U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson says it’s not true that she’s an urbanite with no sensitivity to farmers. And to prove her point she offered up her past service as -- we’re not making this up -- commissioner of environmental protection in New Jersey!
Now, we know New Jersey calls itself the Garden State. And, yes, they grow fruits and vegetables there and even have some dairy cows. But to suggest that serving in the New Jersey state government gives you credentials as an aggie is like saying you know about hog farming because you occasionally eat a pork chop.
Still, there may be hope for Jackson. In the same speech to farm journalists, the EPA chief said she recently visited Georgia and California and that she’s planning a trip to Iowa soon. Perhaps some Hawkeye State producers will see that she finally gets some fine particulate matter -- that's dust to most of us -- on her Manolo Blahniks -- those would be shoes!
Friday, April 15, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Free That CRP Land – Please!
Perhaps Congress can succeed where farmers could not.
Twenty-five House members now have sent a letter to President Obama asking that farmers temporarily be allowed to grow feed grains on land in the Conservation Reserve Program. The idea is to head off a looming grain shortage that could play havoc with food prices later in the year.
Despite record production, grain supplies are dwindling as corn is siphoned off for other uses, including production of renewable fuels such as corn based-ethanol. (USDA recently estimated surplus corn supplies of just 14 days -- the lowest "carryover" on record.) Today the U.S. is a net ethanol exporter. Meanwhile, meat prices have risen nearly 7 percent in the last year, more than triple the inflation rate. “At a time when our nation is struggling economically, including high levels of unemployment, soaring prices will have a particularly devastating effect,” the House members said.
There are currently 32 million acres out of production on CRP contracts. A significant amount of those acres is environmentally non-sensitive land that could be used to produce crops if the Agriculture Department would release it. NPPC already made this request twice, once in a letter and once in a meeting with Secretary Tom Vilsack. NPPC also supported the April 8 congressional letter spearheaded by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif.
Mr. Secretary?
Twenty-five House members now have sent a letter to President Obama asking that farmers temporarily be allowed to grow feed grains on land in the Conservation Reserve Program. The idea is to head off a looming grain shortage that could play havoc with food prices later in the year.
Despite record production, grain supplies are dwindling as corn is siphoned off for other uses, including production of renewable fuels such as corn based-ethanol. (USDA recently estimated surplus corn supplies of just 14 days -- the lowest "carryover" on record.) Today the U.S. is a net ethanol exporter. Meanwhile, meat prices have risen nearly 7 percent in the last year, more than triple the inflation rate. “At a time when our nation is struggling economically, including high levels of unemployment, soaring prices will have a particularly devastating effect,” the House members said.
There are currently 32 million acres out of production on CRP contracts. A significant amount of those acres is environmentally non-sensitive land that could be used to produce crops if the Agriculture Department would release it. NPPC already made this request twice, once in a letter and once in a meeting with Secretary Tom Vilsack. NPPC also supported the April 8 congressional letter spearheaded by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif.
Mr. Secretary?
Monday, April 11, 2011
Good News On Greenhouse Gas Regulation
Amid all the news last week about the federal budget, pork producers may have overlooked two significant votes on the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Last Thursday, the House voted, 255-172, to block EPA’s controversial greenhouse gas rule, which would be a disaster for pork producers. Nineteen Democrats joined the Republicans in voting to prevent the agency from issuing any regulation to address climate change through greenhouse gas emissions. A day earlier, the Senate rejected the same language, but it was on a razor-thin 50-50 vote, with three Democrats joining the Republicans in favor.
The House vote was a turnaround from last year, when that chamber approved the Obama administration’s cap-and-trade bill, and the Senate action was hardly a vote of confidence in EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases. As one newspaper put it, EPA’s regulatory initiative is safe for now, but its prospects for long-term survival are dim. That’s good news for pork producers, for whom any effort to reduce greenhouse gases will trigger major increases in energy prices and production costs.
Last Thursday, the House voted, 255-172, to block EPA’s controversial greenhouse gas rule, which would be a disaster for pork producers. Nineteen Democrats joined the Republicans in voting to prevent the agency from issuing any regulation to address climate change through greenhouse gas emissions. A day earlier, the Senate rejected the same language, but it was on a razor-thin 50-50 vote, with three Democrats joining the Republicans in favor.
The House vote was a turnaround from last year, when that chamber approved the Obama administration’s cap-and-trade bill, and the Senate action was hardly a vote of confidence in EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases. As one newspaper put it, EPA’s regulatory initiative is safe for now, but its prospects for long-term survival are dim. That’s good news for pork producers, for whom any effort to reduce greenhouse gases will trigger major increases in energy prices and production costs.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Lisa Jackson’s Rough Ride
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.
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
