75-dairy-farmer-and-an-avid-environmentalist.html">Ellen Straus</a> and biologist <a href="http://www.malt.org/founding-story">Phyllis Faber</a>. MALT was the first organization in the United States to use land trusts &mdash; historically a tool for the wealthy to keep taxes low on large estates &mdash; to preserve land for agricultural use. The land that was saved wasn&rsquo;t necessarily the best farmland the Bay Area had, but it was good for grazing.</p>

<p>During the same time, nearby Petaluma &mdash; once the <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=naaZD2r_coMC&amp;pg=PA10207#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false">egg capital of the world</a> &mdash; had fallen on hard times, but was equally determined not to turn into a residential suburb. City residents <a href="http://www.cp-dr.com/node/962">voted to limit residential development to 500 new units a year</a> and were promptly sued by the Construction Industry Association. In 1975, much to everyone&rsquo;s surprise, <a href="http://elr.info/sites/default/files/litigation/5.20519.htm">Petaluma won the case</a>. The city went on to grow into what it is today &mdash; a place where strip malls, feed mills, condo developments, and the last slaughterhouse in the Bay Area somehow all manage to be neighbors to one another.</p>

<p>Rancho might not look like anyone&rsquo;s idea of bucolic country living, but local government had its back. &#8220;If we&rsquo;re going to maintain the pastoral lands of these two counties,&#8221; <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bill-Kortum-Sonoma-environmentalist-dies-at-87-5971412.php">Bill Kortum</a>, environmentalist and former Sonoma County supervisor, <a href="http://ucanr.edu/sites/Grown_in_Marin/Resources/publications/Archived_Related_News_Items/Last_slaughterhouse_closing/">told the<em> Santa Rosa Press Democrat</em></a> in 2006, &#8220;we better have a slaughterhouse.&#8221;</p>
<img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3678550/Grist.slaughterhouse2.0.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" alt="USDA office" title="USDA office" data-has-syndication-rights="1" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" /><p class="caption">(Grist)</p>
<p>Like nearly every rancher in Marin, Evans sent his animals to Rancho. While a few ranchers did a complicated legal dance that allowed them to use the on-farm slaughtering services of a legendary entrepreneur known as <a href="http://meatpaper.com/articles/2010/0616_johnny.html">&#8220;One-Shot Johnny,&#8221;</a> if you wanted to sell through farmers markets or to restaurants, Rancho was the only game in town. That poached beef on your plate at Chez Panisse, that burger at Zuni? All passed through Rancho.</p>

<p>Rancho may have been critical to the local ranching economy and to Bay Area foodie culture, but the reverse wasn&rsquo;t true. I talked to Bob Singleton, Rancho&rsquo;s former owner, once back in 2008, <a href="http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/eat-local-kill-local">for an article that I wrote for <em>San Francisco Magazine</em></a>. Singleton was sharp and opinionated over the phone, but leery of any press coverage &mdash; he feared attracting the attention of animal rights activists and later told the magazine&rsquo;s fact-checkers that he&rsquo;d never talked to me at all. At the time, Singleton explained that, yes, he did custom work for local ranchers like Evans, who raised odd breeds of animals and made strange requests like &#8220;Save me the ox tails&#8221; or &#8220;Can I have my cow&rsquo;s head back?&#8221; He also explained that no slaughterhouse, even in the Bay Area, could survive as a business on that alone. Singleton&rsquo;s bread and butter, as it were, was dairy cattle.</p>

<p>The average dairy herd culls a third of its cows every year and all of its male calves, and because dairy cattle don&rsquo;t travel well, they tend to be killed closer to where they were raised. Singleton bought them and shipped them in, from as far away as Nevada and Twin Falls, Idaho, before turning around and selling the meat on the commodities market. By 2008, his business had been <a href="http://ucanr.edu/sites/Grown_in_Marin/Resources/publications/Archived_Related_News_Items/Last_slaughterhouse_closing/">in a slow decline for decades</a>; Rancho was operating at half the capacity that it had in the 1980s. Cattle ranching in Sonoma was on the wane, too, as many ranchers discovered that vineyards were more profitable. Rancho had been bought for a song after the former owner went bankrupt in the 1960s, but the land it stood on was too valuable for that to ever happen again.</p>
<p><q class="center" aria-hidden="true">Rancho was so old that the city of Petaluma had no records of it ever being constructed</q></p>
<p>None of this deterred Evans. He was continuing to pursue the slow-growth plan for Marin Sun Farms when, in 2002, something unexpected happened. The New York Times Magazine published an article by a then relatively obscure nature writer named Michael Pollan. Titled <a href="http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/power-steer/">&#8220;Power Steer,&#8221;</a> it described the life of a feedlot steer and ended with the author eating a steak from a grass-fed steer raised in the Hudson Valley &mdash; and pronouncing it tough, but way more delicious. Suddenly, everyone who read the <em>New York Times Magazine</em> wanted to try a grass-fed steak, too. Evans&rsquo;s niche product had just vaulted into a larger niche.</p>

