When I first started reading this article, I thought that this article was going to be pro-environmentalist. After continuing, I found this article did actually provide both sides of this issue. While it was about the EPA's new requirement, it also included a quote from a farmer about how the requirement would impact farmers. The issue I did have with the article was that there was only one quote from a farmer-the ones who are actually going to be impacted by this new regulation.
The author of the story did not seem to push one way or the other on the issue, which is expected since it was an associated press story. The article was informative, but the information was not complicated and the readers could understand what was being said. Some of the information was a bit vague. One term that needed to be defined a bit more in the article was the "zero discharge standard." I wasn't exactly sure what was meant by "zero discharge."
There was one paragraph that seemed awkward in the middle of the story.
"The EPA issued new pollution control requirement on such feedlots in 2003, but that regulation was overturned by the courts two years later. The rules issued Friday, to go into effect next February, are an attempt to meet the court's concerns."
This paragraph didn't say why the earlier requirement had been overturned, which might have added more to why this new requirement was being implemented now. Also, I feel like this paragraph should've been up higher in the article.
I have personal issues with this article because I am from a small, farming town. Environmentalists are complaining about the "huge buildup of manure which is piled up or spread across the land." But what are they supposed to do with they manure? Farmers use it in fields to help the crops grow. I don't see how environmentalists can really find an issue with this though.
This story can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-11-01-epa-feedlot_N.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
For some reason I couldn't truly follow this piece. I understood what it was saying, and after reading it once I have a vague idea of what's going on with the new EPA requirement, but it just didn't seem to have fluidity. Perhaps it was a mistake on my part and I wasn't able to focus well, but it felt like there were important points trying to be made; they just weren't being made too clearly.
yeah I felt the same way Jess; this article just wasn't that engaging. It was an explanatory piece that was pretty mediocre in my opinion.
Megan, when I was reading this story and came across the paragraph you mentioned in your post, I was wondering the same thing you were. It was overturned, but what concerns did the courts have? It just didn't flow from one point to the next well.
Post a Comment