DEBRIS.COMgood for a laugh, or possibly an aneurysm

The Straus Dairy has 270 cows, each of which produces about 120 lbs of manure every day. That’s 5900 tons of manure per year. To put it in perspective, a typical cow produces 6.5 gallons of milk per day — or roughly 52 lbs of milk, if we assume that milk (like water) weighs 8 lbs/gallon. The point is that dairy farms produce 2.3 times as much manure as milk. You could even say that milk is a byproduct of the process of manure creation.

What do they do with all that crap?

The Straus family found a great answer: the dairy installed a 75 kilowatt biogas generator, aka “methane digester.” The synergy is amazing:

• the methane digester saves the dairy $5000 per month in energy costs — it will pay for itself in three years (and then, like my photovoltaic array, make free power for a long time)
• the system consumes tons of greenhouse gasses emitted from the decomposing manure. According to the Chron article, “naturally occurring methane is a potent greenhouse gas, estimated to be 21 times as damaging to the ozone layer as carbon dioxide.”
• the system “strip[s] 80 to 99 percent of organic pollutants from the wastewater” generated at the farm. (Read about the effects of agricultural runoff on the fishing industry.)

But wait, there’s more — “The Straus project is the first of 14 methane projects to receive matching funds from the California Energy Commission.” This means there are 13 more similar energy systems under construction. That’s the best news I’ve read all week.

California assembly bill AB 1967, the California Marriage License Non-Discrimination Act, “would define marriages in California as a civil contract between two persons, allowing same sex couples access to the same rights and responsibilities of marriage as heterosexual couples in the state” (according to the legislation summary from the bill’s author, Mark Leno).

The issue is wildly contested, as you can imagine.

Benjamin Lopez, a lobbyist for Traditional Values Coalition, said foes of same-sex marriage weren’t taking any chances, despite forecasts that the bill won’t get very far this year.

“We are marching on, ready for a complete showdown,” said Lopez, who missed the hearing in order to prepare a mass mail campaign against the bill. “We’re stopping at nothing to kill it.”

I can only imagine the junk mail piece his group is designing. “Beware the gay invasion!” It will show the US flag, and cite threats to the principles on which America was founded, I’m guessing. God is an American.

Had Lopez attended the hearing on this bill that he’s so hot to destroy, he might have heard the startling new evidence from the Williams Project (which is “the nation’s first think tank dedicated to the field of sexual orientation law and public policy”). According to their new study, titled (apparently by someone who spent more time studying Stats than English) The Impact of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry on California’s Budget:

Allowing same-sex couples to marry in California will result in a net gain of $22.3 to $25.2 million each year, for the State budget.

Lopez, predictably, dismissed the study.

“It’s a matter of who you’re going to believe. Are you going to believe a professor on a liberal campus who wants this garbage crammed down the throats of Californians?”

Well, if you ask me who I’m going to believe, I’d want the choices spelled out:

• a lobbyist with the ethically repugnant “Traditional Values Coalition,” which claims homosexuality has roots in Marxist ideology?! Even more ridiculous, the TVC published a document claiming “many of the strategies used by homosexuals to bring about cultural change in America are taken from Hitler’s writings and propaganda warfare manuals.”
• a Harvard Law graduate and UCLA law professor with a history of donating time to the HIV/AIDS community, working with a “think tank” whose founding principle is to be “independent and non-partisan.”

With all respect to the lobbyist, I’m definitely going to have to go with the “professor on a liberal campus” on this one. I disagree that anything is being crammed down my throat — my mouth is closed, preventing stupid shit from flying out unannounced. Perhaps that’s a lesson lobbyists everywhere can benefit from.

What the heck is a ‘liberal campus’ anyway?

The best line I’ve seen in the newspaper this year:

I nod and leave, thinking: “I’m on a lube run for a porn movie.”

This is a must-read: Porn 101 — A beginner’s class sheds light on a low-budget, down-and-dirty industry thriving behind closed doors.

Automobile crash test results and safety ratings can be researched at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Click the “Vehicle Ratings” link to access a form where you can search for specific models.

Our old Golf, it turns out, offers only “marginal” protection against frontal impact. Good thing I never drive it.

My Kawi isn’t listed. Presumably it wouldn’t fare very well either.

In January, Malcolm Gladwell (author of The Tipping Point) wrote an article about SUV safety, or really the lack thereof, in the New Yorker. I didn’t read it at the time, for the same reason that recovering heroin addicts tend not to get involved on “Syringe Cleanup Day” at the beach.

But I’m feeling OK. I’m breathing deep, practicing biofeedback, keeping the heart rate low. Here we go: Big and Bad: How the S.U.V. ran over automotive safety.

[Automotive] industry market research concluded that S.U.V.s tend to be bought by people who are insecure, vain, self-centered, and self-absorbed, who are frequently nervous about their marriages, and who lack confidence in their driving skills.

Gladwell’s article isn’t as inflammatory as that one quote might lead you to believe.

This one is, though.

(Just kidding.)

Gladwell’s mission isn’t to trash SUV owners, but to point out the enormous contradiction between marketing and reality. S.U.V.s are designed to make drivers feel safe, but all the height and attitude and steel do not make the vehicle safe. SUVs are less safe than many passenger cars. Look at the deaths per million vehicles:

Car makers are lying to consumers. Or, consumers are allowing themselves to be deceived. SUVs provide a false sense of security. Sit inside one, and it’s like a womb. It was designed to feel that way: quiet, soft, round, with cupholders so you can keep your warm liquids at hand. I’m not making this up; they did studies!

But the kill rates prove that it’s an illusion. As Gladwell puts it,

[Volkswagon] Jettas are safe because they make their drivers feel unsafe. SUVs are unsafe because they make their drivers feel safe. That feeling of safety isn’t the solution; it’s the problem.

(See more about vehicle crashworthiness.)