60 / Chapter 2
lunch, much as homeowners can get tax credits for making houses
more energy effi cient. In short, we can take numerous steps to
reduce the vulnerability of farmed animals. Under our existing sys-
tem of production, the normal state of affairs is a disaster. Although
some will argue that promoting sustainability is only excusing the
inexcusable, within the context of disaster response, it will help ani-
mals as well as people.
At our current levels of consumption, factory farms are a nec-
essary evil. If we intend to keep feeding a growing global popula-
tion animal products at every meal, then, by necessity, we will need
to confi ne animals to lives of suffering to satisfy our appetites. But
if we reduce our appetites and use our shopping dollars to support
sustainable practices, better lives are possible for animals—and
for people. Fifty years ago, hurricanes and tornadoes did not mean
the death of millions of chickens, hogs, and other animals. To be
sure, animals lost their lives in natural disasters. They will always
face some degree of risk. However, as the coverage of the Buckeye
Farm rescue points out, the current system makes them “victims of
a disaster caused—not by tornadoes—but by large-scale, intensive
animal agriculture.”^38 In factory farming, we have put the animals
on whom we rely most heavily at a level of risk that would be unac-
ceptable for any other living beings. During a disaster, they suffer
needlessly. The producers incur signifi cant losses. The environment
undergoes irreversible damage. Rescuers endanger themselves sav-
ing animals whose quality of life is compromised from birth. The
means to change this is within our reach. Alleviating the suffering
of farm animals is not only a compassionate choice. In the context
of disaster planning and response, it is also good public policy.