The Environmental Protection Agency’s rough ride in Congress continued yesterday. The House Agriculture Committee called in Administrator Lisa Jackson for a grilling on what it called her “aggressive regulatory agenda (pursued) at the expense of the livelihoods of America’s farmers and ranchers.”
In a statement issued after the hearing, Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., went even further. EPA’s agenda, he said, is “at odds with congressional intent, defies common sense and lacks any kind of understanding or consideration for the economic impact it has on the livelihoods of those who feed us.”
Meanwhile, over at the House Energy and Commerce Committee, legislation prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act sailed through the panel's Energy and Power Subcommittee. The "Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011" was approved on a voice vote and is expected to have just as easy a time before the full committee next week.
The bill could pass the House later in the spring and may even pass the Senate, where a companion measure is pending. But then its future gets cloudy, since President Obama has vowed to veto any stand-alone legislation along these lines.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
A Surprising Champion For Livestock Farmers
The livestock industry received some timely support from a surprising source at USDA’s annual Agricultural Outlook Forum Thursday. A month after the Environmental Protection Agency okayed using more ethanol in gasoline, former President Bill Clinton warned that using too much corn for ethanol could raise global food prices and lead to food riots in poor countries.
Clinton, whose foundation works in African countries such as Malawi and Rwanda, said the United States needs to find a way to become energy independent without hurting the world’s poor or fueling instability around the globe. That was a clear reference to the dramatic increases in world food prices that led to social unrest in poor countries and even toppled some governments in 2007 and 2008. One of the causes of that crisis was increasing use of corn for fuel in developed countries.
“There is a way for us to do this and to do it right,” Clinton said. He added that the growth in the U.S. ethanol industry needs to be watched carefully.
Clinton’s comments contrasted with the more pro-ethanol attitude of the man who introduced him, former Iowa Governor and current U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. Speaking at the same conference, Vilsack said there is “no reason to take the foot off the gas” on biofuels.
One knowledgeable observer suggested this wasn’t an accident. “Both Vilsack and President Obama campaigned on ethanol,” the observer said, “and you can’t win a primary or statewide office in Iowa if you don’t support it. So what do you do when you know the country needs to back off on ethanol? You get a successful, popular former Democratic president to deliver the message.”
A video of Clinton’s speech is available at , a video of which is available here.
Clinton, whose foundation works in African countries such as Malawi and Rwanda, said the United States needs to find a way to become energy independent without hurting the world’s poor or fueling instability around the globe. That was a clear reference to the dramatic increases in world food prices that led to social unrest in poor countries and even toppled some governments in 2007 and 2008. One of the causes of that crisis was increasing use of corn for fuel in developed countries.
“There is a way for us to do this and to do it right,” Clinton said. He added that the growth in the U.S. ethanol industry needs to be watched carefully.
Clinton’s comments contrasted with the more pro-ethanol attitude of the man who introduced him, former Iowa Governor and current U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. Speaking at the same conference, Vilsack said there is “no reason to take the foot off the gas” on biofuels.
One knowledgeable observer suggested this wasn’t an accident. “Both Vilsack and President Obama campaigned on ethanol,” the observer said, “and you can’t win a primary or statewide office in Iowa if you don’t support it. So what do you do when you know the country needs to back off on ethanol? You get a successful, popular former Democratic president to deliver the message.”
A video of Clinton’s speech is available at , a video of which is available here.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Opposition To Job-Creating Trade Deals?
With unemployment still hovering above 9 percent and President Obama desperate to fix our struggling economy, why haven’t the job-creating free trade agreements (FTA) with Colombia, Panama and especially South Korea been approved yet?
The political wrangling over these trade deals has been going on for several years but still there are members of Congress who oppose free trade. In a global economy that becomes more interconnected daily, that's hard to fathom -- and apparently politically suicidal.
Of the 21 congressional lawmakers who just weeks before the crucial mid-term elections sent to the President this letter in opposition to the FTAs , almost a third lost their races.
What, we wonder, do -- or, in some cases, did -- they oppose? The more than 20,000 U.S. agricultural jobs the FTAs would create? The $2.5 billion in new U.S. farm exports?
Regardless, while the U.S. has dithered on passing its FTAs, other countries have been moving forward with their own agreements, including ones with South Korea. That's bad news for the U.S. pork industry as well as many other sectors, which stand to lose market share in that emerging Asian nation.