<p>Because he was buying cattle from like-minded ranchers in the area and selling it under the Marin Sun Farms label, Evans was also better poised to meet the sudden demand than individual ranchers with small herds. And he found that he was getting the hang of marketing, which he had decided was something that local ranching really needed. He felt pretty good at dealing with the fussier Bay Area customers &mdash; including the ones that insisted he grow biologically impossible livestock, like grass-fed pigs. &#8220;When you get to be a midsize rancher,&#8221; Evans told me, &#8220;you have to decide if you&rsquo;re going to raise cattle or sell them. I love raising cattle, but what the ranching community needed was someone who could sell them.&#8221;</p>

<p>Over the next few years, Evans invested heavily in customer service. He began moving from selling frozen meat to selling the fresh kind. He didn&rsquo;t think it was necessarily any better, and it certainly wasn&rsquo;t easier, but that was what grocery stores, restaurants, and local butcher shops wanted. He opened a cut-and-wrap facility, so that Marin Sun Farms could start packaging and selling smaller cuts. He worked a lot on inventory. &#8220;If someone comes to the farmers market and you don&rsquo;t have a chicken for them that week,&#8221; Evans said, &#8220;they may say they believe in seasonality, but they&rsquo;ll go buy that chicken from somewhere else.&#8221;</p>

<p>And he tried to buy Rancho, unsuccessfully, many times. In 2006, Pollan released <em>The Omnivore&rsquo;s Dilemma</em>, which built on the reporting that went into the &#8220;Power Steer&#8221; article and further propelled the grass-fed craze. 2006 was also the year that <a href="http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/eat-local-kill-local">an attempt to build a slaughterhouse in Ukiah, California, was blocked</a> by local animal rights activists and residents concerned about air and water quality. The slaughterhouse had been backed by Phyllis Faber, one of the co-founders of MALT, and many in the local food movement had hoped that it would be a fallback in case Rancho ever shut down.</p>

<p>Rancho itself was so old that the city of Petaluma <a href="http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/blog/2014/03/31/what-to-know-about-marin-sun-farms-petaluma-slaughterhouse/">had no records of it ever being constructed.</a> But it was becoming clear that proposing a new slaughterhouse in any community was going to be a tough sell, even in the local-food-loving Bay Area.</p>

<p>At that point, Singleton <a href="http://ucanr.edu/sites/Grown_in_Marin/Resources/publications/Archived_Related_News_Items/Last_slaughterhouse_closing/">had already sold the option to replace Rancho Veal to a real-estate developer</a> for $3 million. The general attitude in the Bay Area local food scene was one of controlled panic, but Singleton seemed pretty happy about it. He said that some people might see Rancho&rsquo;s central location as an advantage, but it had some drawbacks. He had come to work to find animal rights activists chained to the front of the building, and the facility had been firebombed twice. &#8220;I guess they figured out that we were killing a whole lot of veal calves,&#8221; Singleton said. &#8220;Which you can pretty much figure out from the name.&#8221; Singleton insisted that local ranching was doomed, no matter what anyone told me. What the suburbs didn&rsquo;t take, the wineries would.</p>

