TPMCafe
« Reforming the Farm Bill -- Where We Go from Here | Home | The Debate Over Mandating Health Insurance »

Responding to Comments: Reform, Small Farmers, Trade and Energy Independence

user-pic

As I said in my first post, rather than going through the comment section and responding one-by-one, I'm going to respond here on the blog instead. I'll try to get to as many of your comments and questions as possible -- and please feel free to leave more comments on this thread, on what I've written here, on one of my previous posts, or on my Food and Farm Bill of Rights.

Chance for Reform

Several readers have asked about the chance of success for a more rational farm bill, modeled perhaps on Farm 21 by Representatives Kind and Flake.

I am absolutely convinced that with the groundswell of support there can be significant improvements to the Farm Bill. I am not naïve about the power of vested interests or the difficulties in making changes because of our legislative system. But the winds are blowing in our direction. One posting said we’d be lucky if a quarter of these proposals were enacted. It’s important to realize that the current farm system has been 3/4 of a century in the making and that this bill will sow the seeds of farm and food policy in America for generations to come. We are fighting not just for improvements now, but for sound agriculture policy for this century.

Small Farmers

In response to mike42's question about small farmers, Here is a summary of our Local Food and Farm Actthat would help accomplish some of the goals in our farm bill of rights. We invite your review and any comments you would suggest to improve it.

Trade

Reader CountZero writes:

I want to ask you about how this farm bill will affect our trade priorities, specifically with respect to the Doha round of the WTO. The last farm bill was a slap in the face to the rest of the world and further signaled how the Bush Administration insists on unilateral policies, even when they are highly counter-productive. As anyone who follows this issue knows, this bill is one of the last opportunities to put the moribund Doha round back on track. Can you explain to us how you plan on getting us back to the bargaining table, so that we can help the 900 million poor farmers in third world countries?

I couldn’t agree more with you on the importance of the Farm Bill and the need for an international farm negotiation on trade policy. Our flawed farm bill is one of our biggest obstacles to honest trade. One of the reasons we’re fighting so hard for reform this summer is to send a signal to the world that the US is not going to take advantage of some of the world’s poorest nations with our ill advised subsidies.

I have taken every opportunity in meetings with foreign officials, business leaders, NGOs and religious groups to rally support for both the U.S. and Europe to exercise leadership. Getting these policies right will have a greater impact on alleviating poverty and hunger than anything I can imagine.

Energy Independence

Some have taken understandable exception to my terminology of energy indpeendence, pointing out our current patterns of energy use are so heavily dependent on oil imports. I understand the skepticism but stand by the goal of energy independence.

If we are to deal with the costs and consequences of our addiction to expensive and damaging foreign oil, we need to implement a long-term strategy that actually helps us achieve independence.

In the short term we must focus on aggressive conservation and fuel efficiency, development of alternative energy sources – wind, solar, biomass – and technological breakthroughs like plug-in hybrids. All have the potential to move us along this path much faster than people realize. Done right, within ten years new buildings could be net energy producers and we could radically change the energy and carbon footprint of transportation with greater reliance on sound land use, passenger rail transportation, and basic approaches like walking and biking. Given how much energy we waste, we must work to use existing technology and achieve technological breakthroughs in energy generation and utilization.

We should not be afraid of working aggressively towards this goal. I’m not saying it will be easy or quick, but it’s possible and important.


3 Comments

| Leave a comment


we just need to find some new einstein to make it all work. political rhetoric, and hope, seem to be useless without a real engine.

To boldly go...

Rep. Blumenauer,

Thank you for visiting the Table for One to discuss such an important piece of legislation. The Food and Farm Bill could almost be called "the Everything Bill."

1) In the media and blogosphere (especially the food and environmental specialists), every day brings a new set of articles and posts about the Food and Farm Bill. Is that attention leading to a noticeable volume of correspondence from constituents about the Food and Farm Bill? In other words, is all of the attention making people act?

2) During the subcommittee markup of Title I (Livestock, Dairy And Poultry) before the Memorial Day recess, the following item was approved by the subcommittee:

SEC. 123. Effect Of USDA Inspection And Determination Of Non-Regulated Status. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no State or locality shall make any law prohibiting the use in commerce of an article that the Secretary of Agriculture has- (1) inspected and passed; or (2) determined to be of non-regulated status.
If this preemptive provision is incorporated into the Food and Farm Bill, states, counties and cities will be unable to pass laws keeping genetically modified crops or cloned livestock off of their land or menus. Rep. Blumenauer, I'd like your comment on this provision and an assessment of the likelihood that it could be stripped away.

3) Organic food is currently about 3% of the U.S. market, but the USDA spends a far smaller proportion of its research and extension budget on organic farming. I hope that this imbalance can be fixed in the next Food and Farm Bill.

Great to hear from a Congressperson, Rep. Blumenauer, on clean energy and energy independence.

I hope you are right about the feasibility of the clean energy sources. Although I (and as you mention most people) have no clue as to how much power we can generate from the various clean sources. Geothermal would seem to be perfect, if we can drill deep enough - most areas don't have calderas under them. Some areas don't get a lot of sun (although those areas I think in most cases are already using hydroelectric as where it rains a lot there are rivers.)

If the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle and other cutting edge technology vehicles are too expensive for people to buy, I'd like to see a return to the electric vehicle myself - which would increase the demand for electricity.

I don't think we can count on the masses to ride bikes and walk.

I am a politically incorrect environmentalist in that it seems to me that nuclear power should not be automatically thrown off the table when evaluating feasibility/cost studies of doing away with burning fossil and renewable fuels, as I really think in the case of nuclear, environmentalists are thus to blame for a good portion of global warming CO2 pollution because of the "no nuke" efforts (where we ended up burning coal instead.)

I don't see why we can't jetison nuclear waste out into space either, myself.

But if it can be done without burning anything and producing CO2 as a result, and done without nuclear, that is the ultimate solution of course.

How the bulk of the public could have bought into the Republican moniker of "jobs vs. environment" is beyond me. Jobs in the oil and gas and mining industries yes. But think about how many jobs and small - medium - large businesses we could create by building out solar and wind and geothermal. Our trade deficit would improve as we would not need to import burning fuels.

I agree that sugar is something we should be able to import, and that subsidies would be better spent on tax breaks for farmers and ranchers becoming clean energy producers - to help them make the capital investments to get started producing clean energy. Subsidies for making ethanol in the US make no sense, since we have no choice but to slash CO2 pollution in as many areas that we can.

"Energy Independence" has something in it for everyone - there are still conservatives out there who believe that anyone who is concerned about global warming is a "tree hugger." So the use of "clean energy" doesn't have as broad an appeal. Although the majority support clean energy now. I see Yglesias' point - I suppose he is worried if we use energy independence, that can also mean oil drilling in Alaska as well as clean energy. But on the other hand, we can be independent of fossil fuels as well, so I don't have a problem with "energy independence" also implying being free of oil and gas - indeed free from the oil and gas industry. By the way, Ethanol production would just be another polluter that the oil and gas industry would profit from, since they'd still be able to sell it retail through a pump.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Kyle Krahel-Frolander



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address