There is reason for optimism, though. The White House is promising to send the Korea FTA for congressional ratification in a few weeks, and there appears to be bipartisan support for the deal in the House and Senate. There's even talk that the three agreements will be considered as one package.
Here's hoping the protectionist proclivities of petulant politicians are past.
The political wrangling over these trade deals has been going on for several years but still there are members of Congress who oppose free trade. In a global economy that becomes more interconnected daily, that's hard to fathom -- and apparently politically suicidal.
Of the 21 congressional lawmakers who just weeks before the crucial mid-term elections sent to the President this letter in opposition to the FTAs , almost a third lost their races.
What, we wonder, do -- or, in some cases, did -- they oppose? The more than 20,000 U.S. agricultural jobs the FTAs would create? The $2.5 billion in new U.S. farm exports?
Regardless, while the U.S. has dithered on passing its FTAs, other countries have been moving forward with their own agreements, including ones with South Korea. That's bad news for the U.S. pork industry as well as many other sectors, which stand to lose market share in that emerging Asian nation.
There is reason for optimism, though. The White House is promising to send the Korea FTA for congressional ratification in a few weeks, and there appears to be bipartisan support for the deal in the House and Senate. There's even talk that the three agreements will be considered as one package.
Here's hoping the protectionist proclivities of petulant politicians are past.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
A Recipe For Starvation
Time magazine’s Bryan Walsh is at it again. In a lengthy essay in the Feb. 15 issue, Walsh suggests that “foodies”—apparently an alliance of vegans and small farm advocates—can re-energize the environmental movement.
Almost comically, Walsh argues that community-supported agriculture, farmers’ markets, green chefs and Michelle Obama’s White House garden are changing the way food is produced in this country. And this, he says, can solve the greenhouse gas problem and lead somehow to an environmental reawakening. (Of course, it also could lead to starvation for third-world populations.)
We guess no one has told Walsh that—because of their comparatively low emissions—modern, concentrated livestock feeding operations are actually part of the solution to greenhouse gases, not the problem. (According to the U.S. EPA, all of American agriculture contributes just 7.2 percent of the greenhouse gases, with livestock-related emissions making up 40 percent of that amount. And by the way, breathing produces a greenhouse gas.)
Walsh’s vision of small-scale, sustainable farming might feed the wealthy residents of New York City, where he lives and works, but not a growing world population. Modern farming techniques are the only way to produce the food we need in a safe, affordable and sustainable manner.
Almost comically, Walsh argues that community-supported agriculture, farmers’ markets, green chefs and Michelle Obama’s White House garden are changing the way food is produced in this country. And this, he says, can solve the greenhouse gas problem and lead somehow to an environmental reawakening. (Of course, it also could lead to starvation for third-world populations.)
We guess no one has told Walsh that—because of their comparatively low emissions—modern, concentrated livestock feeding operations are actually part of the solution to greenhouse gases, not the problem. (According to the U.S. EPA, all of American agriculture contributes just 7.2 percent of the greenhouse gases, with livestock-related emissions making up 40 percent of that amount. And by the way, breathing produces a greenhouse gas.)
Walsh’s vision of small-scale, sustainable farming might feed the wealthy residents of New York City, where he lives and works, but not a growing world population. Modern farming techniques are the only way to produce the food we need in a safe, affordable and sustainable manner.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
High Court Won't Hear 'Competition' Case
One of the most contentious provisions of a proposed USDA rule on buying and selling livestock would eliminate for federal Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA) lawsuits the need for a plaintiff to prove that competition in a marketplace was harmed because of a defendant's "unfair" practice or "undue preference."
Congress considered and rejected such a provision during debate on the 2008 Farm Bill, and the provision is contrary to the rulings of eight U.S. appellate courts, including most recently the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
The U.S. Supreme Court this week said it would not consider the decision of the 6th Circuit, which held -- as seven other circuits have -- that to be a violation of the PSA a challenged action must have had an adverse effect on competition.
Supporters of the proposed USDA regulation -- known as the GIPSA rule -- falsely claim that the PSA requires that a plaintiff prove that a practice harmed competition in an entire industry. But it simply requires a showing that competition in a market, which could be as small as a city, county or locality, was adversely affected.
Backers of the competition provision want to be able to bring PSA lawsuits whenever they feel a practices is "unfair." But that would turn simple disputes into federal court cases, leading to massive litigation and creating legal uncertainty for a livestock industry that already is hurting from high feed-grain prices and a worldwide recession and that is trying to feed a growing global population.