<p>Then, a few months later, in December 2008, everything changed: the housing market tanked <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/home-prices-off-record-18-in-past-year-case-shiller-says">with a velocity never before recorded in American history</a>. The developer backed out; Rancho Veal stayed open. In San Francisco, the artisanal meat craze built into a meat tsunami, little aware of the abyss it had narrowly skirted. A new creature known as the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/dining/08butch.html?pagewanted=all">&#8220;rock-star butcher&#8221;</a> emerged. In the years that followed, I saw more dead pigs at parties than I could count. I wondered sometimes how much of this was due to a genuine commitment to local ag and how much of it was a wealthy city swooning over animal husbandry the way <a href="http://harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2011/05/oh-the-pleasure-dairy.html">that Marie Antoinette did over dairy maids</a>. But in the meantime, there was money to be made.</p>

<p>Despite its challenges &mdash; some of the most expensive farmland in the world, for starters &mdash; Sonoma and Marin continued to be as much of an incubator for food startups as Silicon Valley had been for tech. A cattle rancher could still stop in Petaluma and pick up ear tags and equipment from Jay&rsquo;s Dairy Supply. Petaluma&rsquo;s three remaining feed mills were going gangbusters cranking out new types of feed &mdash; organic feed for organic farmers, local feed for farmers who cared about that, local organic feed for people who were concerned about the fact that most organic feed on the market these days was grown in China. &#8220;People flock to opportunity,&#8221; said Evans. &#8220;This is a rural community, but close to a metropolitan area with lots of money. You can come here, lease a small plot, drive to San Francisco, and find people to buy your product.&#8221;</p>
<p><q class="center" aria-hidden="true"><span>THEY WERE SENDING MEAT FROM DISEASED DAIRY CATTLE OUT INTO THE MEAT SUPPLY</span></q></p>
<p>The Rancho story might have kept on as before, but in early 2014, scandal erupted: all the meat from animals that had been killed at Rancho in the year 2013, some 8.7 million pounds, was recalled. <a href="http://www.pressdemocrat.com/home/2547722-181/four-indicted-in-rancho-feeding?page=0">A federal investigation found</a> that Singleton, Amaral, and two senior employees at Rancho had been working together to hide the fact that they were sending meat from diseased dairy cattle out into the meat supply.</p>

<p>Prosecutors alleged that Singleton had been buying up dairy cows with signs of possible eye cancer on the cheap. Those cattle were slaughtered while the federal meat inspectors were on lunch break, and their heads were swapped with the heads of different, healthier cattle, so the inspectors wouldn&rsquo;t notice that anything was amiss. Singleton, then 77, <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/10/government-settles-with-rancho-yardman/">pleaded guilty</a>. During the recall, he had already <a href="http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/1856531-181/rancher-seeks-to-buy-shuttered?page=0">quickly sold Rancho to David Evans</a>.</p>

<p>It was both the opportunity that Evans had been waiting for for years and something that he&rsquo;s still waiting to live down. Nearly every small rancher in the Bay Area <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/03/independent-ranchers-still-held-up-by-rancho-beef-recall/">was hit hard by the recall</a>. While they argued that their animals never touched Rancho&rsquo;s dairy herd and were slaughtered on a completely different day, <a href="http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2014/08/18/bill-niman-ranch-rancho-feeding-recall/">the feds would not exempt them</a>.</p>

<p>&#8220;We&rsquo;re so tired of talking about the recall,&#8221; said AnnaRae Grabstein, Marin Sun Farms&rsquo; director of operations &mdash; though, she adds, Marin Sun Farms couldn&rsquo;t have bought Rancho without it.</p>

<p>It&rsquo;s been a year since Marin Sun Farms reopened the slaughterhouse. In that time, the company has gotten Animal Welfare Approved certification. It shut down its cut-and-wrap operation in San Francisco, where butchers broke down carcasses into more sellable cuts, and moved it on site. The sale was viewed with a mixture of relief and trepidation by some ranchers. Now that it owned the only slaughterhouse in town, would Marin Sun Farms use its newfound monopoly for good? Would ranchers who chose to sell direct instead of through Marin Sun Farms be penalized?</p>

<p>So far, the answer is good. Sending animals to the slaughterhouse was more expensive than it had been with Rancho&rsquo;s old owners, but the butchers did better work. Marin Sun Farms polled ranchers about what new services they wanted from their ideal slaughterhouse, and the responses led it to start a service that delivers from Rancho to restaurants and grocery stores as far away as Los Angeles.</p>

