Volume 31.1
There is no question that manure biogas, a form of natural gas derived from animal waste, is quickly becoming the most valuable product supplied by factory farms, known also as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Manure biogas can be used to produce heat, electricity, or transportation fuel, but its greatest profit stream rests in the myriad government credits and subsidies it can garner. Although turning trash into treasure by giving waste a new life may appear laudable and worthy of such investment, this Article argues that manure biogas is far from a sustainable solution to the United States’ environmental and energy obstacles.
Indeed, this Article contends that its harms—from increasing enteric emissions to worsening air quality ten times more than natural gas—far outweigh its benefits—all of which are subject to criticism. Importantly, only CAFOs, not any regular farm, can produce manure biogas such that supporting manure biogas, in turn, is to support a system of violence and abuse. Still, in just the past few years, manure biogas has earned hundreds of millions of dollars in government support, detracting from investment in clean, renewable energy like solar and wind. Moreover, given that countless studies show the need to electrify everything to meet climate goals, this Article argues that natural gas has no future in the United States, and even still, far superior alternatives to manure biogas, like landfill biogas, exist to bridge the gap until we reach a truly renewable system.
Kailey McNeal, A Market-based Approach to Effective Slaughterhouse Line Speed Regulation
The nature of animal agriculture in the United States is heavily industrialized and profit-centered. Industrial animal agriculture maximizes profits and production by employing low-wage workers to do significant loads of labor. Slaughterhouses’ implementation of faster line speeds reflects this tactic. As the industry continues to increase line speeds to boost profits, workers, animals, and the environment continue to face augmented risks to their health and safety. Nonetheless, slaughterhouse line speeds at the federal level remain largely un- and under-regulated. The current federal regulatory scheme is unduly influenced by industry interests, prioritizes profit over safety, and lacks effective enforcement mechanisms. Through exploring the dangers of ever-increasing line speeds and why past attempts at regulation have failed, this article argues for the incorporation of market-based incentives in line speed regulation to encourage industry compliance and self-enforcement.
Over the years, the United States Congress has passed several federal laws with the intention of protecting animals from being subjected to inhumane treatment by humans. Such laws have great potential to create positive change for animals, but all of these laws have been delegated to inappropriate government agencies for oversight and enforcement. It is time to finally remove the impossible task placed upon these federal agencies—who have been asked to carry out their own stated mandates while also promulgating rules that effectuate animal protection laws in conflict with those same mandates—by creating a federal Animal Protection Agency with the sole purpose of ensuring that animal protection laws passed by Congress do, in fact, protect animals.
Animal Law Review is located in Wood Hall on the Law Campus.
MSC: 51
Editor in Chief
Camille Bond
eic-animallaw@lclark.edu
Managing Editor
Katherine Engelken
me-animallaw@lclark.edu
Executive Editors
Brittany Bennett
Dennis Hall
ee-animallaw@lclark.edu
Animal Law Review
Lewis & Clark Law School
10101 S. Terwilliger Boulevard MSC 51
Portland OR 97219