Congress considered and rejected such a provision during debate on the 2008 Farm Bill, and the provision is contrary to the rulings of eight U.S. appellate courts, including most recently the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
The U.S. Supreme Court this week said it would not consider the decision of the 6th Circuit, which held -- as seven other circuits have -- that to be a violation of the PSA a challenged action must have had an adverse effect on competition.
Supporters of the proposed USDA regulation -- known as the GIPSA rule -- falsely claim that the PSA requires that a plaintiff prove that a practice harmed competition in an entire industry. But it simply requires a showing that competition in a market, which could be as small as a city, county or locality, was adversely affected.
Backers of the competition provision want to be able to bring PSA lawsuits whenever they feel a practices is "unfair." But that would turn simple disputes into federal court cases, leading to massive litigation and creating legal uncertainty for a livestock industry that already is hurting from high feed-grain prices and a worldwide recession and that is trying to feed a growing global population.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
There's No Business Like Pig Business
British filmmaker Tracy Worcester, a self-described “eco-warrior” and “green activist,” released a controversial documentary titled “Pig Business,” which attempts to portray the “dark side” of the global pork industry. In her extremely biased mockumentary, err, documentary, Worcester interviews Sir Paul McCartney, who once fired a roadie for eating meat while on tour and often preaches his vegan/anti-carnivorous gospel. The "film" also includes environmental lawyer turned anti-modern pork production crusader Robert Kennedy Jr., who at a recent congressional hearing likened pork producers to terrorists.
Like others before her, Worcester blames all of society's ills on modern pork production, and the film is dedicated to "putting an end to intensive factory farming." She wants a return to small-scale farming, "sustainable" agriculture and buying locally.
We could pass off this film as just the latest pap from those whose mission it is to push their own personal agenda on all others (telling them what to eat, how to raise it and how to buy it), but it's actually quite dangerous. With food prices on the rise and experts calling for an overhaul of the world food system to feed a global population that is expected to nearly double over the next 40 years, people such as Ms. Worcester, Sir Paul and RFK Jr. are seeking to destroy the systems that now feed more people than ever before. Do they really think backyard pig farms are going to feed a starving world? Seems to HOTH we need more modern livestock and crop production, not less, Ms. Worcester.
Like others before her, Worcester blames all of society's ills on modern pork production, and the film is dedicated to "putting an end to intensive factory farming." She wants a return to small-scale farming, "sustainable" agriculture and buying locally.
We could pass off this film as just the latest pap from those whose mission it is to push their own personal agenda on all others (telling them what to eat, how to raise it and how to buy it), but it's actually quite dangerous. With food prices on the rise and experts calling for an overhaul of the world food system to feed a global population that is expected to nearly double over the next 40 years, people such as Ms. Worcester, Sir Paul and RFK Jr. are seeking to destroy the systems that now feed more people than ever before. Do they really think backyard pig farms are going to feed a starving world? Seems to HOTH we need more modern livestock and crop production, not less, Ms. Worcester.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Obama to Review, Eliminate Federal Regulations
President Obama today ordered a review of federal government regulations; ones that stymie economic growth and do not promote job growth.
The USDA’s Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) proposed rule is a good starting point. The President has called for proper balance between not interfering with economic growth and protecting the public.
Should the proposed GIPSA rule take effect, upwards of 22,800 rural jobs will be lost at a time when job loss remains at record levels.
The president noted that his administration won’t shy away from addressing such things as stopping preventable infections in hospitals, but added, “We are also making it our mission to root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb.”
To see why the proposed GIPSA rule is a good starting point for the Obama administration, read the following economic impact summary: An Estimate of the Economic Impact of GIPSA’s Proposed Rules.
The USDA’s Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) proposed rule is a good starting point. The President has called for proper balance between not interfering with economic growth and protecting the public.
Should the proposed GIPSA rule take effect, upwards of 22,800 rural jobs will be lost at a time when job loss remains at record levels.
The president noted that his administration won’t shy away from addressing such things as stopping preventable infections in hospitals, but added, “We are also making it our mission to root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb.”
To see why the proposed GIPSA rule is a good starting point for the Obama administration, read the following economic impact summary: An Estimate of the Economic Impact of GIPSA’s Proposed Rules.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