<p>What remains now is to figure out how to do what Rancho&rsquo;s former owners thought couldn&rsquo;t be done and make a slaughterhouse that is by locals, for locals. In the past, those local clients only took up one day a week on Rancho&rsquo;s schedule. National trends may be in Marin Sun Farms&rsquo; favor, though &mdash; because of the drought, the massive slaughterhouses that once killed off their smaller competitors are <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2014/07/30/cargill-closing-milwaukee-slaughterhouse-cutting.html">now going under themselves</a>, freeing up more business for those small and midsize operations that managed to survive the last few decades.</p>

<p>In order to survive in the long term, Marin Sun Farms Petaluma is going to have to go much further to re-localize Bay Area eating habits. I mention to Evans, offhand, that if the much-beloved Straus Dairy, which was the first certified organic dairy on the West Coast, started packaging the meat from its dairy cows under the Straus label, the vegetarians of San Francisco might have an aneurysm. Evans disagrees. He thinks Straus hamburger would be awesome &mdash; that the Bay Area has more people who care about buying meat from animals that were raised locally and ethically than it does people who want to keep whatever pastoral illusions they may have intact.</p>
<hr class="wp-block-separator" />
<p>&#8220;So that&rsquo;s where it happens,&#8221; says Grabstein. We&rsquo;re perched at the edge of a corrugated metal fence, looking out over the winding path that animals take to the slaughterhouse. Two cow skulls, bleached by the sun, look over the way to the knock box, where the animal in question arrives and is killed &mdash; hopefully &mdash; before it even suspects anything is amiss. &#8220;It&rsquo;s like <em>No Country for Old Men</em>,&#8221; says Grabstein. &#8220;You know, when Javier Bardem kills people with that air gun.&#8221;</p>

<p>Today is pig day, and, inside, 100 hogs are already dead and being parceled out by a crew of guys in blue hairnets and white lab coats. While the outside of the slaughterhouse looks dingy and inconspicuous, inside it&rsquo;s sleek and well-maintained. It reminds me of the clean rooms in some of the factories that I&rsquo;ve seen &mdash; except with way more dead pigs hanging from the ceiling. The pigs have been a useful hedge against <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/7-things-to-know-about-californias-drought/">the drought that California has been in for the last three years</a>, since they&rsquo;re not grass eaters. Many local ranchers have chosen to sell off their cattle herds early instead of risking a grass shortage.</p>
<img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3678556/Grist.slaughterhouse3.0.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" alt="Severe drought alert sign" title="Severe drought alert sign" data-has-syndication-rights="1" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" /><p class="caption">(Heather Smith/Grist)</p>
<p>A few bulls stand in a paddock behind us. Two of them are Scottish Highlands, with long, sharp horns that would cause them to get rejected by most slaughterhouses. The Highlands prance around each other and flip their long, rust-colored bangs over their eyes like supermodels.</p>

<p>They&rsquo;re scheduled for tomorrow. I feel a pang of sadness for them, because where they really should be is on the cover of <em>French Vogue</em>. But I realize that I&rsquo;m also sad because I&rsquo;ve seen the bulls at mega feedlots and know that they look stoic at best, miserable at worst &mdash; nothing like these Scottish divas.</p>

<p>At this point, the local food movement has relearned the art of raising domestic animals so that they have good lives. It has made strides toward protecting the land where agriculture happens. The Marin Sun Farms Petaluma slaughterhouse is part of the next piece of the puzzle: protecting the infrastructure, like slaughterhouses, that are necessary to keep local food going as a functioning business, not just a hobby for gentleman farmers.</p>

<p>The Rancho saga is full of near-misses. A lot had to go right &mdash; and wrong &mdash; before the last slaughterhouse in the Bay Area was saved. But Evans is sure that within the next few years, another slaughterhouse will open up within an hour or two of the city.</p>

<p>It won&rsquo;t be easy. A competitor would have to figure out how to afford the land and how to win over the neighbors. But it&rsquo;s inevitable, Evans says. And that&rsquo;s when he&rsquo;ll know he&rsquo;s really succeeded: the day the competition shows up.</p>

<p><em>Grist is a nonprofit news site that uses humor to shine a light on big green issues. Get their email newsletter </em><a href="http://grist.org/subscribe/"><em>here</em></a><em>, and follow them on </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/grist.org"><em>Facebook</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://twitter.com/grist"><em>Twitter</em></a><em>.</em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
	</feed>
